The Cause of War Unwound

 

A reasonable compromise, and war is averted.

The novel Unwind, omnipresent in the schools, is faithful to the woke “narrative” at every point. Men are always acting impulsively, the beasts, and some woman has to take them in hand and set them straight. But women are not just more rational than men. If any character shows compassion for the less fortunate, it will be a woman. If a black character is featured—sorry, “sienna,” because the word “black” is apparently pejorative--he must have an IQ of 155 and a strict moral code never to steal. 

Predictably, it cleaves to the familiar line on the issue of war. War is always and under all circumstances wrong on both sides.

“You see, a conflict always begins with an issue—a difference of opinion, an argument. But by the time it turns into a war, the issue doesn’t matter anymore, because now it’s about one thing and one thing only: how much each side hates the other.”

Wars, the book implies, are caused by some misunderstanding. The war starts because both sides lose their temper, apparently at the same time. And the good guys are the ones trying to broker a compromise.

This theory of war requires us to believe that governments, groups of people generally chosen from their peers for their good sense and level headedness, are prone to suddenly lose their temper for no good reason and send thousands or millions of their fellow citizens to their death. Possible, but not a likely explanation.

In the real world, among individuals or among nations, so long as both sides feel they have a legitimate argument for their position, they will keep arguing. Only when one side loses the argument do they stop negotiating. Then the loser must back down, or resort to force. That is when and why a war starts. As Clausewitz says, "war is a continuation of policy by other means." It is entered into not in a fit of temper, but to achieve some political purpose, in cold blood.

And one side is almost certainly right, and the other side is almost certainly wrong.

Accordingly, those who want to negotiate a compromise are not the good guys. They are doing the Devil’s bidding. It is as though the police, called to a crime, tried to negotiate a compromise between the thief who took the wallet and his victim. Or refused to intervene, as both parties must be at fault for the misunderstanding.

The sure result will be more injustice, and more wars.

And that is what our kids are being taught to think.

What'sHerFace Gets In Yer Face

 

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist,” said somebody. The original source of the well-known quotation is uncertain. 

In 1836, John Wilkinson wrote:

“One of the artifices of Satan is, to induce men to believe that he does not exist: another, perhaps equally fatal, is to make them fancy that he is obliged to stand quietly by, and not to meddle with them, if they get into true silence.”

In 1856, William Ramsey wrote:

“One of the most striking proofs of the personal existence of Satan, which our times afford us, is found in the fact, that he has so influenced the minds of multitudes in reference to his existence and doings, as to make them believe that he does not exist; and that the hosts of Demons or Evil Spirits, over whom Satan presides as Prince, are only the phantasies of the brain, some hallucination of mind. Could we have a stronger proof of the existence of a mind so mighty as to produce such results?”

Baudelaire said something similar. The first quotation is usually attributed to him.

It is so true and evident that it has occurred to many minds. Most people will adamantly deny the existence of evil, on the apparent premise—a classic example of denial--that if they ignore the Devil, he will ignore them. Examples abound: the silly notion of “rape culture,” that some men rape women because they do not know better, and need the matter explained to them. The idiotic pacifist idea that any conflict springs from some “misunderstanding,” and war can be averted by negotiation and compromise. That if there is a conflict, the victim must be in part to blame. That anyone who does something unquestionably immoral, like taking a gun and shooting up a school, must be insane rather than evil. Or it must be the gun’s fault. Or it must be society’s fault, or the system’s fault, or religion’s fault, or capitalism’s fault.

And in What’sHerFace’s talk, it manifests as the idea that we who fight for liberty and fairness ought to and can strive for unity in the present political circumstance. And should avoid offending. Peace is not possible; there is no chance of compromise between good and evil. It only ends in Munich, betrayal, and unilateral disarmament. 

We cannot honestly pretend that men can decide to be women.

We cannot honestly agree that “white” people are inherently evil.

We cannot honourably or safely compromise on free speech.

People like Scott Adams are waking up to this, it seems.