Pacifists, Parasites, Ingrates − Oh My!

By | October 12, 2017 | 1 Comments


Churchill warns Parliament of the danger of Hitler’s arms buildup, but he is called a “warmonger.”
News report, 1939

Trump warns U.N. of the danger of Iranian and North Korean arms buildup, but he is called a “warmonger.”
News report, 2017

Sheep have only two speeds, graze and stampede.
− Brad Thor, “The Last Patriot”

You can’t handle the truth.
− Jack Nicholson, playing Marine Col. Jessup in “A Few Good Men

The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.
– Albert Einstein

Unarmed men, and unarmed nations, can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.
− John D. “Jeff” Cooper, Lt. Col., USMC (Ret.); firearms authority

I have seen much war in my life, and I detest it profoundly. But there are worse things than war, and they all come with defeat.
− Ernest Hemingway

“What keeps you awake at night?” “Nothing, I keep other people awake at night.”
‒ Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis

When you don’t have a hammer, no problem ever looks like a nail.
– Bret Stephens, “America in Retreat

Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep.
– Rudyard Kipling, “Tommy

When I die, you need to pick up my gun and keep fighting.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, Benghazi, 9/11/12

Pacifists believe that all use of force is immoral. These people are ignorant of history. They live in a dream world. But why do they hold such unrealistic beliefs?

Moral confusion.

Pacifists oppose any use of force. But paradoxically, they object more strongly to defensive force than to aggressive force. This is an odd form of blame-the-victim. When Russia invaded Georgia, Barack Obama called on both sides to show restraint. To advise a small person who is being attacked by a large person to “show restraint” is similar to saying, “Just die quietly and don’t bother me.”

These people try to exempt themselves from the Biblical command not to stand by idly when our neighbor’s life is at stake (Leviticus 19:16).They create a moral fog so thick that aggressor is indistinguishable from defender, and criminal from victim. But we can see their high-sounding pacifism for what it is – cold indifference.

To these people, it is “gun control” to block law-abiding citizens from having guns, but somehow it is not “gun control” to jail armed criminals. They favor banning gun ownership by the law-abiding, but they oppose “use a gun, go to jail” laws for criminals.

Pacifists argue that resisting a criminal will only get you killed. But in fact, one who uses a gun to resist a criminal is least likely to be injured or killed. One who does not resist is more likely to be hurt, and one who resists unarmed is most likely.

Similarly, opponents of missile-defense systems protest that our ability to stop incoming missiles will only make things worse. Yet they object less strongly, or not at all, when terrorist states like North Korea attempt to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

Weapons of mass destruction don’t frighten these people, but our ability to block the weapons really upsets them.

Perhaps a psychiatrist could explain this opposition to self-defense, for individuals and for nations. Perhaps guilt feelings evoke a sense of being unworthy to be defended. But whatever the cause, it is dangerous to oppose the right of self-defense, while − at the same time − finding every conceivable excuse for criminal behavior.


Pacifists support strict gun-control laws. If use of force by nations is wrong, then use of force by private citizens − even in self-defense − is equally wrong. But this belief is often hypocritical.

First we have obvious hypocrites ‒ politicians and media stars who don’t trust us “ordinary” citizens to own guns, but who themselves have permits to carry guns, or who can afford armed bodyguards.

Then we have liberals who live in upscale suburbs and work in elite office buildings. They feel no need for self-defense, so they can’t empathize with those who live or work in high-crime areas − especially the poor and minorities. Lack of empathy is an odd trait for those who call themselves liberals.

Anti-gun zealots claim that the mere presence of a gun makes one more likely to be murdered. But if they really believed this, they would post signs in front of their houses stating, “There are no guns in this home.” I have never seen a home with such a sign. Have you?

Criminals don’t know who is armed and take care to select unoccupied homes to burglarize. “Hot” burglaries, where criminals intentionally break in while people are home, are much more common in nations where people are not allowed to own guns, and much rarer in the United States. Victims of “hot” burglaries are often killed or injured. Obviously, if the occupants are away when their house is burglarized, they are never hurt.

Strict gun laws make life more dangerous for the law-abiding but safer for criminals. Anti-gun activists never admit this, but they acknowledge it by their actions − they never post “no guns” signs.


Some time ago, I saw a new Mercedes with a bumper sticker reading, “War is not the answer.” It was parked near the UCLA campus. I wondered if the owner had given a moment’s thought to why he enjoys the right to protest against his government, why he has access to a center of learning, or why Mercedes now makes cars instead of tanks.

The answer to these questions lay close by, in the Westwood National Cemetery. But I doubt that the bumper-sticker man goes by there every Memorial Day to say thanks, as I do. Does he understand that he owes his freedom to the troops who fought and bled to preserve it?

War is the answer if the question is, “What ended slavery?” or “What stopped the Nazis and Japanese fascists?” or “What ended the Holocaust?” But war is not the answer if the question is, “What’s for dinner?”

Evasion of responsibility.

Crime is a national problem. But it is easier and more politically correct to ignore crime and talk about guns. Weapons of mass destruction are a world problem. But it is easier and more politically correct to ignore them and talk about global warming. If you doubt this, just listen to Democratic politicians.

In this way, people can shirk their duty, accomplish nothing − and still feel self-righteous. How safe for the cowardly. How expedient for the dishonest. How effortless for the lazy. How ego-gratifying for the self-absorbed. How comforting for the deluded. But how dangerous for all the rest of us.


Pacifists and anti-gun activists are freeloaders. They enjoy the benefits without doing the work. They reap the rewards without taking the risks.

● They wouldn’t dirty their hands by touching a gun. But they enjoy a low rate of “hot” burglaries because an unknown number of their neighbors own guns.

● They hold police in disdain as would-be fascists. They favor laws that hamper the police. But they phone 9-1-1 whenever they sense danger − and then complain if the cops don’t arrive promptly and act effectively.

● They belittle our troops as ignorant losers. They oppose funding for better training, modern equipment, or adequate pay. But they sleep soundly, dreaming peaceful dreams, while our troops face discomfort and danger to keep them safe.

● They look down with contempt on those who support gun ownership, support the police, or support our troops. But they enjoy the benefits of the policies that these “contemptible” people uphold.

Sincere people, people with integrity, are grateful for what benefits them. But freeloaders can benefit from something and still despise it.

If anti-gun zealots were sincere, they would post “no guns” signs in front of their homes, rather than benefit indirectly from their neighbors’ guns.

If anti-police activists were sincere, they would take responsibility for protecting their loved ones and themselves.

If anti-military fanatics were sincere, they would move to a nation with a weak military − you know, like Georgia, or perhaps Tibet.

But some people aren’t sincere. They would never follow these suggestions. It would be too dangerous − physically dangerous, and dangerous to their unrealistic belief systems.

Instead, they proclaim their high-sounding, ivory-tower slogans, while acting in a more selfish and practical fashion.

Instead, they bask in the safety provided for them by those they insult and oppose at every step.

If there is a better description of ingrates, hypocrites, and parasites, I have yet to hear it.

Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,
But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.
− Hilaire Belloc, “The Pacifist”

As long as Roaring Bill is in town, it’s not safe to be Pale Ebenezer. It’s a lot safer to be Dangerous Donald, the guy who knows his way around a .45. We can close our eyes to this fact, but that doesn’t make it less of a fact.

And now, to the list of evils that were stopped by violence, we add the Las Vegas massacre.

It was not stopped by the ACLU, which files lawsuits against police.
It was not stopped by libertarians, who view all government with suspicion.
It was not stopped by Black Lives Matter, who view all police with suspicion.
It was not stopped by lawyers, who study papers rather than the outside world.
It was not stopped by pacifists, who disdain all violence, even defensive violence.
It was not stopped by anti-gun activists, who disarm the law-abiding.
No, it was stopped by Las Vegas Metro SWAT, who blew in the door with an explosive charge, causing the mass murderer to kill himself before they killed him.

Do you think, just possibly, there may be a lesson here?

Contact: You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Social Widgets powered by