A Time for Peace, a Time for War

Never apologize to the Morlocks, for they will only take the apology as a confession, and, sensing weakness, fall upon you, and drag you underground to their lair and feast on your living flesh.

This advice applies not merely to the enemy in the culture war attempting to get you mocked, reviled, and fired for your political incorrectness, but also to the enemy in the Jihad, attempting to get you to die, to surrender to slavery or submit to Islam.

Vox Day in his new book SJWs ALWAYS LIES includes the excellent advice that one must never apologise to a Social Justice Warrior, never attempt to ameliorate nor appease them, never appeal to their better nature. His experience (and mine) shows this is futile as well as counterproductive.

A civilized man, hearing an apology or a request for quarter, will interpret it as a request for forgiveness and a request for a return to the peace the existed before the dispute broke out: an SJW, hearing an apology, will take it as a surrender, will sense blood in the water as a shark does, and redouble the attacks.

This is because the civilized man regards other men as real people and seeks to live in peace. An SJW is a creature who regards peace as intolerable, and thinks of other people as mere shadows, mere puppets on the stage of his own internal psychodrama.

A civilized man attacks enemies in order to restore civilization, and hence attacks those who threaten it, and hence takes a proffer apology as a sign that the threat is ended. An SJW, on the other hand, is a witchhunter who attacks the witch not because he believes you (or anyone) is a witch. Your name could have been picked at random out of a hat. He attacks because he wishes to be seen by the warren, his peers, as zealous and loyal, and because whichever witchhunter hunts the most witches gains a high status.

Such is the disagreeable truth and tactical necessity of the culture war, and it has an even more disagreeable sequel: a whole cadre of so called moderates arises who, while claiming to agree with you and to abjure the foe, makes calls for peace and compromise never directed at the witchhunters, always at the witch. One such recent display was being debated over at Vox Day’s website:  http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/10/dialogue-with-moderate.html

This led to a question we have heard debated frequently in conservative and Christian circles, which is, namely, when is it right, if ever, to fight an enemy without remorse, without quarter, without adherence to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, savagely, and totally?

The answer to that question falls into two opposite errors: the Scylla of those who answer “always” and the Charybdis of those who answer “never.”

Scylla scoffs at the notion of fairplay and good sportsmanship and mercy toward enemies. She holds the very idea of ‘rules of war’ to be a paradox, if not mere nonsense. She is always eager to hear of calls for ruthlessness, because Scylla-types pride themselves on being pragmatic, and they think pragmatism only is displayed in total war. Their motto: winning is not everything, it is the only thing. The ends justify the means.

Opposite this Scylla of Pragmatism is the Charybdis of Sportsmanship. Charybdis in public debate will always counsel that it is better to lose the battle than to fight in an unfair way. Their maxim: winning is not everything, it is not anything, for all that matters is how you play the game. The means justify the ends.

There is a famous example of the leader during World War One refusing to listen to the reports of spies who had intercepted German intelligence on the grounds that gentlemen, after all, do not read each others’ mail.  That is Charybdis in her purist form.

The Charybdis usually turns to the Gospel to justify the surrender to evil, saying that Our Lord commanded us to turn the other cheek, and that they example of the martyrs recommends we neither take up arms against our foes, but instead stand as silent as lambs to the slaughter. With much hand-wringing Charybdis warns the warriors not to adopt the monstrous tactics of the enemy, lest we become monsters ourselves.

Of course, what makes Charybdis a monster is not this counsel of pacifism and preemptive surrender: it is that in public debate and public policy the Charybdis-type idealist will side with the enemy and direct fire against friends allegedly marching under the same banner.

So while the false idealist of Charybdis talks about peace at any price and turning the other cheek, when her fellow soldiers offends her by fighting too hard, she never turns the other cheek, and she is never silent. Instead she sides with the foe and blames her own.

The paradox should be clear: Charybdis only wants us not to fight the foe in the name of peace, because it might offed the foe. Charybdis does not worry about offending us, and so fights us. She is not willing to be silent when advising all others suffer evils silently.

Scylla says to fight without rules, and never to hesitate when contemplating or committing atrocities, provided they are effective. Scylla says war is not a game.

Charybdis says to adhere to rules even when fighting a foe who betrays the rules, on the grounds that it is better to lose than to cheat. Charybdis says games are not war. And often Charybdis perches the miter of sanctimony on her head to make her point, saying the Christian religion forbids self defense.

And so the endless and empty debate between Scylla and Charybdis continues. Meanwhile the foe advances.

For the life of me I cannot see why such simple principles cause so much debate.

Sports are as artificial as the usages of war among Christian and civilized nations. In a sporting event, you do not cheat to win, because the whole point of sports is not to teach ruthlessness (that is the point of boot camp) but to teach how to win without vaunting and lose without whining so that next week another team will be willing to play you. It is meant to teach courage and self-command.

Wars between civilized nations are conducted with certain mutually recognized restrictions because civilized nations recognize that they will be neighbors after the war is over, and may be allies in the next war.

A mugging is not a sporting event, nor is a war with socialists, barbarians, or Mohammedans, or SJWs. They do not have our worldview, our values, nor our sense of fairfplay.

Barbarians live in a constant state of war, so the idea of existing in peace after the war is over is not merely inadvisable to them, but unimaginable.

For socialists and barbarians and jihadists and SJWs, each war is a total war because each enemy is an absolute enemy, with whom peace is neither sought nor thought possible.

As a matter of core religious doctrine, one of the points of doctrine that has not changed and can never change in the Mohammedan religion is the doctrine of jihad, namely, that eternal and unceasing war does and will forever exist between the faithful, the Dar-el-Islam (which means ‘House of Submission’) and he infidel, the Dar-el-Harb (which means, tellingly enough, ‘House of War’.)

So there is no norm of peace to which to return, as when one civilized nation wars with another: there is no chance of America being the enemy of England in 1812 and being her ally in 1945. When the Muslim will always attack the Jew and pursue his extermination. There is no future where they are mutual allies, and peace is seen only as a breather between rounds, and time to re-arm.

In their warped and twisted worlds, it is considered a sign of weakness to act with restraint on your behavior, and they offer no reciprocity, no mutual restraint, if you do.

I have been astonished that the entire Mohammedan strategy in this century has been nothing but harping on this one folly: the assumption that a gentleman treats a villain like a gentlemen, and fights with civilized restraint when fighting someone who might be a friend or ally in the future.

We offer the restraint of the Geneva Conventions against them, but they do not abide by these conventions, and, indeed, the whole point of their military policy is to abrogate them as flagrantly as possible as publicly as possible. Given a choice between attacking a soldier and a child, the mighty Jihadist warrior will attack the child, because the headlines are sexier.

As for the Morlocks, they will never be friends or allies. They have not the capacity. An SJW is deliberately and totally set against the world of civilization, and hates the niceties and rules of war that protect them. They like riots. They cheer at sabotage, at cop killers, at sneak attacks, at ambushes against women and children. Read their literature, look at their politics, listen to their speeches.

They are natural allies with the Mohammedans: both are humans who have repudiated their humanity, thinking subhumanity is stronger. Both praise subhuman barbarism, both hate Christ, both despise civilization.

When fighting such creatures as these, after making an initial offer to any undecideds (who should not take more than a deep breath’s space of time to decide) one attacks the barbarian without quarter,without mercy, by any means, fair or foul, and fights to extermination, ignoring pleas for mercy, since such pleas are too often false, and cannot be trusted.

The barbarian is always at your throat or at your feet.

Simple rule: civilized rules for civilized foes. Gentleman’s rules for gentleman. Barbarians, Mohammedans, Huns, Dogs, and Socialists are enemies of God and Man and therefore must be caned back into their dens, and terrified into submission, or slain.

Biblical scholars will remember that the horrifying commands given the Children of Israel to blot out every living thing that breathes was not directed against the sojourner, or stranger, or even the Hivites, who surrendered, and not (as it is in Islam) against all outsiders not conquered and enslaved, but to the Amelekites, whose enmity toward the Jews could not be quenched, and a few other specific foes.

Such are the rules of war and of sportsmanship. It is the way civilized men behave.

Civilization is not a suicide pact, nor is sportsmanship is way to throw a game to a team that cheats, nor is the normal courtesy of apology meant to be a weapon in the hand of an enemy.

The benefits of such rules extend to to others who abide by them, and no further. One apologizes to a gentleman whom one has wronged. One does not apologize to a mad dog, one clubs it to death with a shovel.

I am greatly puzzled why civilized men and Christian gentlemen cannot see the difference between fighting another Christian king or commonwealth, who respects the Peace of God, and fighting the barbarian who believes in total war, war to the knife, war to the teeth.

If you fail to notice the difference between the way Christian enemies act and should be treated, and the way the children of Ishmael or the children of Sodom should be treated, then you hold Christianity to be equal to its mere opposite, and you offend Our Lady, and the angels weep for your lackwittedness.

Certainly turn the other cheek when your brother strikes you. But when he strikes from ambush latches his teeth on the throat of your crippled and harmless daughter like a mad beast, what then?

I do not know what Amish or Seventh Day Adventists or Christian Scientists think about the Just War doctrine, but we Catholics were an old and wise Church even before we passed through the purging fires of a thousand years of war with Islam from the Seventh Century to the Seventeenth, not to mention wars with Norsemen and Huns and so forth that helped to form our character. We have a place both for monks who vow never to raise a sword and for knights who vow never to sheath it.

Deus Vult! I say death to the SJWs as I would say death to a nest of scorpions.

I call upon Saint George to witness my oath, Saint Demetrius, Saint Theodore Stratelates, Saint Mercurius and Saint James Matamoros.

 

Please read and support my work on Patreon!