Thursday, August 14, 2008

The Intricacies of Postmodern Diplomacy

To the Postmodern politicians in Europe and the U.S. State Department the sole moral criterium is the use of physical force - of any kind. Even self-defense is problematic, conditional, and certainly not an absolute right: try kicking a burglar in the butt in most countries of the EU and you'll meet the injustice of moral inversion from up close!

What these politicians practice is actually a form of pseudo pacifism which can be reduced back to the Postmodern variety of the Marxist dialectic. This also explains why non Western areas which were not subjected to the counter-culture - notably the Middle East and Russia, the place of origin, courtesy of the KGB - fail to understand the current Western attitude, which they interpret as weakness. It is indeed a political handicap, self-imposed to compensate for the uniquely evil nature of Western hegemony.

Other moral criteria, objective rights and wrongs - in which they do not believe - are irrelevant. Which is why evil ideologies - as long as reasonably contained - are perfectly acceptable as diplomatic partners, Olympic hosts and holiday destinations.

The sanction against the use of physical force is diplomatic shunning: isolation by the global tribe. Another spin-off of the problem becomes apparent at this point: the 'international community' is turning into a collective.

The concept of pacifism - at first glance the superlative summit of high ethics - is on further analysis extremely questionable. It is explained in the following articles, the first two by a psychologist, the last written from a Christian point of view:

- Dr Sanity: "Peace like a River, i.e., Denial River"

(...) Many people have forgotten that one of the most well-known pacifists of all time--Gandhi--proposed that nothing should have been done about the holocaust or the Nazis. How many of his admirers have considered what the consequences would have been if the world had followed Gandhi's lead? How many millions more people would have died? How many today would live under the boot of the Nazi philosophy?

Antiwar protestors always make a point of asking rhetorically what war is good for? (...) The truth is that no sane person wants war, but aggression may be the only possible response to evil. And in human history, there have been many evils far worse than war (...) there has been more attention paid to cease-fires, treaties, and prevention of war in the Middle East than anywhere else on earth. The result has been the continued enabling and appeasement of an intolerable evil that thrives on hatred and that has grown strong and sure of its holy mission to kill (...) >>>

- Dr Sanity: "Strange Love: How They Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb"

(...) Prior to WWII, Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles, rearmed Germany to the extreme, beat the drums of war and put that nation on a war footing. The Europeans, loathe to fight another war, recalling the horrors of WWI, did everything they could to avoid another conflagration, even turning a blind eye after Hitler waltzed into Czechoslovakia and took the Sudetenland. They believed him when he said ‘that was all he wanted, to correct past injustices suffered by the German ethnic minority.’ (...)

Chamberlain, the gold medal champion of European denial and psychopathy (...) returned home to an adoring crowd, waving a piece of paper ’signed by Herr Hitler.’ There was to be no war, Chamberlain assured a nervous nation and continent. In fact, he soothed European fears and declared, ‘There will be peace in our time.’

"Peace" in Chamberlain's time translated into millions of Jews exterminated before the West finally woke up and confronted the unbelievable evil that they had "learned" to stop worrying about as they indulged their psychological denial. (...) Thus the antiwar crowd are more interested in the halo they have drawn around their own heads for being against war--something no sane person is for. (...) >>>

- Townhall: "Jesus and the Case for War," by Frank Turek

(...) sometimes the use of force is not only justified, it can be a dereliction of duty not to use force.

First, “loving your enemies,” like “turn the other cheek,” is a command for individuals in personal relationships. It is not a command for governments or for individuals put in grave bodily harm. As individuals we should pray for our enemies and “turn the other cheek” instead of returning insult for insult. Such behavior demonstrates supernatural love aimed at securing the offender’s conversion to Christ. But those commands do not mean that we have no right to personal self defense, nor do they mean that a nation shouldn’t protect its people from other hostile nations.

With regard to self defense, not only does the Old Testament affirm the right to self defense (Ex. 22:2), Jesus himself told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Jesus later told Peter “put your sword away” so Christ’s sacrifice would go forward and the scriptures would be fulfilled (Mt. 26:54). But the very fact that Jesus told Peter and the other disciples to buy a sword shows that its use for personal protection is appropriate. (By the way, Jesus never condoned the use of the sword as a means of religious conversion. It’s impossible anyway. Genuine conversion, by definition, is freely accepted. It cannot be coerced.)

With regard to war, the New Testament does not order newly baptized soldiers to get out of the military. Instead, John the Baptist told them not to abuse their power and to be content with their pay (Luke 3:14). Soldiers are needed because, as Paul pointed out in Romans 13, governments have a God-given responsibility to use “the sword” to protect their people from harm. In fact, Paul himself accepted military protection when he was in danger (Acts 22:25f), and Jesus affirmed the right of governments to impose capital punishment, saying that such a right was given by God (Jn. 19:11).

Second, “love your enemies” cannot mean that all use of force is prohibited because such an interpretation would contradict the passages just cited and result in absurd conclusions. It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” means “allow them to kill your family.” How would that be loving to your family? (...) With such an absurd interpretation, we couldn’t even have police protection, a court system, or prisons. (...) >>>

- Filed on Articles in "Freedom isn't Free" -


RatePoint Business Reviews