6,275,283,237 People worldwide (vanity)

If this were a poll with 30 million samples it would have a margin of error close to 0.0183%. This number of samples represent 0.478% of the world population.

I have seen many polls taken in the United States with a margin of error of 3%. That 3% margin of error means the poll results were determined by less than 1200 samples, 1111 samples to be exact.

That means that U.S. political parties take decisions based on the results obtained by polling less than 0.000396% of the population.

Comparing 0.000396% to 0.478% prompts me to ponder what decisions will be taken by those in power.

Just as true today..

Michael Kelly

September 26, 2001

Pacifists are not serious people ~ Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.

Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.

It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea becomes. It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede. It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?

Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more violence.

There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as occupying the moral position. But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked--a situation such as we are now in--pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.

In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's pacifists:

``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, `he that is not with me is against me.'''

England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support this outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans--perhaps a great many more--to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.

Given a choice, I'll cast my lot with the masses.

Then a lemming you would be.

One man of moral clarity is a majority in a sea of ignorance, vanity and nilism.

I was talking about the choice between the political elite and the masses. We apparently differ but I believe that the chief enemies today of "moral clarity" are the political elites. In fact, I would argue (and Jefferson would agree with me) that the best example of a "lemming" would be someone who blindly trusts his political leaders. If you want to find that rare commodity of "moral clarity," you are far more likely to find it in the ranks of the masses (though there too it will be hard to find) rather than among the politicians.

Apparently you miss the point of FR. It is a rare FReeper that blindly follows any politician.

On the contrary, almost every leftist follows some politician blindly, whether they admit it or not. Mostly they follow dead communists, whom history has proven their theories to be false.

CLICK FOR EARLIER STORY

I apparently missed your posting. I usually look closer than that before posting. But what the heck, it may be worth reminding some folks again about the numbers. Thanks for pointing out the duplicate post.

6,275,283,237 People worldwide oppose the anti-war protesters in its efforts to support Iraq.