The Spectator at war

The Spectator at war: How to talk to a pacifist

9 August 2014

‘Keep your temper’, from The Spectator, 8 August 1914:

‘When a nation goes to war the policy of the Government nearly always fails to carry with it the convictions of a minority.  It is, of course, very rare for a Government who make war to find themselves without the support of the majority – for, as a rule, they would not even contemplate war without ascertaining the general tendency of public opinion – yet such cases have happened. It is probable that the majority were opposed to the war of George III. and Lord North against the American colonists. Even when the causa causans of a war in past history was a question of religious faith or of independence – both wonderfully binding motives – there were probably recalcitrants who said or felt strongly that their country was in the wrong.  So far as we know, reasoned objections to the Crusades are not on record, but we may be sure that even the Crusades were denounced as being mere piratical excursions – which is indeed what they were, though we must not judge them morally by our present code. The feeling of the majority against the minority during war is apt to be very bitter and intolerant. No doubt a Crusader who was called a robber and a murderer by a contemporary political philosopher would have been ready to kill his critic in the most Christian manner possible in the name of the Church. What we think it is worth while to say now is that we of these days ought to know better. The only test for persons who admit the virtue of tolerance is whether dissent from the policy of the nation is honest or dishonest. The history of France should be enough to remind us of the awful peril of calling men sans-patries because they take an unpopular view. Episodes of the American Civil War were less tragic, but they were also a warning. The poor fellows who were tarred and feathered in the South because they preached the sanctity of the Union and denounced slavery were generally as brave as they were honest. The British nation is now for all practical purposes as one; the minority scarcely count, and will certainly introduce no weakness into our ranks. Let us not forget, then, that minorities may be honest and should be respected for their honesty, and that when they are not honest they may safely be treated with silent contempt so long as their opinions are obviously doing no harm. We trust that there will be no singling out of a class of “Pro-Germans” for a highly question-begging form of abuse – such abuse as was showered on “Pro-Boers” (most of whom were perfectly honest, though utterly misguided) during the South African War. A loss of temper among the majority does far more real harm than the unimpeded expression of the wrong-headed opinions held by the minority…

Claim your gift

‘Argument with the pacifist is almost useless. He belongs to one of three classes, and with each of these classes attempts to reason are sure to fail. He may belong, first, to the obstinate group. He has an idée fixe about his own countrymen being in the wrong as a matter of course. This morbid humility which attributes to other races than his own a superior power of wisdom and integrity never deserts him. It is apparently a sincere prepossession. He is merely a misguided patriot. He will tell you even now that Germany would never have violated treaties or territories if British policy had not been what it has been; that German ruthlessness is only the inevitable by-product of British ruthlessness; that the poison must be sought at the fountain-head, not further down the stream; that by doing this, that, and the other thing Britain poisoned the spring; and that therefore Britain is the real author of German policy, and the war, and all the other troubles of mankind, and so on and so forth. If you argue he mazes himself more and more with sophistries, and as conviction with him is only a kind of intellectual entanglement it follows that the more you reason the more he becomes convicted of his own insight. A good-humoured silence is much the best treatment for the obstinate pacifist. He is verbally a very clever fellow; yet by a great irony his cleverness does not enable him to see an issue with half the clearness of the man who dips into an evening newspaper in intervals of sweeping the streets. Moreover, he is often panoplied in an intellectual vanity that is proof against any attack. When he feels that he is acting contra mundum he is sure that he is a hero or a martyr. The second class of pacifists is composed of timid persons. They cannot overcome their moral weakness, and it does not make very much difference to them whether the cause of their country is right or wrong. They are against was as being indisputably the greatest evil in the world in all conceivable circumstances. It is useless to argue with them. Silence, again, though perhaps tinged more with contempt than good humour, is the proper treatment. The third class would deserve to forfeit all tolerance if we could prove who belong to it, but as proof is impossible silence once more is the proper treatment. This class is composed of sly persons, who think that by avoiding hostilities wherever possible, and at whatever loss of honour or self-respect, they will make great commercial profits, while less sharp-witted but more generous people are loosing their opportunities and exhausting their energies by fighting.

‘The three classes of pacifists form so minute a body at present that for practical purposes they do not count. But their spirit is not dead, because it is inherent in a certain class of minds. If it should appear, as it very well may, let us be absolutely determined not to waste effort and breath on recrimination. Lincoln never once descended to the cheap expedient of sharpening feeling in the North against the South by calling the Confederates rebels. His restraint and courtesy were a model for the world. Recrimination should be absolutely unknown while the war lasts – not only recrimination against recusants in the crowd, but recrimination against Ministers and officials. Mistakes there are bound to be, but they will have the minimum of injurious effect if we refrain while the war lasts from the pitiable occupation of shouting out that we have been betrayed.’

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • Dean Jackson

    In one of the many senseless campaigns fought on the Western Front, the Cambrai campaign (20 November 1917 – 7 December 1917) witnessed more than 44,000 casualties, including 7,000 servicemen of the United Kingdom and South Africa dying for zero ground claimed. That 44,000 casualty figure should have been used instead for the more critical campaign against the Bolsheviks in Petrograd (who had just mounted the November 7 coup, overthrowing the Provisional government), resulting in the re-entry of Russia into the war, thereby sparing the exhausted Western Front Allies the prospect of facing another thirty German divisions previously deployed against Russia on the Eastern Front. In fact, a 57,000-man Allied military unit was already in Russia (the Ukraine) at the time–the Czechoslovak Legion–and could have been used to overthrow the Bolsheviks if the Allied powers so wished. Instead, the Czechoslovak Legion was sent on a 6,000 mile odyssey across Russia, its destination Vladivostok on the Pacific coast for passage back to Europe and the war, instead of sending the legion 700 miles due north to Petrograd and collapse the Bolshevik coup. The politicians of the West were doing all they could to (1) protect the fledgling Bolshevik regime in Petrograd; while (2) sabotaging every opportunity to immediately get Russia back into the war before the Bolshevik position had strengthened throughout Russia. Only when the position of the Bolsheviks was relatively secure would the Allied powers mount campaigns to supposedly overthrow the Bolsheviks (North Russia Intervention and Siberian Intervention), campaigns that were sure to fail due to the lackluster number of soldiers assigned to both missions (though the Japanese contingent of 70,000 soldiers deployed to the the Siberian Intervention is a minimum number one would expect from the combined American, British and French contingent, whose actual total complement registered an anemic 10,250 soldiers up against 600,000 Bolsheviks) and the remote locations for the soldiers’ landings–Archangel (British, French, Italian and American), Murmansk (British, French, Italian and American) and Vladivostok (American, British, French, Canadian, Italian, Polish, Chinese and Japanese)–far from the Bolshevik’s Command and Control center located in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), where too the Bolshevik’s leadership (Central Committee) is located.

    When Allies did attempt to intervene in Russia they do it (1) too late (now Allied troops would be up against the Red Army, not incompetent Red Guards); and (2) in ports that are remote from the Command and Control Center that is Petrograd!* The Allies land in the remote, out of the way, Archangel or Vladivostok, but won’t land in Petrograd! To ensure that they win the war, the Allies needed to immediately move on Petrograd to quickly get Russia back into the war. In fact, knowing that Lenin had been sent to Russia by the Germans in order to get Russia out of the war, the British would have already drawn up battle plans for a Russian intervention centering on Petrograd.

    It should also be understood that as the Czechoslovak Legion moved north to annihilate the Bolshevik Command & Control centers in Petrograd–a mission a non-Marxist co-opted Allies would have assigned the Czechoslovak Legion on November 8–the ranks of the 57,000 strong unit would have swelled with disaffected officers, non-commissioned offices and enlisted personnel of the former Imperial Russian Army who were furious over the inexplicable dissolution of the Imperial Russian Army. No wonder so many ‘White’ officers had disdain for ‘democracy’, for ‘democracy’ in Russia was a front for Bolshevism.

    The above is a clear case of intentional botching of the Allied war effort in order to assist the Bolsheviks in Petrograd, proving that World War I was a Marxist ‘Scissors Strategy’ operation, the purpose of the operation to lead to the establishment of the first aboveboard Marxist nation that would spread the Marxist germ to China, where the West in 1949 would throw up its arms asking, “Who lost China?” The Marxist West lost China, of course! Then the French lost northern Vietnam thanks to China. Then America intentionally lost the Vietnam War, where (1) over 50% of NVA regiments were 100% manned by Chinese soldiers; and (2) the United States refused to invade and liberate the atheistic Marxist North Vietnam; where (3) the constant replenishing of NVA regiments by Chinese ringers and the refusal of the United States to bring the war to a quick end by invading North Vietnam, led to the loss of the war, resulting in Americans’ loss of faith in their government and institutions.

    The following is a discovery I made in May regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,** otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    For more on this discovery see my blog…


    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.


    * During World War II, the German General Staff wanted to concentrate resources on capturing Moscow, since Moscow was then the Command & Control location for Soviet forces. Hitler insisted on dissipating the effort on three fronts. The same sabotage took place during the Marxists’ World War II operation, where after the war the Marxists’ global position was strengthened.

    ** The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here