Part of what makes Moldbug so important is he gave a fully fleshed out critique of progressivism that included the international context. He goes in depth on specific nations, providing incredible sources and nuance. As the far-Right has hither exploded in written material the bulk has failed to reach a comparable breadth. The vast majority of discussion has been a reaction (small r) against liberal ameri-western identity politics. Thus, it’s : blacks, women, gays, and Muslims. This has allowed the most devious progressive memes to pass under the proverbial firing line. We’re taking aim at one of these elusive false virtues today here at Froude Society- it’s Pacifism.
Amongst those of a traditional mindset the idea of Pacifism is as alien as Equality [of result], we just really can’t grasp it like they do. Therefore I formulated a definition as to not confuse the capital “P” variety with similar but distinct memes. Pacifism means that : the use of violence is inherently immoral, nearly always evil, even when employed in self-defense and thus should be eliminated from use by humankind. This rather extreme stance eliminates the non-leftist varieties of peace love, namely neoconservative effectual global pacifism by American hegemony, the Libertarian/ Ancap “non-aggression principal”, and Moldbuggian Passivism*.
There’s many ways by which this issue may be approached from, so it’s best to start with the most distant data. Firstly, we understand through archaeological and anthropological evidence that the idea of the peaceful savage is simply counterfactual. The earliest hominid remains have brutal scars that are obviously inflicted by other humans. Stone age tribes observed in the South Seas and Africa are warlike and rapacious whenever placed near a rival. Warriors have higher social status, slaves are often taken, boys train for combat in their play. Blank-slaters are of course, kooks, but their notions of human nature are ubiquitous and dogmatic. Poll the average Brahmin and she will think prehistoric man was a granola environmentalist, especially if it’s a people like the Amerindian that is generally conceived as an oppressed.
Ancient Western civilization also gives one a glimpse of the “Doctrine of Non-violence”®. Pax Romana immediately comes to mind, yet an elementary reading of Gibbon suggests the “imperium sine fine” was much closer to the neoconservative model than true Pacifism. In the Manichaean versions of God and the After-Life one may roughly interpret pacifismo by a stretch, Jews aren’t exactly told to make war upon rival Jewish sub-tribes. Having one supreme God nevertheless puts war and peace under the same jurisdiction, who naturally blesses and damns the same men with the same eye. Instead of having competing deities causing trouble it could conceivably be imagined a Divine with an ideal, perfect blueprint for man. Ending bloodshed was a profound hope for many outside of the Pax, the old Pagan world was verily “around whites prepare for fights”. Even under Caesar’s justice, the Golden Ass depicts a violent common Roman life cursed with banditti, communitarian feuds and only vigilante policing; patterns Sicily never abandoned.
Like all tenants of progressivism, Pacifism is a perversion of Christ’s teaching. Of all those perversions, Pacifism might be the closest to doctrinally accurate, He is, after all, also known as the Prince of Peace. To “turn the other cheek” is a profound step away from Scythians drinking from the skulls of their vanquished foes. Gibbon makes a tight case of how Christianity dissolved martial virtues that were so fundamental to Roman Paganism. Yet once Christianity gained state power it upheld the duties of war, be it within the post-Constantine empire, the Northern tribes who took baptism, the Nestorians of the Steppe or the Orthodox ætheopians.
We do not find, of the Christian Religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had got one.
Any discussion of war medieval and its antithesis is incomplete without considering Islam. Conceptually the world is divided into two “houses”, the house of war, where the infidel dwells and another, the house of peace, where lives the followers of Muhammad. Elementary criticism of Islam is the fact that the religion of Peace warred to survive and ecumenical disagreements remain so costly inside it. But mayhaps the racial nature of the lands of Islam also provides a clue to this- it encompasses overwhelmingly the “Brown” civilization. It is the furthest Conquest of Magian Cultural Soul, confined to peoples of certain phenotypic peculiarities and prehistoric environment; those such areas of Eurasia and North Africa which avoided the worst of our ice age’s sheet. Exceptions along the edges which are: Chechen, Uyghur, Punjabi, Javan, Anatolian, Bosnian, Sudanese, Grenadian, Turk- carry forth fearful, brutal memories and whom quake with irredentist tumult to this day. All aside our own thoughts on any conflict zone or perceived theological truth, past or present;- HRx must praise Mohammetdon resistance to Pacifism sincerely.
Such Weztern impulses that would come to demand Paci conventions, constitutions, treaties, understandings and accords between the globe was, ultimately, a child of the seventeenth century. Protestantism brought about a storm of religious speculation and discussion. Fed upon by the monastics of the age prior and the Counter Reformation rivalry, it spawned volumes of literature on the justness of violence, as strife on confessional lines spiraled into total horror. Spanish inquisitions, privateering, and a Thirty Year’s War transitioned happily to the beautiful gentleman’s wars of the 18th century, limited in scope and brutality. Westphalian moderation was unfortunately only part of this response. Dissenters in Britain and extreme protestants in the old Lotharingian lands formulated kooky Utopian visions which included Pacifism.
These aforementioned areas, but most especially South East England, the United Provinces, Geneva, and some Huguenot towns; were not just extremely Protestant but extremely violent in the 17th century. It should be no surprise that the temples and kangaroo courts of Pacifism are in The Hague and Geneva, the seminal text of human rights international law is the Geneva Convention, there of all places! Yes, the same theocratic principality which Calvin preached and Rousseau scribbled. Pacifism is an issue where the crypto-Calvinist hypothesis is iron tight, its conquest the world over is directly linked to the martial and material successes of England and New England. Your average progressive’s devotions for “World Peace” are like something out of a Quaker’s sermon. In media a character often makes a comment that “World Peace” would be their dearest wish, really? We’re so conditioned to this idealism that such a theological phenomena squeaks by all anti-bodies.
Besides Rousseauean happy claps there’s also the dialectical materialist interpretation of pacifism. Classical Marxists and fellow travelers perceive war making as a scheme of the Military-Industrial complex. War profiteers allegedly steer governments into battle for their own self interest, diverting labor and capital away from workers’ well being. This interpretation reached a zenith in 1918, the Bolsheviks and the accompanying Leftist revolutions in Europe, foremost being Ireland and Weimar. Once Stalin won a M.I.C. of his own, this brand of Pacifism was dropped by the Reds (if they ever had it at all) and taken up instead by social-democrats and the broader liberal left. To this day materialist Pacifism dominates our universities, most continental political parties, and much of the non-Islamic third world. In my AP European History class we sat through the polemical film mentioned at the start of this paragraph. It mostly cashed in on the anti-Iraq war sentiment (Saddam was super volkisch, screw Dubya). They look at the huge bills for military spending and shriek in horror, my disdain for this camp aside, the costs of armaments are admittedly enormous. NATO’s “free market” M.I.C. inflates costs by a considerable margin, Russian/Chinese equipment is a little worse but often a fraction of the cost.
Libertarians, as I like to say, are Marxists in inverse, their attitudes on violence are close to the same. One attacks when private property is violated, the other when the workers are violated. Collective or personal in inclination, they loath the martial virtues as barbarous obstacles to material growth. Libertykin have coined the term Welfare-Warfare state to attack “statism” at both portions of the sovereign duty. In some respects, Libertarians are even more pacifistic than their Leftist cousins, as historically the Liberal regimes of the 19th century were far less bloodthirsty than populist democracies and Red socialisms. Libertarians can’t really justify total war ideologically, but the Left definitely can and has done so. It’s also no surprise that Communism and Libertarianism came from mercantile peoples who in the late modern area suffered humiliating defeats by the swords of the manlier races. Namely Anglo-Sino-Jewish(-Gallic?) avarice versus Prussian–Yamato-Magyar(-Turkish?) militarism.
It was of course not a Misesian or Leninist peace plan that settled the First European Civil War, but a Wilsonian one. Cathedralist Pacifism as we know it inserted itself to the Entente side by way of Washington and has never lost the upper hand. What France and Italy wanted was far less idealistic and nationally focused. The US entered the war to “end militarism” and “make the world safe for Democracy”- translated to “enforce Pacifism” and “outlaw autocracy”. Moldbug provides us with a fantastic source on the nature of the Wilsonian ideology. Though Wik gives a satisfactory description from Herron alone.
“And so it came about that Professor Herron, pacifist, Socialist, and internationalist, became ardently pro-Ally at the beginning of the war and remained pro-Ally to the end. His faith never left him. Knowing as he did the iniquities of the Entente Powers, the secret treaties and understandings, the jockeying and trading for economic and political advantages even during the progress of the war, and the frightful anachronism of the Russian autocracy, he could still believe that the only hope for a change world lay in the overthrow of the German system. The evils in the polity and social organization of England, France, and Italy were bad enough, but they were eradicable; the evils in Prussianism were basic, innate, ineradicable. It was inevitable, therefore, that he should have desired the entry of the United States into the struggle.”
It is understandable for WWI to elicit such a response, but the League of Nation dreamers perceived they were dealing with a beast more perfect than Man. War was ostensibly outlawed with the Kellogg-Briand pact, which as our high school textbook tells us, directly led to “appeasement” and the Second European Civil War. Is it any surprise that Kellogg and Wilson are both the name of internationalist NGOs with massive endowments? Democracy, when it fights to its Right, goes all out, drafting the whole population and directing the whole economy to annihilate the enemy. “Unconditional surrender” and regime change for the adversary is the only way democracies accept winning, suing for peace with an exchange of territory is completely out of the question.
Both the New Deal Republic and the USSR were ostensibly pacifistic, coupled with mutually assured destruction, the Cold War was kept cold. Pacifism reformed again as the avocation of unilateral disarmament, the well known “peace symbol” is code for nuclear disarmament. The cause to reduce nukes has been sublimated into the cacophony of Green grievance and none of the nation’s with nukes look to be giving the up anytime soon. They did have one notable success though, Congress South Africa, a blue imperial child Immaculately born from the XXX chromosome womb of State. Our Rainbow Nation gave up their nuclear weapons as a pact of third world post-colonial beta good faith. Disarmament has gone beyond weapons of mass destruction to include the proposed banning of automatic weapons, heavy weapons, basically any fire arm, even knives. Destroying potentially trillions of dollars of products is so idealistic it poignantly signals the nihilism and ravenous lunacy of the progressive vision. “No item on this earth may come between us and Peace, burn the phallic idols of fascism, such shall please Hera, Demos, and Moloc”. As any NRA cardholder could tell you, gun control will do little to stop violence, the right to bear arms isn’t even about safety but about rebellion. To be honest, I cannot see the pro ‘gun control’ side as anything but a saccharine evil that seeks to bring mankind closer to the neutered r/ selected matriarchal rat hive society.
Peace to ZOG, or whomever; is actually far more violent than past centuries but on the magistrates’ ledger it appears best of ever, less States are openly at war but at a terrible cost. The Twentieth Century , the Century where Militarism was roundly defeated twice, has been so cruel a century it is beyond our comprehension. To the pacifist an appalling amount of low level violence is acceptable to prevent the use of symmetrical force. Pacifists almost always side with the guerrilla or gangster over the soldier who wishes to stop them. They turn a blind-eye to Sunni Islamists, antifa hotheads, or gangbangers holding territory and terrorizing citizens- wailing whenever a force is organized against them.
Regardless, the League and its successor, the UN, are super-American institutions whose major goal is to broker and enforce peace. Ultimately, as the League’s failure proved, such a stable coordination was only possible by American guns and the bankers’ credit. To enact this peace America (and its DoD clients) have become the martial leviathan their ancestors worked so hard to prevent, Whig wars have continued to be necessary to maintain the movement “towards” world peace. Pacifism, like Communism, Democracy, or Free-Markets cannot exist outside the realm of abstraction and temporary circumstance. War is politics taken to its extreme, they are inseparable human phenomena, as long as [geo]politics continues to exist, war will also. This next century looks to have plenty war in store, some of which will be HRx’s best chances at taking power, we must champion the right of combat because through it we may win back our civilizations.
*- Thanks for nickbsteves in the comments for pointing out my error spelling “Pacifism” as “passivism” in nearly half of the instances of the original draft. Passivism is part of Moldbug’s plan for Reactionary conduct to smoothly transition into a sane regime, it essentially means non-activism and to abstain from participating in the democratic grievance game. While I do have problems with the “reset”, neocameralism, and stockholder rule (why this blog is HRx not NRx), I do generally agree with passivism in most instances. Trying to beat the Left as the louder wailing mob is absurd and a waste of effort, it is a game which is designed for us to lose. We have to remember our enemies are usually ill informed, crazy, or evil- it’s hard for them to quantify our activities and beliefs. By being active we elicit their hate and bring their armies against our defenses before we have time to fortify and recruit. This is largely why I am quite distrustful of the Trumpenführer memeplex, as it has swiftly calcified opposition to many genuinely Rightist ideas at an astonishing rate, outpacing whatever shifts to the Overton Window it may have achieved. There are some causes that may be worth our energy, if only to stop them from drifting in a demotist/neocon direction, those being: anti-feminism, anti-Islam, Southern secession, the gold standard, and Euroskepticism.