Skip to content

War: Ideology and Reality

June 2, 2018

There has been a consensus in the west for some time, at least theoretically, that war is definitely a bad thing. This seems fair enough, a good attitude to have. But what about when this attitude transforms into one of showing that one is never willing to fight to defend oneself in the face of enemies? When one is always willing to compromise, negotiate, and never willing to draw a line in the sand?

This, of course, shows a weakness that will only be exploited by others. I think this is what is happening right now in the western worlds relationships with the rest of the world. It has shown itself to be an easy target for it will always give ground a bit more, rather than resort to conflict or violence. This is what horrifies western liberals about Trump and about Brexit. These were both examples of a drawing of a line in the sand. Of a refusing to give ground beyond a certain point. And, to liberals, this makes us reprehensible, and to blame, for any violence that results, even initiated by foreign enemies!

What kind of a twisted mentality does it take to be willing to bend over backwards like this to accommodate foreigners, enemies to the extent that we blame ourselves for any violence they commit. It’s our fault for having wars with them. As if they were just innocent bystanders. It’s our fault for their crime, because we put them in poverty ridden neighbourhoods and our police are “racist”. Where racist here could easily translate to, they have an inborn preference for their own community over a foreign community with foreign values. I.e. A perfectly natural sentiment throughout human history, that we in the west are now supposed to simply rise above, in the name of our liberal moral ideals. As if obsessing on these ideals enough and ignoring counter trends can somehow magically make these ideals become social reality.

Of course, they are not becoming social reality, certainly not to the extent of living up to the liberals stringent moral demands of us. And so we get the constant shaming: racist, sexist, etc… We get accused of hate speech, we get sidelined from the mainstream narrative, we get, in the UK, with the likes of Tommy Robinson, to the stage of locking people up for endangering this shaky liberal ideal. We move, toe by toe, into a totalitarianism. For if we cannot make our ideal real, the second best thing is to shut down anyone who questions our ideal, until we are safe in an echo chamber, where reality can be forgotten. Where everyone is scared to say what they think and must conform, under threat of prison, social exclusion etc. This is fast becoming the reality in the UK and throughout Western Europe. And they are working hard to make it reality in USA via mainstream media indoctrination, safe space obsessions, constant racism and sexism accusations and many other insidious, passive aggressive means.

This is what I like about Trump, he is countering this liberal consensus in the west on war. Not because he is some kind of warmongering crazy person looking to start a nuclear disaster. But because he recognises that you cannot keep giving ground in negotiations with enemies. This is not a sustainable way of life for any human group. No matter how morally good they may feel about themselves acting in this way. This is not a practical long term way to go for our civilisation. We have to be willing to draw a line in the sand, show strength in negotiations, not merely a weak agreeableness always willing to cede ground, due to an innate refusal to ever countenance violence or war.

I am not saying war like tendencies are nice things. I am saying if you are never willing to defend yourself or have some personal boundaries then you will just get walked over by others more willing to countenance violent measures, and not so wishy washy in their sentiments.

This summation of the constrained vision of war, by Thomas Sowell in his book Conflicting Visions, sums it up well, and you can see in the six points he mentions, how closely Trump is following this approach. For someone constantly accused of being dumb, racist, sexist, a Nazi, literally Hitler, insane, senile, by the left, strange he would follow a strategy so closely of a top and highly respected liberal conservative intellectual in economics:

Those with the constrained vision see war in entirely different terms. According to this vision, wars are a perfectly rational activity from the standpoint of those who anticipate gain to themselves, their class, or their nation, whether or not these anticipations are often mistaken, as all human calculations may be.

From this perspective, the steps for a peace-seeking nation to take to reduce the probability of war would be the direct opposite of those proposed by people with the alternative vision: (1) raising the cost of war to potential aggressors by military preparedness and military alliances, (2) arousal of the public to awareness of dangers, in times of threat, (3) promotion of patriotism and willingness to fight, as the cost of deterring attack, (4) relying on your adversaries’ awareness of your military power more so than on verbal communication, (5) negotiating only within the context of deterrent strength and avoiding concessions to blackmail that would encourage further blackmail, and (6) relying more on the good sense and fortitude of the public at large (reflecting culturally validated experience) than on moralists and intellectuals, more readily swayed by words and fashions.

Point (3) is what I have been talking about regarding not being a pushover. Point (4) and (5) are the methods Trump has been using since in power in his dealings with North Korea and Iran. To the chagrin of much of the mainstream media, who would prefer we just take deals on whatever terms offered us on the first offer by our enemies. Clearly we should be thankful such naive people as this are not negotiating are relationships with foreign enemies, for they would leave us open to future blackmail, just as Sowell points out.

Then there is point (6), this is what Trump does when he talks about liking the lower educated. He means lower in formal education. For it is these people who reflect current values in our culture, much more than the intellectual class who are often living in their own ideological bubbles of a world they would like to be in, rather than in reality as it presents itself to us.

So, if you want to debate with me about Trump, just remember this is the grounds you will have to argue with me on. Not on some weak attempt to call him a clown or a buffoon. Not on the latest trendy meme in the mainstream media to try and undermine him on emotional grounds. Not through laughter and ganging up behavior. Not through conformity with a mainstream narrative, where all else is dismissed as conspiracy, alt-right, hate speech, etc… None of this attempt to silence will work on me, for I am simply not interested in your attempt to force my speech, and force my thoughts on the subject. Not based on some spurious Russian collusion investigation. For why would I give you any credit for integrity when it comes to democracy, given the left wants global elites to over ride our democracy anyway.

The left has given up on democracy and free speech, in favour of friendly speech and a globe trotting elite who know better than us what is best for us, who we should simply submit to. And yet you expect me to be worrying about Russian bots interfering in precious Hilary Clintons attempts to get elected, by exposing facts about her to the public eye? For all the mainstream media has done, funded by the global elite, to try and interfere in Trumps chance to get elected. I am now supposed to worry about Russian bots harming Hilary?

No one with any common sense is going to be influenced by such tripe. Neither am I supporting Trump on grounds of some racial or sexist notions. So, please, don’t waste your time with all this nonsense. If you want to debate me freely, debate me on the reasonable points I bring up at the beginning of this piece. And if you have some practical alternatives to address those issues raised I am happy to discuss them. Just do not bother me with emotionally fueled, ideological bigotry. It is very easy to be against war and violence on moral, ideological grounds. It’s the most trendy thing you can do in the liberal western world. It is much more difficult to provide a practical vision of how this will work out in reality, without often denying many basic facts about human nature, and hoping we can somehow overcome our nature.

If Sowell is right, then the two ideologies of the constrained vision, exemplified by Trump in many aspects here in regard to his ideology on war, and the unconstrained vision, exemplified by many left liberals of today in relation to war, are doomed to talk past each other and not be able to talk even about the same things, let alone find common ground. For their whole orientation in the world is fundamentally different. I think to start a conversation we simply have to recognise some of our fluffy liberal ideals for how impractical they are and get down to dealing with practical reality. If we really want proper democracy, proper political power in our lives, then we have to be willing to face these harsh practical realities, rather than deferring them to a power elite, so we can continue on safely in our intellectual safe havens as herded animals.


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: