... to not resist aggression. it is immoral ...

it is immoral to not resist aggression.

whether in matters personal, political, religious or in statecraft, ... , it matters not, ... , to not resist aggression is to aid and abet the aggressor, and to assure that after your demise at his hands, he will seek the conquest of another.   whatever you may feel the worth of the stance to you as a personal matter, by adopting such a stance, you assure the suffering of another: no high blown assertion of morality can escape this essential fact, and to inflict this suffering on another, perhaps less capable of protecting him or herself than you, is immoral, unethical, and unforgivable. 

and, it is cowardice.

by not resisting such aggression, to the death if demanded by circumstance or dignity or honor, is to assure that someone else will bear the brunt of your folly, and that you engender your own fate upon the will of another.

i spit in the face of those who blather about ghandi and passive resistance.--

ghandi chose the tactics he chose in india because he knew that he did not face an aggressor who would destroy him in passivity, but because he knew that the english would respond to the moral suasion and historical and ethical argument he would bring to bear on them.  ghandi was a privileged man, educated and trained, inculcated into the culture of locke and blackstone, and trained in the common law in england.  he practiced law in england, and in south africa, enjoying the wealth, honor and privilege that only observance of the strictures of empire could bestow upon him.  and, in learning the law of england, the great doctrines of the common law, and in learning the thought and doctrine of the west and its moralistic teachings of religion and philosophy, he knew that he had acquired the intellectual and political weapons he needed to throw off the yoke of empire.

then, and only then did he adopt his native swaddling.

passive resistance would not have served the indians against the nazi's.

passive resistance did not serve european jews against the nazi's, nor the pogroms of eastern europe and the russians, ... , nor has it served the jews of israel against the transgressions and attacks of islamic arabia, nor will it serve the jews of israel against the rabid islamic islamic fundamentalism that sweeps turkey.

it is not moral not to resist your own murder, not to fight your murderer until your last drawn breath.  it is immoral not to do so, it is unethical, and it is the height of historical folly for nations to adopt that conceit that the moral high road lies in "peace" against all provocation.

in this strategy,therein lies the lie.

to not resist aggression, is to aid, abet, further or encourage the acts of aggression taken against you.  you do not dissuade your attacker by being passive, you encourage and embolden him, ... , in fact, you "egg him into" further acts taken against you.

and, you perform another act, not usually recognized or stated, but in not resisting your aggressor, you rouse in him his contempt for you, for your singular cowardice.  in the mind of such an aggressor, you confirm the morality of his actions by the demonstration of your singular lack of worth to continue existing, this lack of worth proved by the simple fact that you do not believe in your own worth to exist.  the aggressor simply concludes that if you do not feel, will not assert your own right to exist by defending yourself, then you simply to do deserve to be here.  and, he condemns you for your idiocy.

i will say this again.  passive resist in not only the fool's last act, before departing this vale of sin and tears at the hands of his attacker, ... , it is a positive act of immoral, unethical and cowardly commission.

even the mouse turns against his attacker.

these remarks will be expanded upon. 

john jay @ 06.12.2010 

p.s.  the proposition is simple.  to not resist aggression engenders further attack.  all the highfalutin posturing in the world cannot reduce the salient nature of this point.

you do not make the alligator a vegetarian by feeding him chickens.  he simply develops the taste for chicken.  those who advocate such tactics simply have calculated that they will survive them, and that you are "perishable" in nature, if sufficiently gullible.

i invite all the pious calls to higher truth, and call them spurious.  there are no larger truths when you are dead, to be asserted by your person, because your person is demised.  there are not larger historical truths to be served by those who survive you, no morality to be asserted by them in your death, because you invite theirs by way of your example, if they are stupid enough to follow it.  and, finally, there are no historical truths to be asserted by the high minded by your demise, witness the historical rehabilitation that time has granted napoleon, and is now granting stalin, and will one day grant hitler.

the survivors of the mufti of jerusalem, in the form of the pederast and child fornicator yasser arafat, and the p.l.o. and its successors in interest in abbas, hamas and hezbollah and the o.i.c. and the muslim brotherhood and the united nations, are seeing to the historical rehabilitation of hitler.  already, the euro union and the scandanavians and the germans grow rabid and vocal in their anti semitism, and call for the demise of the jewish state: the reduction of hitler to simply germanic napoleon is not far behind.

and, the historical passivity of israel and the "thought" of the jewish left avails them absolutely nothing, save for dead israelis, dead jews, and continuous and unrelenting attack upon the jews, and upon the west.

this continuing tolerance of attack as preached & practiced by the west has been, is, and continues to be immoral.  it establishes one fact, and one fact only, and that is that the political, religious and business leaders of the west do not see themselves as running out of chickens, ... , oh, yes, that would be you, ... , to toss to the ravening alligator's of islam.  you are "perishable," and "expendable," in your willing plenty, and in your passive willingness to be gobbled whole.

and, this is indefensible, ... , in our leaders, who should be thrown out, ... , and in us, who deserve nothing better if we are incapable of defending ourselves.

if you are a mind to, go ahead and "defend" passive resistance to evil, with all your might.  let us fight.  right here.  to the death.

Comments

[jcard21]

Another similar writing is "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey Snyder (1993) http://jim.com/cowards.htm

[BRICKBAT]

Mad frankie fraser the old london gangster was always of the mind "people see friendlieness as a weakness and then you cut em"?
Croydon old fella
And a good old hamburg (reeperbahn) gent in that bracket was Stephan henshell!
The old german what punched the turk on you-tube

[john jay]

jcard21:

i had not read jeffrey snyder's essay before this evening.

i thought it extremely well written, and share his sentiments and views, and find his writing most persuasive.

i enjoyed it. if i have added anything to his observations, that is enough.

john jay