Quote of the day—Varad Mehta

The solution to violence is supposedly to lay down arms and swear a truce. But when one side’s arms drip with ink and the other’s drip with blood there is no peace to be had. “We will stop drawing cartoons” and “we will stop killing you” are incommensurate concessions.

Those who think they are equal, that the pen is mightier than the sword because the sword only wounds the body while the pen wounds something greater because intangible—the soul of society or some ineffable value like justice or safety or dignity—will always implore us to let the wookie win because they take the enemy at his word. But safety of this kind is not really safety because its maintenance is not in our hands but theirs.

Varad Mehta
June 4, 2015
Don’t Let The Wookiee Win
[Via a Tweet from Gay Cynic.

Those who demand others to refrain from the exercise of their right to free speech because of the threats from violent criminals should think about the lessons they are teaching. What they teach is that others should become violent criminals to get their way as well.

What I find most perplexing is that those who insist we submit to the demands of these criminals are those least able to deliver violence should their lessons be taken to heart. Hence they are attempting to create a world where they would be the first to become slaves to those able to deliver violence.—Joe]


17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Varad Mehta

  1. Those who are willing to use violence will always win over those too passive to do so. ALWAYS. This will never change no matter how big the drum circle, no matter how long the peace-chant, no matter how many signs you hold up at the rally.
    A right to be free from violence is no true right at all in that it relies upon the good will of others to observe and carry out that right for you. The ability to defend my village in Zimbabwe with a FAL rests squarely on my shoulders and that makes me free. Having to tell any attackers to stop because “I have a right to live without violence!” reduces me to a thrall.
    Remember, peace takes two willing parties, War only takes one!
    There used to be a slogan of “What if they threw a war and no one showed up?” We are seeing now what happens when someone throws a war, and only ONE side shows up. They call that a massacre.
    You can refuse to fight all you want, but when the other guy wants to fight, you either fight back, or become a statistic. Your desire for peace is meaningless.

    The above quotes are not mine, I just collect the wisdom of others.

  2. We should give them more targets than they can possibly attack. Have a nationwide draw Mohammed weekend.

  3. The quote about rough men willing to do violence on our part always us to sleep safely comes to mind.

    Pacifism is a great evil. Yes, it is evil.

    It is cowardly and selfish because it relies on the sacrifices of others to defend those unwilling to do so.

    It devalues the lives and liberty of all those that perish or are enslaved when the supposedly “morally superior” pacifists refuse to lift a finger to protect innocent and vulnerable people.

    Of course, those who profess it are either liars or victims. If put into a real life or death situation, most will defend themselves and show their “convictions” are a lie or if they are true to their creed, they will submit and die and all we can do is shrug our shoulders. We lose all of their contributions and friends and family mourn them while the killers continue. How is that just and better for the world?

    • I looked for that quote, since it wasn’t in my collection. Attributed to Orwell, but actually an expression of Orwell’s sentiment as worded by Richard Grenier: “As George Orwell pointed out, people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
      Orwell did say that pacifists are people who cannot admit, even to themselves, that “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
      And that makes the point even stronger. Pacifism is a form of parasitism: free loading off others who are willing to make the effort, and spend the gold, to repel aggression. NATO is an illustration of this, where some members (e.g., Iceland) have no army whatsoever and thus are a nation of pacifists by this definition, while others (e.g., Netherlands) have pretend-armies that amount to the same thing.
      Come to think of it, on a smaller scale the same applies to those who say that guns are evil because it’s the police’s job to defend them from criminals — rather than understanding that “self defense” means you’re responsible for it yourself.

      • This is the reason that European soft socialism was allowed to grow and persist since they did not carry their fair share of their national defense.

        Whenever some one says to look to Europe about how “great” their socialized medicine and other “benefits” are, point out that it is only because they have had a perpetual peace dividend to spend (or waste) on it. Our blood and treasure (and nuclear weapons) have kept them safe for about 70 years.

        • True, and the evils of socialist pacifism go back further, witness the fact that most European countries were conquered in a matter of days.
          Quite apart from the “peace dividend” (I suppose you should call it the “USA defense dividend”) being wasted, they still manage to have much higher taxes as well as very much higher unemployment. And even those high numbers don’t tell the whole story: unemployment is astronomical among the younger generation, and also in some countries people are classified as “permanently disabled” as a trick to avoid labeling them unemployed.

  4. I recall that the West only became aware of famous Russian dissidents when the Russians stopped summarily executing them or sending them to work to death in Siberia. How many Gulag Archipelago novels were conceived by prisoners who never got to write them?

    I look forward to the Metropolitan Museum of Art prominently displaying a Piss Mohammed, next to Piss Christ.

    • “I look forward to the Metropolitan Museum of Art prominently displaying a Piss Mohammed, next to Piss Christ.”

      Even if they felt safe from attack, they’d never do it willingly. The American communists and Progressives are soul mates with jihadists. Natural allies, together in opposition to Judeo/Christian culture.

      Don’t make the mistake of being lulled into believing that the Progressives remain silent in the face of violence purely out of cowardice. If Christians and Jews started bombing art exhibits, shooting up publishing houses and openly murdering collectivist heroes, you’d see some real indignation from the left for a change.

      Progressives are cowards, yes, but even more than that they are collectivist/authoritarians. They are peaceniks only to the extent that promoting “Peace” (the lack of opposition to authoritarian aggression) serves the purposes of evil.

      • Well, let’s do baby steps, a Piss Shiva and a Piss Buddha and a Piss Moses (maybe Michaelangelo’s one of Moses with horns due to the mistranslation of “shining”. After that SOMEONE might get the message.

        I suspect that even creating an exhibition with five niches with four glass jars with the above in them, without words or symbols or explanation would be met with outrage and murder since the religion of beastial morals would be conspicuous by its absence.

  5. I just saw a comment (I think from some Talking Head) on this subject, along the lines of “hate speech is not protected speech”. The correct answer to that is “bullls***”.
    I replied that “hate speech” is a lie invented specifically for the purpose of banning speech, exactly as the term “assault rifle” is a lie invented specifically for the purpose of banning guns.

  6. “The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” — Benjamin Netanyahu

  7. Just to make note of this, you who write here about the moral evil of pacifism do a better job of it than Robert Heinlein did with his straw-man grandfather in “Citizen of the Galaxy.

    • I’m particularly fond of his depiction of the voting citizen in his Starship Troopers. Only those citizens who have served and thus proved their own self-sacrifice and an attitude of recognition of the greater good earn their right to vote.

      I wonder what type of country we would have if that were the case. It could be expanded to other self-less services like first responders and perhaps special volunteer organizations. Given our low voter efficacy and participation rate, at least it would cull out most of the stupid and uninformed lemming voters that are swayed by a fancy political commercial.

      I know, people would howl over this, but maybe the idea has merit.

  8. Why does it perplex you? You know logic isn’t their strong suit, and they tend to support all manner of self-destructive behavior. For people that are self-loathing, getting others to blame for their destruction is sort of a slo-mo suicide by cop. It’s a cowards way out, where it allows them to think themselves the moral superior.

Comments are closed.