Jeremy Runnells is a Total Poser

    I commented over on Hanna Seariac's facebook page about what she labels as men unfairly flexing their power against a less powerful female. 

    So I think Runnells schtick is hilarious and read his response for kicks and giggles. [It is long, but hit control f and type Hanna.] 

    What's ironic to me is that Runnells ignores the implication in your post that you should do better research and then claims that your post is a thought stop technique. Then two paragraphs later he calls the CES a "head jack" and links to a picture of some robot with a hole for downloading information. The article says its the port that connects you to the matrix. That screams cultish programming to me so apparently Runnells has as little grasp of irony as he does scholarship.

    But then in his own post he says it's "simply a letter," "not a thesis for a Phd," not a "textbook" or "dry scientific paper," and not "rigorous" which sure sounds like he agrees with you.

    Yet in the same breath he claims his CES letter leads into his line by line debunking, which he implies, is the pinnacle of in depth research because it is thousands of pages of rebuttals. I've looked at the rebuttals that intersect with my research and he is laughable. For example, here he simply invokes "science" while being factual incorrect, ignorant of history, and not having a good grasp of the research and analysis that makes strong conclusions. 

    The truth is that Runnells is a total poser. He takes the mantle of scholarship and all the associating benefits and prestige when it suits him, and runs away from the burden of creating and defending scholarship when used to critique him.

    This explains why he can take offense at your criticism of the letter not being serious research at the same time that he says it's not a rigorous piece of scholarship, and right before he invokes his debunking articles as the final word of serious scholarship. He's the best scholar in the world, except when he has to defend his "research," and then he isn't.

I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating by using the pay pal button below. Or consider buying one of my books linked in the top left.

Bad Quotes and Good Ideas

 

    I have a new book coming out, someday, called Beyond Sunzi: Classical Debates on Chinese War and Statecraft. The book was exciting to write as I showed how various strands of Chinese thought interact with each other. I mention it here, besides venting my frustration at glacial publishers, because I see lots of false quotes with somewhat catchy ideas with no sources that don't pass the smell test. Here is a link to many of the worst quotes.

    What’s interesting though is that many of these lousy or fake points are related to good points found in Chinese writing. This post lists a bunch of fake quotes followed by good ideas that are represented in classical Chinese theory (and sometimes elsewhere.)  Because I’m so often responding to memes that have no sourcing at all, I’m making sure to show you the translation and page number I take it from.

 "A leader leads by example, not by force?"

    This has some relation to the teachings of Shen Pu Hai (Shenzi.) He talked about a ruler's need to display inaction or a placid mirror, so his ministers don't try to change their opinions to curry favor. This is more of a Daoist kind of actionless action.[1]

"Sweat more during peace: bleed less during war."

    This sounds a bit like a description of the Roman army by Josephus where he says that Roman training maneuvers were like bloodless battles, and battles like bloody maneuvers.

"If quick, I survive. If not quick, I am lost. This is 'death.'"

    The cadence sounds correct. Classical writing often follows something called the four-character formula. Mao’s basic rules for guerilla warfare was so popular and easier to remember because they were 4 sets of 4 character formulas. Because of the strong stylistic resemblance, it could be from a bad translation of Sunzi though I’ve read multiple translations and still don’t recognize it. 

    Sunzi often talked about quick wars, fast movement, and seizing something the enemy wants. On quick wars, “a victory that is long in coming will blunt their blades and dampen their ardor.”[2] On forcing enemy movement, “One who excels at moving the enemy deploys in a configuration to which the enemy must respond. He offers [or seizes according to Sun Bin] something which the enemy must seize.[3] Moving quickly was something that Confucians valued.

"Victory is reserved for those who are willing to pay its price."

    The points sounds like this from the Wei Liaozi, though this line is disputed (see the next point). "I have heard that in antiquity those who excelled in employing the army could bear to kill half of their officers and soldiers."[4]

"Who does not know the evils of war cannot appreciate its benefits."

    I don't know ANY author that would say this. Sunzi stressed the benefits of winning without battle mostly due to the high material cost of warfare (see above). Confucians would point to the needless loss of life. Legalists would be upset at the economic impact of losing so many farmers/ taxbase. I tried to get, "wading through blood and treading through guts" into my title because that summarizes how pretty much every writer found battle.

"When you understand what suits the terrain…investigate the rules for marching and formation…White blades meet; flying arrows are exchanged; you wade through blood and tread through guts; you cart the dead away and support the wounded; the blood flows for a thousand li; exposed corpses fill the field; thus victory is decided. This is the lowest use of the military."[5]

    Sun Bin, a purported lineal descendant of Sunzi, advised against commanders that employ them like tossed chunks of earth and grass.[6]

    The writer considered the prototypical Confucian minister, Guanzi, said that if the people were forced to crack the bones of their children for cooking then the state uproots itself.[7]

"The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds."

    This one sounded close to something but is not in Sunzi’s text. It is in the history about him. After executing the king’s concubines because they failed to follow orders correctly the king dismissed the army. Sunzi responded to him, “Your majesty only likes the words, he is not able to realize their substance.”[8] That is a close enough translation, but it is not in the Art of War!! Moreover, his concept of punishment was disputed by many, including Sun Bin who said it wasn’t urgent.[9]

"Convince your enemy that he will gain very little by attacking you; this will diminish his enthusiasm."

    The general point is echoed in many places. Sunzi talked about displaying profit to entice the enemy and dampening their chi by waiting to attack. Sun Bin and Wuzi talked about how to manipulate the enemy. Here is the former:

The enemy’s generals are courageous and difficult to frighten. Their weapons are strong, their men numerous and self-reliant. All the warriors of their Three Armies are courageous and untroubled. Their generals are awesome, their soldiers are martial, their officers strong, and their provisions well supplies. None of the feudal Lords dares contend with them. How should we strike them?

To strike them, announce that you do not dare fight. Show them that you are incapable; sit about submissively and await them in order to make their thoughts arrogant and apparently accord with their ambitions. Do not let them recognize your ploy. Thereupon strike where unexpected, attack where they do not defend, apply pressure where they are indolent, and attack their doubts.[10]

"In peace, prepare for war. In war, prepare for peace."

    At first glance this sounded like a Latin phrase, and it is indeed: If you want peace prepare for war.

"Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust."

    This echoes a point that Confucians would make about the importance of character, proper rites, filial piety and the dangers of a corrupt state. Xunzi talked about nations that had the sharpest swords, highest mountains, toughest armor, and yet because they forfeited the mandate of heaven they fell.

"The men of Ch’u make armor out of sharkskin and rhinoceros hides, and it is so tough it rings like metal or stone. They carry steel spear made in Yuan, sharp as the sting of a wasp, and move as nimbly and swiftly as a whirlwind. [Notice the reference to swift movement.] And Chu’s troops were defeated at Chiu sha and their general Tang Mei, was killed; and…the state was ripped apart. Surely this did not come about because Chu lacked stout armor and sharp weapons. Rather it was because its leaders did not follow the proper way."[11]

    Confucius wrote that "an inhumane man cannot long abide in comfort."[12] And: "Only when the year turns freezing cold do we realize that pine and cypress are the last to winter."[13]

    Wei Liaozi wrote: The perfected man [chunzi] does not stop criminals more than five paces away….If you flog a person’s back, brand his ribs, or compress his fingers in order to question him about the nature of his offense, even a state hero could not withstand this cruelly and would falsely implicate himself.[14]

    As you can see, these are bad quotes but good ideas. Some are real quotes that are attributed to someone else. But most of these are bastardized ideas that have little relation to Sunzi and some relation to Chinese thought if you know Chinese well enough. Luckily, I do and have a book about it coming out soon. The zi/ tzu ending in Chinese means master, and they were masters of their craft. It’s a shame people don’t put much energy into learning from such great texts, many of which are translated and easily available, but rely on diluted ideas and fake quotes.

Thanks for reading! I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or you can buy one of my books using the link in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Herlee Creel trans., Shen Pu Hai: A Chinese Philosopher of the 4th Century, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 249, 351.

[2] Ralph Sawyer trans., The Art of War, in The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, (New York: Westview Press, 1993), 159.

[3] Ralph Sawyer trans., Sun Bin: The Art of Warfare,(Westview Press, 1995), 165, 186. One line reads: cause the enemy to roll up his armor and race far off.

[4] Sawyer, Wei Liaozi in the Seven Classics, 276.

[5] Andrew Seth Meyer trans., Huainanzi, by Liu An, chapt 15, (New York: Columbia University Press), 103.

[6] Sawyer, Sun Bin, 200.

[7] W. Allyn Rickett, Guanzi: Political, Economic, and Philosophic Essays from Early China v.1, (Princeton: Princeton University press, 1985), 294.

[8] Spring and Autumn Annals as quoted by Sawyer, Seven Classics, 151.

[9] Sawyer, Sun Bin, 90.

[10] Sawyer, Sun Bin, 169.

[11] Burton Watson trans., Xunzi: Basic Writings, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 71-73.

[12] Chicung Huang, The Analects of Confucius, (London: Oxford University Press, 1997), 67.

[13] Ibid., 107.

[14] Sawyer, Wei Liaozi, 258.

Unexpected Warfare Verses in the Book of Mormon

 

    I continue to research just war theories. It has been richly rewarding, particularly regarding LDS scriptures. Just like I mentioned with Chinese theory, I find that the Book of Mormon answers questions that I didn’t know were being asked until I started studying important topics.

    What follows are a few scriptures that take on new meaning with a knowledge of Just War theory. One of the reasons for writing the book is not simply to show congruency with the just war “checklist.” (Just authority, just cause, proportionality, just peace.) But how the Book of Mormon interacts agrees, disagrees, or expands on the theory, and how those theories highlight verses we might not have thought applied to warfare. I list them in order of my discoveries of them so they might bounce around a bit, but they reveal a surprisingly robust and coherent theory that we didn’t know was there.

2 Nephi 28:7

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

    This is a short summary of an interesting philosophy that touches upon Enlightenment thought increasingly seen in the modern age and relates to an important contrast of the people of Ammon and late Nephite soldiers.

    Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke increasingly focused on natural law and secular rights instead of Biblical proof texts. This accommodated the growing scientific belief and provided key ideas about the American right to revolt and basic rights found in the Declaration of Independence and applied across different ethnic and religious boundaries. But it presented some changes that contained a contradiction. The most important change had to do with human life. Religion presents the life as having something after. That made the spiritual state of the participants and potential deaths important. It is why, for example, the Nephites were so sad to send so many Lamanites to the afterworld (Alma 48:23).

    The movement away from a religious based belief in the afterlife makes those lives more important during their mortal frame and death more tragic. This makes human suffering and death more worthy of humanitarian intervention and makes those interventions and potential wars more causality averse at the same time.[1] This is clearly seen applied to American foreign policy. Public opinion supports various humanitarian interventions such as Somalia or Bosnia, but a handful of casualties and downed Blackhawk helicopters produce such angst among policy makers that the mission immediately ended.

    The lack of afterlife also undermines the idea of sacrifice. If there are no treasures in Heaven that demand duty and sacrifice of a soldier (Matthew 6:20), then there are fewer reasons to abandon the pleasures of life such as eating, drinking, and being merry. Plenty of reasons remain for the use of force, such as a natural right to self-defense and immediate dangers to family, community, and defense of other rights.  But the lack of idea that souls continue in the afterlife makes the potential conflict more costly and seemingly tragic.

    The people to whom Nephi refers seem to have a much narrower viewpoint. They don’t worry about the afterlife; they care about their immediate surroundings and pleasure. This could be a truly prophetic vision that at least hinted at future philosophies that focused more on mortal life at the expense of sacrifice and duty (to God but also to a country), and that abandoned the afterlife.  

    The second way it applies to just warfare is seen in the contrasting attitudes of the Anti-Nephi Lehis and late Nephite soldiers. The former praised God in the very act of being killed (Alma 24:21). The late Nephite soldiers in contrast, cursed God, wished to die, but kept on fighting anyway (Mormon 2: 14). The first difference is listed by Mormon. It should be uprising that he began the verse by saying they did not have a broken heart and contrite spirit. As I’ve found, the heart problems are an important part of just warfare. And having a bad heart leads to bad attitudes. The Anti Nephi Lehis praised God, thanked his mercy, and were too afraid of sinning to take up their swords. Showing a longer-range view of their mortal life than the eat, drink and be merry crowd Nephi saw, and modern enlightenment influenced thinkers, the Anti Nephi Lehis were convinced they would be saved with God in direct contrast to their imminent deaths (Alma 24:15). The late Nephite soldiers cursed God, their eating, drinking, and being merry apparently brought them no value, they wanted to die, but kept fighting anyway. They didn’t have faith in, or didn’t care about the afterlife and their attitudes towards God’s grace, and fighting reflected that. They were hopeless and didn’t turn to a source for that hope. That represents Nephi’s discussion of those that try to eat, drink, and be merry, and fear death but still try to squeeze as much debauchery in that life.

2 Nephi 28:24

Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!

    This section is a bit shorter because it refers to those that are at ease in the heart of their security (Alma 60:19.)  Captain Moroni referenced the same idea, though Zion was an abstract concept more than physical capital of Nephite lands. Alma 60:22: Moroni said, Yea, will ye sit in idleness while ye are surrounded with thousands of those, yea, and tens of thousands, who do also sit in idleness, while there are thousands round about in the borders of the land who are falling by the sword, yea, wounded and bleeding?

2 Nephi 31:20

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

    It doesn’t surprise me that the capstone of Nephi’s teachings regards the heart. The chapter in my future book about heart problems will be the most important. Even though I will mostly discuss it in relation to 3^rd Nephi, I think I will put it first. After describing modern philosophies that discount the afterlife try to rob God’s justice, Nephi tells you the antidote which is appropriately focused on the heart. Having a brightness of hope and love of God. I’ll admit as a military historian and not a theologian I don’t think or talk about love that much, though I hope (no pun intended) that I show it.  But regarding just warfare it is really the key to just intent. And a major message in the Book of Mormon.

    After writing and reflecting on this piece it turned out that this cohesive because the elements of just war logically flow into each other, and the ancient writers of the Book of Mormon were devoted, dutiful, and thoughtful writers of their sacred history. Of course, their words integrate themselves rather well into Christian just war thinkers.  I hope you enjoyed this piece and I look forward to more writing that shows how the Book of Mormon engages Just War ideas beyond the shallow proof texts currently cited. This post was originally much longer, but I spun off a section of it that will hopefully be presented later this year or part of the book. Thanks for reading!

I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books using the link in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] David D. Corey, and J. Daryl Charles. Just War Tradition : An Introduction, (Princeton University Press: 2012), 159.

Heart Problems, The Book of Mormon and The Just War Tradition

    I’ve talked about this issue before. In my first thoughts on preemptive war I discussed how if you read the account carefully in Mormon 4 he is complaining about their false oaths, bloodlust, and not that strategy. As I wrote:

    Mormon 3:15 also seems to prohibit preemptive war. However, the real sin recorded by Mormon was not the offensive tactics but rather the bloodlust and vengeance that dictated Nephite strategy (v. 14). One might also say it was their false oath (to a false god?) in Mormon 3:10 that finally forced Mormon into his utter refusal. Again, that doesn’t have much to do with their strategy. The seemingly unequivocal anti-war sentiment expressed in Mormon 4:4 does not record any saying of the Lord, but can just as easily represent a strategic description… If this is a command against offensive action it is also contradicted by other writings by Mormon. This is most clearly seen in a reevaluation of Alma 48:14. The traditional understanding of this verse is a prohibition against offensive warfare. But a slightly different reading suggests the Nephites are rather commanded to never “give an offense” except “against an enemy” and “to preserve their lives” (Alma 61:3).

    I expanded on that concept just a short time ago with many examples from the Book of Mormon.

    In Mosiah the people of Limhi were in bondage due to iniquity not strategy (Mosiah 23:12) In the multiple descriptions of Captain Moroni, not delighting in bloodshed was more important than strategy (Mormon 7:4). We might compare that attitude with the how the Lamanites are recorded as “rejoicing over the blood of the Nephites” (Alma 48:25). This could also be another ethno centric account of “barbarous cruelty” of the other side (Alma 48:24).  

    None of the above has to do with strategy. That might seem like an awkward admission given the point of the blog. But it gives me the impression that when we are exclusively debating strategy, we are missing the point. We should be examining our collective hearts. Yet we can’t ignore strategy either.  We can’t see inside other people, and we are too quick to judge and accuse other people based on strategies. We aren’t asked to sit passively on our thrones, but to resist whatever evil with swords that we couldn’t with words (Alma 60:21; 61:14). While it is secondary to our hearts, deciding when and how to engage in warfare still matters.

The Heart in Just War

    With those passages in mind I’ve been rather impressed with that dualism in the Christian Just War tradition. Most of their writings have focused on the difference between the mind and body. In reviewing the church fathers most of them commented on the general nature of Christians to be peaceable, content, and conciliatory as Justin Martyr said.[1] But contrary to popular perception, they still didn’t reject soldiering. Christians are recorded by Tertullian as fighting (he only rejected the danger of idolatrous military ceremonies), and many Christian fathers like Clement supported the state’s right to use force, and prayed for the success of the emperors army. The summary of the two positions to be peaceful and to fight in wars after hundreds of years of early Christian thought was given as a “vengeful spirit that is denounced” not force itself.[2]

    I find this particularly interesting as this is how I’ve responded to those that try to bash soldiers and non-pacifists over the head with Section 98. It says to renounce war and proclaim peace. I agree, in my heart I oppose and denounce warfare, but its unfortunately something that is justified on occasion. They never liked that answer as they believe the section should lead to an avoidance of warfare. Duane Boyce has done an excellent job of showing how unworkable that section is as a guide to foreign policy.[3]  

    The mention of “unfortunate” in the previous sentence is important, as the Nephites were “sorry” to take up arms against their brethren because they didn’t want to shed blood, and send so many damned souls back to God before they could repent. (Alma 48:23) Both ideas are found and even prevalent in Christian thought. Augustine was just as worried about where the souls of dead soldiers would go as he was about warfare itself. The Medieval monk Gratian warned that force should be used for love of justice, not for love of inflicting punishment.

    Augustine started the concept of “benevolent harshness” which is a term he uses to describe the mindset that should accompany the actions. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but he used the example of a parent that punishes a child. That punishment is harsh, but it is done out of love and Martin Luther compared it to a doctor that has to save the patient by sawing off a limb. Modern writers might think of it as major dental work like a root canal. Its painful but necessary and the dentist does it out of a sense of compassion to save the patient from long term pain.

    John Locke focused on natural rights more than scriptures but comes to the same conclusions. John Lock said it was permissible to defend against aggression, but force should only be used as calm reason and conscience dictate, and not in extravagant passion. When I hear about passion and anger, I’m reminded of a great body of Chinese literature that stressed the avoidance of fighting out of anger and it’s connection to spiritual principles.

    Cao Mie said that a legendary ruler should reject “rage and fury’s mindset.”[4]This is an important command that receives treatment in multiple records. In a rare point of agreement the Five Lost Classics said that rage can be an ulcer for the emperor.[5] This is important as anger can cloud the needed analysis of a ruler or general and lead to rash commands from a ruler, or what I call strategic idiocy, and tactically it can incite soldiers to plunder and punish the people.

    This hot anger would also make it difficult for the ruler to see subtle items that indicate significant items. For example, by being angry at another ruler he might miss important elements of analysis such as the way the ministers respond to the ruler, the quality of soldiers and all the things that a ruler should do in assessing the upcoming war and calculating in the temple: [The ruler who uses] these principles to pacify and calm their own desires in order to hear what is said, to examine activities, to discuss all things…Although these things are not the matter at hand, by seeing the subtle you shall know the greater significance.[6]

The Heart Reconciles War with Sermon on the Mount

    Most importantly than missing important strategic signs, it leads to tactical aggression and massacres. The angry heart, in Christian or Chinese thought leads to increased violations of ethical or moral conduct. The greatest example of this avoidance comes from the Sermon on the Mount.  There, we are commanded to be peacemakers and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:9, 38). This has been elevated by some, including pacifists from antiquity to the present into binding prohibitions against warfare.[7]  But they are not binding and exclusive scriptures. John the Baptist didn’t command the centurion to abandon his profession, but only be content and deal justly (Luke 3:14).  Jesus met a soldier and praised his faith, also without telling him to quit his beatitude breeching military service (Matthew 8:8-10). Jesus himself didn’t turn the other cheek when confronted by high priests (John 18:23). And just about every just war thinker cited Romans 13:1-4, where Christians should be subject to earthly authority and rulers are God’s servant when they use the sword. Paul Ramsey probably provides the most succinct explanation of how force can be loving. Using the example of the Good Samaritan, sometimes a person, or government representing the people must use force to protect and be a good neighbor.[8] That loving force also provides the important limits included in just war because the force to stop victimization shouldn’t be used in such a reckless and aggressive manner that it creates new victims.  All of this is before we consider restoration scriptures that clearly outline the just use of force.  

Conclusion

    In short, the heart problems I’ve discussed go to the central argument of Christians for how to turn the other cheek and be peacemakers, while at the same time making and prosecuting warfare. The answer first formed by Augustine (with some traces in early Christian thought) and then refined by later thinkers was that people’s hearts should always remain peaceful. Warfare should be done for a sense of justice, and not because of loving warfare, plunder, and punishment.

    As I’ve mentioned before, it is nice to read about topics I’ve already discussed. It provides confidence that I’m on the right track and my analysis is keen. In this case, the concept of heart problems I first discussed over ten years ago is part of a long tradition of great thinkers (and okay ones like me) that discussed how to reconcile the City of God and the kingdoms of men. This concept will be a pivotal chapter in the next book I’m writing. The chapter will cover 3^rd Nephi and Christ’s retelling of the Sermon the Mount, and naturally reconcile the rest of Book of Mormon with Christ’s Sermon. The entire book will fully engage restoration texts with the concept of Just War. As Benjamin Hertzog said, it is vital for LDS thought to intellectually emerge from the confines of the mountain valleys the Saints once occupied, and engage the robust body of thought that exists.[9]

 I work as a freelance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or buy one of my books linked in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] David Corey, J. Daryl Charles, Just War Tradition: An Introduction (ISI Institution, 2012), 29.

[2] Ibid., 47.

[3] Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed (West Jordan UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 156-157.

[4] Caldwell, Ernest. “Promoting Action in Warring States Political Philosophy: A first Look at the Chu Manuscript Cao Mie’s Battle Arrays.” Early China 37.1 (2014): 259–289.

[5] Robin Yates trans., Five Lost Classics, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), 113.

[6] Michael Broschat trans., Guiguzi: A Textual Study and Translation, (University of Washington PhD Thesis, 1998), 142-143.

[7] This material will be an important chapter of my book and I plan to offer specific examples from pacifists, discuss why modern pacifism was a reaction to increased deadliness of weapons, and the other scriptures of the New Testament, including examples from Jesus, that undermine using the Sermon on the Mount exclusively. For brevity I didn't include it here.

[8] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (Rowan and Littlefield, 202),143-144.

[9] Hertzberg, Benjamin R. (2014) "Just War and Mormon Ethics," Mormon Studies Review: Vol. 1 : No. 1 , Article 15.