George Orwell on Pacifism during wartime

[Hae-Yu]

In one prior argument, someone said that our troops have a strong sense of purpose and can't be affected by news media or anti-war talk. In that case, billions have been wasted on ineffective propaganda over many wars. I'll refer the issue to George Orwell.
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
Links to all his essays too.
One thing I love about Orwell was that he may have been leftist, but, unlike cowards like Sartre, Orwell was a true genius rooted in reality.

[Triple_6]

You keep throwing that term coward around but what war have you fought in exactly? What makes you think sitting in your heated house, drinking diet Mountain Dew, and supporting a war from an armchair makes you tough? It doesn't. When you see combat and have tested your mettle then come back to me and speak of courage and cowardice. Voting chickenhawks into office doesn't make you a man. And for the record, not supporting one particular war doesn't mean an individual doesn't support any wars. Fighting clandestine groups in the mountains of Afghanistan and Iraq is not the same as repelling the entire state of Nazi Germany on your doorstep.

[McTucket]

dude that was fucking stupid...

theres nothing wrong with being a pacifist...

oh wait... orwell obviously knew all...

why worship God when you could worship orwell

[Laroacha]

If mankind were as highly evolved as most pacifists wished it were, then that would be the moral high road to follow. Unfortunately that's not the case. If we were to become a country of right minded pacifists, we would be no better than a 3rd rate France, depending on our relationships with seemingly more primal countries with some backbone to protect us from the barbarians, all the while looking down our noses at those same country's as unevolved cretains barely deserving the joy of protecting us.

I'm sure we're well on our way to that someday, but hopefully I'll be long dead before that happens.

[Hae-Yu]

I'm glad your whole line of argument has devolved into personal attacks, Trip. We see how your education is contributing towards your intellectual development. Pacifists argue against the war, I argue for the war. Anti-war types control the conversation and I think they are not being balanced.

I didn't call the pacifists cowards. I only called Sartre a coward. I believe pacifists are being intellectually dishonest, disloyal, and hypocritical though. Logically speaking, you cannot engage in activities that undermine your country's war effort without aiding the enemy. Explain otherwise.

I call Sartre a coward for very good reason. Contrasting him with true men of conviction like Camus and Orwell, both of whom I have substantial differences with, makes it clear he was a coward.

They were all writers, but Camus and Orwell chose to use their gifts to fight against ALL oppression while Sartre whored his out to the oppressors on his side of the philosophical fence. Sartre and the French communists continually justified Stalin's behavior, supported the Red Army takeovers in eastern Europe as well as the later crackdowns, justified the murder of the Israeli athletes in Munich, propagandized for the Reds, and attacked and informed on those who escaped political persecution, such as Trotskyites, anarchists and others.

You are always so quick to defend men of low character like Sartre and Marx.

Tuck
why worship God when you could worship orwell
Care to explain that?

I also make a distinction between pacifists of convenience (like hippies) and real pacifists like Buddhists and the Amish whose lives are structured in ways to not profit, depend on, or contribute to violence. You cannot be confrontational and engage in provocative behavior and still be a pacifist.

[Triple_6]

Oh, fuck off. I'm not here defending pacifism. Every political thread you've made over the past year has had you calling leftists traitors or cowards. I'm sick of you and your bullshit attacks. Don't even think of taking the moral high ground with me. Your exact words were "unlike cowards like Sartre". You did not use it in the singular, you referenced a distinct group of people which I could only assume meant pacifists as a whole.

They were all writers, but Camus and Orwell chose to use their gifts to fight against ALL oppression while Sartre whored his out to the oppressors on his side of the philosophical fence. Sartre and the French communists continually justified Stalin's behavior, supported the Red Army takeovers in eastern Europe as well as the later crackdowns, justified the murder of the Israeli athletes in Munich, propagandized for the Reds, and attacked and informed on those who escaped political persecution, such as Trotskyites, anarchists and others.


Can you back that paragraph up with legitimate sources? I'd love to take a gander.

[McTucket]

and i was being sarcastic...

when i think of pacifists i think of Quakers...

and then i think of nixon and start laughing...

seriously... theres nothing wrong with being a pacifist... you're not hurting "the cause"...

[Sammie]

*runs away and hides

[Hae-Yu]

No, my exact words were:
"One thing I love about Orwell was that he may have been leftist, but, unlike cowards like Sartre, Orwell was a true genius rooted in reality."
I compared Orwell to Sartre and people like him. Sure it may have not been related to the original thought (pacifism's impact on war efforts), but it showed I was comparing leftists of character with leftists who lack integrity.

Why defend Sartre if you haven't read him? Because you can't have read him if you question my statements. Almost all of his political writings are justifying terror - either by the socialist state or by this or that fashionably cool oppressed group.

His anti-imperialist ravings were nothing but propagandizing support for Stalinist expanionism.

A good starting point: Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation (2004). A collection of essays from both. Sartre repeatedly defends Stalinist atrocities like the obedient dog he is.

Sartre - Sartre, J.P., (1972). Sartre on Munich 1972 - He pays lip service to innocent deaths but spends the bulk of it justifying why terrorists aren't murderers.

In The Communists and Peace he laid a philosophical justification for Leninist-Stalinist murder of political enemies, constantly purging until a pure communist state emerges.

Google "Sartre and Kravchenko." When Kravchenko first began to expose Stalinism, Sartre accused him of being CIA. Then again, he was never shy about fingering anyone as CIA.

In fact, each time a commie boss wined and dined him (Kruschev, Castro), he returned and wrote loads of nutswinging propaganda.

When Hungary and Prague happened, he broke with the French Communists and denounced Stalinism. BUT until 70, he was in and out of the Soviet Union as a free guest, so he must not have been too bothered by tanks rolling over students.

[Triple_6]

I've read two articles concerning some of his philosophical thinkings and hyper reality, with a short biography. His politics have never interested me. But I think someone's been reading a little too much Wikipedia because I can find none of the works you've referenced online and I highly doubt you went to the library and checked out any books on the man. Most likely you've had your nose in some anti-Leftist book and are quoting it verbatim.

[Laroacha]

Trip,,,,,are you just trying to bust UV's ball's because you think he's being overbearing, or are you upset because you are left leaning and take offense at his conservative stance? You guy's are approaching the uber dork cerebral political cockfight stage at this point.

[McTucket]

you know youre dying to chime in with ann coulter loving ass roach!

let it go man!

this is 1 on 1!!

[Triple_6]

That's exactly it dude. I think he's being way overbearing in his opinions. A while back ago me and Ultra were having a discussion that I went way out of line on and said some things I shouldn't have and didn't mean. But Ultra was somewhat classy about it and sent me a message telling me he thought I had a lot of anger and hate in my postings, which I did, and that I needed to step back and re-evaluate things. Now I avoid the political discussions, mostly because I have other things I'd rather write and read about than politics, but one thing I've noticed with Ultra lately is how vitriolic he's become when talking about those with opposing viewpoints. How many times has he labeled someone a coward or a traitor in the last year? That shit is totally uncalled for. What right do you have to call someone else a coward? Sartre was in WW2. I'm sure Ultra could have gotten a combat assignment if he wanted, but he chose not to for whatever reason.

If you support this war so much and we're all cowards and traitors for not then take your ass over to Iraq and fight it.

I live by the the principle, Judge not lest you be judged. Unless you've seen combat, overcome a phobia, been in a fight, or some other situation in which you were scared as hell but did what you had to do regardless, you don't know how courageous you really are. And until one does I don't think you should be calling another man a coward. It's about the gravest insult you can level at a person. I feel the same way about calling someone a traitor who you don't even know. It's just ignorant. And I find it highly ironic that those who profess to protect and cherish our freedoms the most are generally the ones who are most abusive towards others exercising their own freedoms. Freedom of speech is not the right for someone to speak what you want to hear, it's the right for them to speak what you don't. Insulting them for it is just showing what a poor character you've got.

[Triple_6]

I couldn't give two shits about Pacifism, Sartre's ugly mug, or any of this political crap. I'm just tired of seeing all this mudslinging by someone I've come to respect over the years and I think maybe it's time HE stepped back and re-evaluated things.

[McTucket]

(insert long, boring speech filled with bigg[er] words)

[Triple_6]

Lol stfu. Wait until I get my cpu back Saturday, fooooo. Your ass is toast! Dustbowl-only playing mofo.

[McTucket]

that was directed towards ultra...

and btw whatever happened to you coming up to va?

[Triple_6]

You trying to say Hae Yu has a better vocabulary than me?

I'm in Newport News until Saturday but I've got no car. I shouldn't have flown up and got a rental instead. I've been sitting in this little room for two weeks because I've got no wheels. :frown:

[McTucket]

no im saying he IS fucking rediculous sometimes... but this isnt my conversation to be saying that... i was just merely defending pacifists...

[Hae-Yu]

Trip, there's a lot more behind the shooters in war. I'm a DoD employee.

I think Bes was the last GNG to see my "trophy wall" (now packed away since my marriage), but I have enough unit to command level Civilian of the Quarter/ Year and Leo Marquez awards (honors comm troops) to acknowledge my contributions.

Since my promotion in Apr 04 I don't do anything directly war-related so I haven't earned awards. But for 2.5 years, I busted my ass supporting the war.
--------------------
Like Orwell, as long as my country is at war with a reasonable justification (like thousands dying in an attack), you support the war. A clear historical pattern shows what happens when you appease or ignore the Islamists.

Logically speaking:
What is treason? Working against your own country's war efforts.
Does working against your country's war efforts help or hamper your side?
Does working against your country's war efforts help or hamper the other side?
Who commits treason? Traitors.
Calling a duck a duck isn't vitriolic.

I can understand rational arguments, but the cynical demogoguing of the issue has gone too far by opposition parties.

Most of the material on Sartre I posted isn't on Wikipedia (that I glanced at), it's from memory. Sartre's Stalinist/ terrorist positions are so well known that books are written to defend him, line by line and incident by incident.

[McTucket]

im calling you out...

[Nimmy]

I hope your not talking about ultra. He can do everything but out-breathe you - which should be your contest of choice.

[Sammie]

tucky is a really good heavy breather...oh ya :wink:

[Siras]

There is no moral nor economic reason to continue the Iraq war or the war on terror. It is even counter-productive to American security. Michael Scheuer formally worked for the CIA as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, later as Special Adviser to that unit, and also at the Counterterrorist Center tracking Osama Bin Laden. In his books and interviews he expresses the folly of United States foreign policy against terrorism, claiming that the military presence on the greater Arabian Peninsula, setting up bases, and acting as the policemen of the Middle East encourages the denizens of the region to take up arms against the United States in order to expel the intruders. "This war is dangerous to America because it's based, not… on any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because 'we're over there…'" [note (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060704-110004-4280r.htm)]

In September 2007, Osama Bin Laden released a video tape in his usual fashion, and made mention of Scheuer, "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer."[note (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf)] Scheuer claims that Bin Laden is glad that America is in Iraq because al-Qaeda could attack the United States much easier, and Iraq has "become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement." [note (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul/)] American presence is increasing the terrorist population, not decreasing it. National security is indeed being sacrificed for the Iraqis—specifically the new jihadists.

[Laroacha]

Good post Sirus,,,,,,I hereby vote for you as President of the "Bury my head in the sand" club. Congrats genius............



If we just close our eyes and hope,,,,,it'll all go away........

And while we're copying wiki quotes, what part of this statement he made tells me that we should just pack up and go home and everything will be cheeky???

Scheuer describes his thesis: "[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel." [7] The book also documents a number of areas in which Scheuer believed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein cooperated. [8]

You do support the destruction of Israel right???

Dumbass

[Siras]

How do I support the destruction of Israel?

[Nimmy]

My neice put a bandaid on my mouse, I think its metaphorically funny concidering - there is no reason to put a bandaid on a mouse. I suppose the same goes for everything else other than a cut.

[Hae-Yu]

I'd disagree with you Siras, based on the history.

Granted, just after GW1, we were targeted for being "infidels on holy ground" with our bases on Saudi soil. Early in GW2 we closed the last of the Saudi bases. So we met Osama's demands that we exit from their holy ground, but they make no moves to settle down.

Remember: THEY declared war on US without provocation. What was the initial act? The Saudis rejected Osama's offer to defend the Kingdom with his bandits. Boohoo. His dispute was with the Saudi royals, but it was easier to trump up hatred toward filth-spewing Americans than the royals.

Part 2: Are we supposed to negotiate with every NGO in the world? Where does it end? This is Ron Paul's mistake. For GW1, 12 of 20 Arab states passed Arab League resolution 195 (2 abstained, 3 expressed reservations, leaving 3 to vote against it - Iraq, Libya, and the PLO.)((note1 (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555/Persian_Gulf_War.html), note 2 (http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/mab01/)).

The policy resulting from your line of thinking would have us consulting all the terror groups for any regional endeavor. Mr. Wahabi Terrorist, will you support us? What about you Mr. Shia Terrorist? What about you Mr. Druze Terrorist? What about you Mr. Secular Palestinian Terrorist?

Part 3: The non-Muslim world has faced terror from this sector for far too long. We've had decades of soft-handing them and it's way past time this threat was faced and exterminated.

[Siras]

I wouldn't say we entirely agreed to bin Laden's demands. We were and still are in Israel.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for punishing those responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States. But do we need to be occupying a country which, prior to our invasion, was al-Qaida free? A more reasonable approach would be to use special units to capture our enemies. Hell, Clinton had people following bin Laden for years, now we can't find him?

Ron Paul's foreign policy does contain an element of risk in it, and we would need to rely heavily on accurate and timely intelligence gathering, but what we are doing right now is far riskier. Al-Qaida numbers have grown as well as resentment towards the US. We are not welcomed as liberators and the Iraqis want us out.

What sort of endeavors under a Paul presidency would we execute? And if countries are willingly harboring terrorists, we should ask the people what they want to do. This is still a democracy after all.

[Triple_6]

There will have to be dialogue at some point. It's unavoidable. You can't exterminate Mr. Wahabi Terrorist, Mr. Shia Terrorist, Mr. Druze Terrorist, Mr. Sunni Terrorist, Mr. Secular Palestinian Terrorist, etc. scattered throughout 50 countries. That's my whole problem with the "War on Terror." Who is the enemy? How do you define victory? When they're all dead? Give me one war in human history where such a thing has been achieved on such a grand scale, while not provoking the host countries. It's never happened. So we don't care what the host government says, like in Afghanistan, fair enough. That means our next destinations are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. You guys will drive this country straight into the ground. If we aren't all dead at the end of it, we'll most certainly be bankrupt.

I have some questions about the neo-conservative War on Terror. Is this revenge for 9/11? Is this prudence to keep another 9/11 from happening? Thousands died in drunk driving accidents last year, should we exterminate everybody who drinks alcohol now before they inevitably go out on the road and kill more of us? Are people involved in drunk driving accidents less innocent than those on high-jacked airplanes? They had no choice either way, someone else imposed their deaths on them in each circumstance. And if this is revenge for 9/11, why did we invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, and why haven't we killed Osama bin Laden yet?

It's not about sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the dangers facing your country. On the contrary, you take a more efficient approach by grabbing allies and working with the international community to isolate terrorists, isolate their banking and assets, isolate those countries who refuse to hand over known terrorists or are dragging their heels about it, and work together using your intelligence agencies to neutralize the threats.

The Surge has worked, Iraq is doing better and the people there are actually starting to cooperate with us. I've got no problems with staying there longer. I have a problem with erosion of freedoms and not holding leaders accountable to help win a war that will theoretically never end. If you've really read Orwell and understand him then you would share the same fears I do about that.

Edit: Oh and kudos for the trophies and medals, Ultra. I mean it.