Today is the anniversary of what is commonly called The Kent State Massacre. Or the day a mob of nihilist punks came into contact with reality.
Here's a number of things I've said on the subject of peace activism:
If there is one thing I have certainly noticed, it is that pacifists in general have no objection to enjoying the benefits of civilization but are unwilling to take the measures necessary to defend it from foreign and domestic barbarians. Such as the National Socialists, the Soviet Socialists, and the home grown socialists of the Democratic Party. Contrary to their general delusion of virtue, pacifists are in effect, moral and political parasites upon civilized society.
Peace in the real world is simply the absence of those -- such as the socialists -- who seek to deprive you, I, and our fellow citizens of our own Life, Liberty, and Property. Real peace can only be achieved by the physical isolation or outright elimination of those who seek to subjugate, plunder and murder us. This can only be done through the use of physical force. In short, true peace can only be achieved only through the possession of superior firepower and the moral will to use it.
The narcissistic trash that makes up the membership of the so-called peace movement simply do not care whether you and your children live, or die, or suffer under the yoke of an unwashed barbarian. They plaster their cars with bumper sticker, carry signs, bang on drums, throw Frisbees, and perform other useless rituals so that they can feel good about themselves and show the world how morally superior they are. Never mind that they openly deny the fundamental fact which is the foundation of all valid moral law, that Human Life -- life as a rational being in control of one's own life -- is the standard of all moral values, and that those who would damage or destroy Human Life must be removed from human society and if necessary be destroyed. The adherents of pacifism have so inverted their own mental processes that they look upon the perpetrators of mass slavery and mass murder as good and those who take up arms to defend the society of consent as the most depraved evil.
Now there are some folks, who regard themselves as morally superior beings, who question why the other bastard has to die. The answer of course is that the other bastard is attempting to impose his will, or the will of his leader, upon you by force. It is the act of coercion by force that makes what General Patton called the other bastard an enemy. Peace is simply the absence of enemies. But there are some folks, who pretend to be morally superior beings, who would have us believe that "peace" could be achieved by submission to the will of the other bastard. In reality this is not peace, it is slavery. There are some well meaning people, some of whom that I respect, who believe that there are times that one cannot have both peace and freedom at the same time. I have to disagree. Liberty is simply the condition of existence in which the person is free to live his own life in accordance with his own rational judgment. This does of course require the absence of some other bastard who is attempting to impose his will upon the person by force. In practical terms real peace and real freedom are inseparable. I will go further is saying that to a civilized person, peace, freedom, and security, are simply three words that can be used to describe the identical condition, the absence of another bastard imposing his will upon the civilized person. Contrary to what those who describe themselves as peace activists would have us believe, and as General Patton has ably demonstrated, the path to real peace invariably takes us over the real dead bodies of those other bastards who insist on violently imposing their will upon us. Unfortunately this process is by no means a safe one. Let us take this day to remember those who died on the path to real peace.
A rational study of the real world would show that a real state of Peace is effectively indistinguishable from a state of Liberty and a state of Security. Peace, Liberty, and Security are simply three words that a rational person uses to describe the same condition, the rightful ability to live one's own life without coercive interference by others. A rational study of actual history would show that the state of peace for the citizens of a free nation is the result of the violent elimination of the would be conquerors and their pet quislings. If we rationally examine those who constitute the membership of the so-called Peace Movement we find that virtually every one of them is an open advocate of the coercive subjugation of the productive members of the Human Race. The occasional exception being a self-blinded fool who isn't paying attention to what they're ideologically in bed with. In short, a "peace activist" and the "peace movement" are in fact enemies of Peace.
Peace is only an affirmative value to those who live in the condition of liberty, that is being rightfully in charge of one's self and able to set the goals for one's own life. Peace cannot be a value to the subjects of a totalitarian socialist state. To the victim of such a state -- the ordinary worker who is bullied by a commissar, the inmate of a slave labor camp, or the occupant of a darkened cell awaiting murder at the hands of the local chekists -- war, either an internal uprising against the socialist masters, or an invasion by an army of liberation, is in fact the positive value.
I stand by what I said.
What are your questions on this block of instruction?