Dialectics and the ‘pro vs anti-war’ con

Posted on by

One of the more effective, and infuriating dialectical tricks of the left is the moving from one level of abstraction which is actually relevant to another one that is not.

On this site we have covered this theme many many times. But its importance now deserves another visit as it is being used to potential great harm when it comes to the Israel-Iran war. Or for that matter, the Ukraine Russia war, or any war people are made to care about enough that it is worth the cost of the propaganda effort.

Early in the days of WWII there was a large anti-war effort by leftists across the USA. Nothing like we see now of course, but it was organized and would look familiar. Far less kinetic than today’s and certainly less vulgar, but based on the same con.

That war itself is inherently bad, and anyone who wants war is bad, and not engaging in war is always good.

I will step out on a limb here and say that all the organizers of all these anti-war protests in the West are indeed very pro-war, but on the other side.

War is generally a horrible horrible thing. But when it is done on a cost benefit basis, it’s just like any other decision. Is it more costly in lives, treasure or liberty to wage war or not. Is surrender to an existential enemy better than a war for the survival of your people, however you may define “your people”?

Then we get to the issue of preemptive strikes. In theory, it is always vastly cheaper in every way to destroy an enemy’s capacity to destroy you before they have it than it is to defend yourself against that capacity and face all out war as in WW1 and WW2.

Israel’s strike on the Osirak reactor in Iraq was an excellent move. Not even the Russians, who were the Iraqi protectorates at the time during the Cold War, wanted Iraq to have the bomb. So there was agreement between the US, The USSR and Israel that Israel should fly a sortie over the reactor, take it out, the Soviets would object at the Security Council, the US would veto the objection and end of story. Everyone was happy and certainly a lot safer.

Iran has been stating for decades that it intends to build nuclear bombs and use them against Israel and the United States. They have spent billions on facilities and technology to do exactly that. And, each year that goes by where this capacity was not removed, has made the operation more risky, more expensive and more dangerous to do.

Clearly however, the point de bascule has arrived. The chance to remove the Mullah’s regime’s capacity to build and deliver nukes is fading. And once they have a deterrent like that, they clearly will increase their status as regional hegemon far beyond what it already is. And yes, it already is. Yemen, Lebanon, and under Al Assad, Syria, although I don’t know the extent of Iranian influence in that country now.

So Tucker Carlson’s curiously naive position on all war being bad seems vaguely reminiscent of all the anti-war protests of the past. Maybe he should have been a character on the 70s & 80s TV show M*A*S*H where the cool kids all mocked the US, patriotism as an antiquated primitive modus for the perpetually square, and the really cool kids would get drunk all the time and bitch about how the war they where fighting against North Korea had no justification was a total waste of time and resources.

In essence, the concept of pro-war Vs anti-war is about as much a dialectic con as pro modern medication Vs anti-modern medication. It depends what is wrong with you, what else you can do about it, and the cost benefit of those meds. Assuming of course, unlike during Covid you can actually get real information about what you’re taking.

Natural Vs. artifact is about the same. I think taking properly made aspirin when you need it is a lot safer than scraping the bark of a White Willow tree and taking your chances on the dose and whatever other crap might be mixed in with that bark.

So when the real issue is A, the left will elevate the issue to one or more layers above and beyond A to make the case that you must be against A.

War with Iran should not be supported because war is bad.

Corporate medicine should never be taken because corporations are bad.

One of the best examples of this which worked all too well until it didn’t, was the concept of “Asian Grooming Gangs” to describe exclusively Muslim Child-Sex-slave gangs.

When you hear Asian Grooming Gangs you might visualize a small gay Taiwanese hair dresser. The facts though, are horrifying beyond any decent British person’s ability to believe it was taking place at the time. Which is why they pulled the level of abstraction trick. Make it about Asians so the Islamic connection and motive won’t be identified. Also so that the plot to continue to import millions of Muslim men would not be interfered with by people who don’t want their daughters turned into industrial strength sex slaves for Muslim men.

These are just two egregious examples and of course, current ones. But it is a constant in the arsenal of Leftist dialectical devices.

Feel free to add any others you notice to the comments and as I remember them, I’ll add the odd one here.

Screenshot

This post was inspired by watching the first 13 minutes of this video where this aspect was entirely missed

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “Dialectics and the ‘pro vs anti-war’ con”

  1. One of the ironies of strategy is that being anti-war as a basic principle often leads to war and being pro-war may be the most likely route to peace. By being prepared for war and being willing to embrace it means that the likelihood of war is dramatically reduced. The classic example is WWII which was directly caused by inaction and appeasement related to pacifism and moral weakness. WWII could be regarded as a completely unnecessary war that was caused by wishful thinking and a failure of policy.

    The type of war that Israel is currently engaged in is a preventative war against a power that has being unequivocal that its principal foreign policy position is Israel’s absolute destruction. Israel will therefore never enjoy security while Iran’s Islamist regime remains in power. If that regime continues to exist after the current conflict then Israel, and indeed Western civilisation as a whole, has suffered a severe strategic defeat from which it might never recover.

    Moral weakness has already created unimaginable damage that has put the Western world into a very precarious position. Many Western leaders and globalists, especially the Davos set, seem to want to persist with that foolhardy policy of deliberate self-destruction. These days, Western leaders are of a very low calibre and seem to naturally gravitate to the worst possible policies and decision making. The Davos lot to seem to lean towards personal gain rather than operating in the true interests of their people. With such a clique now in de-facto control, Western Civilisation could be in existential peril!

  2. Yes, it is dialectics. But it’s also dialectics in action: an Orwellian perpetual war in our societies of Oceania.

    The [former] West is being kept on edge by any means like the rona scam or by being constantly forced to be “preparing” for “wars”. The political machineries of the “War with Russia” and “War with Iran” theaters are as complex and sophisticated as that of the rona psyop (War against the Virus) — apparently developed by powerful think-tanks… perhaps decades ago.

    It’s pyops combined with real-world circumstances and warfare. It’s information warfare on another level, because some of the REAL-WORLD EVENTS THEMSELVES ARE THEATER as well. It does not necessarily mean that they are not real AT ALL. It means they are partly created, induced and not real the way they are presented.

    The “Pro-war VS Anti-war” dialectic creates real political fractures within the targeted societies, along the lines of fear and interest. It is just another division created artificially, in order to prevent anti-globalist unity. And yes, being “anti-war” in this case means virtually nothing but a vehicle of controlled opposition — again to prevent anti-globalist unity.

    Anti-War, Pandemic-Denier, Virus-Denier, Anti-Refugee etc. — dialectical weaponry against the hoi polloi… held by the bankster “elites”.

    Moreover, the “Pro-war VS Anti-war” dialectic is a Problem-Reaction-Solution scam of the Great Fascist Reset [Revolution], where the Solution is of course converging towards an autocratic One World Government that, at last, makes and maintains “THE PEACE”, i.e. eternal and perfect peace, the final solution, on demand.

    How convenient.

  3. It helps to call nations by their official names::The Islamic Republic of Iran,
    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
    HAMAS, an acronym for Harakat al-Muq?wama al-Isl?miyya, or the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is the Hebrew word for destruction.

    writing this from.the United States of America.

    • The USSR is no longer officially.
      IF you are correct about ‘hamas’ then this is just further proof that hamas is supported by nuttyyahoo and company. [even tho it is documented to be so anyway]
      Being ‘antiwar is not leftist necessarily – depends on the war. Being against foreign intervention wars is very Right… in all senses of the word.

      • Being anti-war as a strategy to help the enemy of the country they are in is a leftist dialectic. Being for or against any given war means you don’t accept the cost benefit of a given war as presented to you.

        I would posit that nearlyu everyone is anti-war. War is ONLY the right choice when the cost of not-=war is HIGHER than the cost of war.

        It is doing that math where the problem lies.

  6. Can I put it simple for you?
    It does not matter if it is needed or nit
    WE THE ANERICAN PEOPKE NORMAL IN THEIR HEAD AND NOT BRAINWASHED BY NETANIAHU
    WE DO NOT WANT WAR
    WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF ISTAEL MANIPULATIONS
    ENOUGH