George Orwell on Pacifism

Greetings. I've been busy getting settled here in Las Vegas. I'm still working on my book, but I came across an interesting passage. I find it extremely interesting because I recently made the same comment. I am pro war to the extent that I am anti genocide, mass rape, and homicidal dictator. But others, like some LDS leaders from the past, were anti war to the extent they were pro Nazi.

George Orwell said during WWII:

In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro Nazi.

A year later he said:

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.'

Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas (New York: Penguin Group, 2012) 183.

So I love it when I arrive independently to a conclusion similar to that of great minds. It is also nice to have some reinforcements. It seems so simple and easy for so many people to say that violence never solves anything. But then I have to defend how I'm not rabidly pro war, but still think it is just and necessary. Thanks for reading.

What are you doing?

I know I haven't posted in quite awhile. I have very specific reasons for doing so. But I value the time you take to read this blog so I want to provide a brief update.

Home: I'm buying a house. I should close in early November. The logistics on the front and back end are rather daunting and it tends to absorb much of my free thinking.

New Blog: I'm working on a new personal blog. This blog has changed my academic fortune a great deal. I'm hoping a personal blog will do the same for my social life. It should be titled- Adventures in Babe Getting: A slightly outrageous chronicle of a single dad dating in the Mormon world.

New Posts: I have several posts on which I'm working. One of them examines the rhetoric of the pacifist J Reuben Clark. Mainly I show how his contradictory positions, demotion within the church, and tacit support for Nazi and Communist dictators make him a far less reliable source than many think.

I've argued before that anti war advocates cherry pick quotes that support their position. I thought I would list a few in return. These both derive from my reading the rest of the volume: Mormon Perspectives of War. But both of these quotes follow the same theme that I've discussed many times before, and I don't want to become the anti-libertarian blog so I want to cover some other topics before I return for more rebuttal posts.

I have a post that discuses Zeniff's words in Mosiah chapter 9. I want to see if his commander was really so bloodthirsty, and what the text meant by "austere." I'm also wondering what Zeniff means by the good among the Lamanites, especially when he calls them cunning and lazy just a few verses later. I have many questions from the text and haven't been able to organize them just yet.

Books: I am still trying to get my book published. The publishers are taking so long to get back to me, and I'm so frustrated having a manuscript on hand for over a year that I'm ready to self publish it.

I also have another idea in the very early stages. I've met about a half dozen military historians that have books that are published or the in the process of doing so. I thought a volume that took the best of each author would do many valuable things. It would promote the exchange of ideas among military historians, foster a sense of community and increase our readership. It wouldn't bring a big increase to our workloads since most of us can contribute a chapter from a published work, or a chapter that is waiting to be published. I think the new "FARMS" journal, The Interpreter, would be a good place for this project. This seems like the kind of project the old FARMS would love to pursue. But this is the first time I've shared the idea out loud. I would love to hear your thoughts about below.

Thanks for reading.

The Duplicitous Anti War Critic

A short time ago I wrote about the duplicticty of the anti war critic. I argued that when the prophet agrees with their political views the critics mistakenly attach too much weight to that statement. Then they use those words as a cudgel with which to beat their opponents. When a prophet does not agree with them, they use various qualifiers to negate their words. These include things such as speaking as a man, speaking under the cultural influence of the day, or simply giving their non binding opinion. While this sounds disrespectful towards a prophet, the last reason is actually the correct one as outlined by the church. So critics proof text their favorite quotes which agree with their political leanings, and then apply an inappropriate amount of weight to them. They take their cherry picked arguments and beat their opponents over the head with them. And they cast aside their words when they don't.

With this summary you should be able to gather why I disagree with large parts of this interview here. Boyack sponsored a billboard called war like people. This is a classic example of cherry picking non binding quotes to support a political agenda.

But in the interview Boyack also makes it clear in answering question 9, and in comment 7, that he uses prophet's words that support his viewpoints, and ignores those that don't. This is a classic example of the duplicity of the anti war critic. (I would add that he ignores the upstream sources for doctrine in the scriptures and especially The Book of Mormon.) Church doctrine resides in the scriptures, and official proclamations. Statements outside of that are well considered opinions and not binding on the church, especially political opponents.

I don't begrudge Boyack a book or two. Even Snooki wrote a book so its not the end of civilization. But Boyack wants the freedom to ignore church council based on "circumstantial" statements, but then sees the need to cherry pick quotes in his warlike site, and in his foreign policy views and books, so he can then castigate those with whome he disagrees.

While Boyack is simply the most current example, this happens all the time. So I will summarize my feelings on the matter below:

1. I feel it is inappropriate to prooftext a prophet's words to support your political position. Anti mormons use Brigham Young quotes to say all sorts of things that don't represent Mormon doctrine. Yet anti war quotes get a different treatment from some people. Randi Bott used words from past prophets and was soundly censored by the church. President Kimball said:"Please avoid, even by implication, involving the Church in political issues. It is so easy, if we are not careful, to project our personal preferences as the position of the Church on an issue.”

2. It is even more inappropriate to question the spirituality of those that disagree with your prooftexted position. (I call people wrong all the time, but I've never called anybody names or personally attacked them. Although Geoff B. at the Millennial Star is sure tempting me.)

3. The problem is compounded because the church has clearly specified where doctrine comes from; it is not from a smattering of talks from past pacifist prophets.

4. The prophets have, at the very least, contradictory positions on warfare. So what ends up occurring is something I call "prophet bashing", where people take their various prooftexted positions and proceed to beat each other the head with them. (I borrow the term from "bible bashing" that occurs so frequently on a mission.) So you have people who take the GAs that agree with them, like Clark from the 30s and 40s, while explaining away those that don't, such as Hinckley from 2003, and vice versa. I feel this is not a behavior that loving Latter Day Saints should use against their brothers and sisters in the gospel. Again, it is extremely inappropriate to declare a position buttressed by your reading of non doctrinal texts to browbeat and label your opponents as unrighteous.

5. Since the standard works proclaim doctrine and isolated talks do not, I focus on the former. It is a major reason why I have a website devoted to the study of the warfare in The Book of Mormon.

Thanks for reading. Some of you may wonder why I spend so much time rebutting radical libertarians. Most of whom you have probably never heard from and it might seem like I have an ax to grind against them. As a historian I understand how difficult it is to combat mistaken historical ideas that become popular knowledge. The Church is especially prone to this because of the respect and reverence we have for the prophet's words. So it is extremely easy for loud people active around the web to assert what the prophets have supposedly said to support their positions.

It is one thing to cherry pick prophets to support your political position, but their analysis of history is even more wrong.(See here and here for two examples.) And then, instead of simply being doubly wrong, they viciously attack the historical knowledge and spirituality of people who might disagree with them. So I'm insulted in every possible way by these people on a regular basis and feel obligated to set the record straight. Since military history is my wheelhouse, it is also like shooting fish in a barrel.

War and Peace in Our Time

I received the date for the release of my essay in the upcoming volume, War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives. From the website:

Edited by Patrick Q. Mason, J. David Pulsipher, and Richard L. Bushman

These essays reveal how the scriptures, prophetic teachings, history, culture, rituals, and traditions of Mormonism have been, are, and can be used as warrants for a wide range of activities and attitudes—from radical pacifism to legitimation of the United States’ use of preemptive force against its enemies. As a relatively young religion that for much of its early history was simply struggling for survival, Mormonism has not yet fully grappled with some of the pressing questions of war and peace, with all of the attendant theological, social, and political ramifications. Given the LDS Church’s relative stability and measure of prominence and influence in the early twenty-first century, the time is ripe to examine the historical, spiritual, and cultural resources within the tradition that provide a foundation for constructive dialogue about how individual Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church orient themselves in a world of violence. While recognizing the important contributions of previous scholars who had offered analysis and reflection on the topic, these essays offer a more sustained and collaborative examination of Mormon perspectives on war and peace, drawing on both historical-social scientific research as well as more normative (theological and ethical) arguments.

"This provocative and thoughtful book is sure both to infuriate and to delight. It brings together reflections and advocacy pieces by an eclectic and serious group of scholars, national security professionals, and peace activists, united by a common passion to discern within Latter-day Saint scriptures and history patterns of thought concerning the causes of war and the conditions of peace. The contributions range from expansive definitions of national defense to philosophic pacifism and from subtle arguments to crusading manifestos. The essays demonstrate that exegesis of distinctly Latter-day Saint scriptures can yield a wealth of disputation, the equal of any rabbinical quarrel or Jesuitical casuistry. This volume provides a fitting springboard for robust and lively debates within the Mormon scholarly and lay community on how to think about the pressing issues of war and peace." - Robert S. Wood, Dean Emeritus, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Chester W. Nimitz Chair Emeritus, U.S. Naval War College

"This is an extraordinary collection of essays on a topic of extraordinary importance. The editors have deliberately included thoughtful LDS voices on war and peace from a variety of perspectives—from peace activists and veterans to historians and national security professionals. The result is a book that will frustrate easy answers and partisan positions. The Book of Mormon includes both military heroes and a devastating critique of militarism; J. Reuben Clark was indeed a pacifist, but for problematic reasons; Hugh Nibley’s strong aversion to war came directly from his personal experiences on the battlefield, while other Mormons have been able to reconcile their commitment to “renounce war and proclaim peace” with their service in uniform. When is state-sanctioned violence necessary or appropriate? Does war ultimately do more harm than good? Are the alternatives reasonable or realistic? Whatever your current opinion on the topic, this book will challenge you to reflect more deeply and thoroughly on what it means to be a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, in an era of massive military budgets, lethal technologies, and widespread war." - Grant Hardy

I'm honored that my essay seemed to inspire the line about "[legitimizing] the use of preemptive force" found in the first sentence of the book blurb. Although I don't think it is the polar opposite of radical pacifism. If anything, my position articulated the belief of the majority position in the church which supported the war. I hope you buy a copy and enjoy the read.