home > archive > 2003 > this article
The militant peace movement
By Bruce Walker
The left invariably views the nominal as the real. So leftists are fascinated with "welfare" programs, campaigns for "justice" or the "peace" movements. These activities, supposedly intended for one purpose, actually serve the opposite purpose.
Orwell understood. The Ministry of Truth existed to destroy any evidence of truth - physical or mental - in the nightmare land of Oceania. The Ministry of Plenty kept the masses poor. The Ministry of Love was a labyrinth of torture chambers. And the Ministry of Peace insured war.
If Orwell's dystopia sounds familiar to our modern ears, it should. The "news media" and "academic community" exist to conceal information and to propose absurd theories. Social welfare programs manacle people to hopeless poverty. Campaigns for justice nurture injustice. And the peace movement fights peace.
Why are no public demonstrations by "peace lovers" in the streets of Bagdad against Hussein? Why do our indigenous "peace lovers" not hold up signs condemning both George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein? The sad truth is that the "peace movement" vents anger only at America.
True peace terrifies the peace movement. If America liberated Iraq and helped the Iranian people throw off their odious and corrupt theocracy, then homicide bombing in Israel might cease. Terrorism might diminish to irrelevance. The disease of ordered liberty might contaminate Syria, Libya, Sudan and who knows where else? The reason for vulgar and vicious activities by "peace" advocates would vanish.
Humanity has groups which have rejected violence on principle. Quakers talk the talk, but they also walk the walk. Several streams of Eastern metaphysical thought also embrace true and absolute nonviolence. These are not the same people who constitute the screaming, abusive and confrontational "peace movement."
The "peace movement"during the Second World War consisted largely of Marxists, who urged the democracies to reject war and embrace peace during the two-year honeymoon between Hitler and Stalin. These "peace" advocates blamed Britain, not Germany, for the Second World War.
They organized strikes of armaments factories in the democracies and opposed ROTC programs on college campuses. They shrilly screamed for "peace!" right up to the moment that Hitler invaded Russia. Then, of course, the "peace movement" disappeared.
Mussolini and Hitler did not really want peace, but both pretended to favor peace over war. Mussolini, before the First World War began, was a war protestor against Italy's wars outside of Europe. Did this change his public advocacy of peace when he ruled Fascist Italy? Consider these excerpts from a speech Mussolini gave in October 1933:
"I refuse to believe that the authentic people of Britain will want to spill blood...I shall do everything in my power to prevent...a European war."
The Nazis also claimed to want peace. The party platform demanded the death penalty for war profiteers and the confiscation of all profits earned from war production. Hitler also repeated often his wish for peace. Read these lines from a speech in September 1938:
"I have attacked all seemingly impossible problems with a firm resolve to solve them peacefully if at all feasible...I am a front soldier myself and I know how terrible war is...I extended a hand to England...to safeguard permanent peace between nations...We are not interested in breaking peace...I am thankful to Mr. Chamberlain...and I assured him that the German people wants nothing but peace."
Those remarks are not out of context or not atypical of Hitler's speeches. He spouted pious nonsense about "loving peace" clear through 1941.
Churchill, by contrast, told the truth. He spoke of "blood, toil, sweat and tears" and of "fighting them on the beaches, in fields, in streets and on the hills." When asked what was the policy of Britain, Churchill replied: "I say it is to wage war by land, sea and war. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy."
George W. Bush and Tony Blair, like Winston Churchill and FDR, love peace enough to defend it. Ultimately, peace requires defeating evil. The "peace movement"(or the "selective indignation movement") of today is no better today than the "peace movement" of 1940, which found everything that Churchill and the British people did bad and everything that Hitler did to crush Britain a reaction to British warmongering. This so-called "peace movement" is full of militance, not peace.
Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent
contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.