A. ROBERT HILL'S VIEW ON PACIFISM

Pacifism: Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
Since the beginning of time as we know it, pacifism has never accomplished anything of notoriety, with the exception being of subservient to someone or some unified body much stronger than the subservient. An excellent example of this occurred on the European continent from its time of conception to the present day.
In modern history, sometime after BCE, as far back as the Khan era, around the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries a cardinal example of pacifism plague the Polish people and continued plaguing them even into modern times. During those early centuries, Poland was, more or less, a feudal state controlled by magnates living in Poland and elsewhere. The Austrian Empire (Hapsburgs) militarily and financially controlled most of the Steppes of eastern Poland—their breadbasket—but they lived in Austria. This by no means infers the magnates were Austrian. Many of them were Polish, or German-Polish, Austrian-Polish, Russian-Polish, Litho-Polish, simply because of the arranged marriages of the prominent magnates. Vienna was the ‘in’ place to live—the arts, and a little later, the great ballrooms filled with the prominent, dancing under crystal chandeliers to the compositions of Bach, Brahms, Chopin, Strauss and later on, Wagner, while their income poured in from the labors of the serfs in Poland. Owning a thousand acres of land and owning 10,000 people would be considered a small fiefdom in those days. The Poles were kept uneducated, farmed the land, supported the magnates and their three or four castles along the Vistula River in which the magnates lived in only during different times of the year. The serfs received only a meager living for their labors—food (with very little meat—which went to the foreign magnates) and housing. They were pacified by being ignorant—they were farmers—they knew of no other way to live. However, when discord emerged among the different magnates, or perhaps a marriage went sour, a war erupted. Each magnate conscripted his army from his owned people—furnishing them with primitive weapons; in some cases, scythes, shovels, clubs, etc. He purchased the help of neighboring professional armies of Germany, Austria, Russia, depending upon what malfeasance had taken place and to whom it had occurred.
As far back as the Teutonic era, the Poles were being forced into war by any number of early nations or groups of magnates. The Tartars, Cossacks, Teutons, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, et el, in the 12th century overran Poland during that time, depending on who had caused an infraction or insulted which powerful magnate, or, just wanting to add more land and people to their domain. It didn’t take much to start a war—life was cheap, for the magnates sat in their castles drinking wine as they watched Poles being killed by a neighboring fiefdoms or by German, Russian or any of the many small city-states that existed in Europe at that time.
The wealth of these magnates during those times was staggering—after all, many of them owned the land and its people in areas larger than some of our smaller states of today.
As Europe became a little more organized, family kingdoms, with standing armies saw Poland as a mere extension of their of their borders—be it north, south, east or west. The Poles only knew they were at war when their magnates conscripted them into a mob of poorly organized fighters—as a consequence, they were beaten by well trained German, Russian, Tartars or Cossacks—until the next Catharine of Russia or the principal of any of those ill defined countries decided they wanted expand their borders or envied the property someone else owned.
This carried on throughout the 16th 17th 18th and even into the 19th centuries. First the Khans, Tartars, then Cossacks and the Czechs also had their turn. Later on Russia, then the Austro-German armies. In addition, when the Austro-Germans were not taking or retaking sections of Poland, the Lithuanians took their turn and so did the Hungarian Empire, which at the time, was sleeping with the Austrian Empire (Hapsburgs). During the 17th century, when France and Russia had marital ties, they confiscated and divided Poland once more. However, Russia seemed to win out, over time. Of course, the Napoleonic era came along and once again Poland was ravaged by an invading armies—the French, then the Russians. After Napoleon’s defeat, Russian influence dominated the scene and as late as the 1920s when Lithuanians sacked Poland and then was being shifted by military actions from one monarchy to another well into the 1930s.
In 1939, Germany once again, hailing is Teutonic heroism, invaded Poland, the ignorant state that could not control herself. This time it was not only the land they were wanting, but the eradication of the Jews and other ethnics—millions were killed—the Poles once again were enslaved and, Nordic looking Poles were sent to Germany to work. Other Poles looked to Russia for their salvation, only to find the Russians were no better than the Germans—they killed millions of Poles and Jews alike and after WW II, once again Poland was divided or immersed into the Soviet Block.
Not until the Cold War era, did Poland begin to have an organized sense of government of any kind. However, more Poles were killed by the USSR until the pressures from western Europe, and especially financial pressures (the arms race) from the United States gradually caused the downfall of Russian influence and eventually, the downfall of the USSR itself.
During all the centuries that had passed, Poland, because of its fiefdoms, never accomplished a unified government strong enough to release its people from magnate slavery or with the pacifistic attitude, did they protect their own borders. One of the dominating reasons for this strange era of history was, the lack of education and ignorance of its people which in turn caused pacifism. European powers had always considered Poland a backward, stupid conglomeration of people—today many of them still believe this—thus the origination of the Polish jokes…. It is said, by German military officers during the 1939 foray into Poland, that the Poles were told German tanks were mere cardboard images—their small horse cavalry charged the German tanks head on and one can imagine the result of that charge.
Today, pacifism is a pseudo name for something else. Possibly, the Progressive Party, which is another name for the worn-out liberalism. In the 21st century we feel we are more intelligent than those of yesteryear—and in many way we are. However, we never seem to learn from past experiences. So called do gooders and some of those in higher education would have us lower our standards and welcome pseudo Shangri-La’s or whatever their agendas may be, endangering the freedoms of our proven Republic.
It seems to be the nature of educated man to be discontent and, as the old cliché goes, A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous, i.e. the Arab nations. Many of them today have been educated in the United States. They return to their homelands, realize something is wrong—I don’t have what the Americans have—I want it today and want to be recognized, today that I am on par with them. However, society does not work in those parameters and they are then insulted by this. These petty envies, tribal dictatorships, religious factions not understanding American freedoms, i.e., the freedom of the press, of speech, religion, obscene movies, divorce, free love, etc, through their beliefs feel we are indeed infidels. Pacifism has no place here because of the fanatical religious beliefs of the Arabs will certainly bend the pacifist’s will—to theirs.
On the other hand, Japan has never seen its standard of living as high as in this last century. Before we gave up Pyongyang, we saw what Communism gave its people. Nothing. "Promise them anything, but give them nothing," was their motto. Now, South Korea has entered the world trade and have reaped the benefits of a free society, opposed to a form of feudal dictatorship which today is starving—just thirty some miles from the South Korean capitol city of Seoul.
So, one could conclude, unless the free peoples of the world wish to maintain their style of living, we must be strong militarily and morally or ego maniacs will emerge and destroy us. Third World Nations must be educated into sincerely believing there is a better way to live among other peoples of the world without war, bombings and the taking of innocent lives. Nevertheless, it is a proven fact, at least here in the United States, that to make a 180 degree turn in education will take at least 50 years to accomplish. It may take longer in third world countries.
What concerns should be, is the breakdown between the two political parties of the Republican and the Democrats. In all my years of watching the political arena, I have never seen the viciousness of the far left being taunted and embellished through the mass media to such an extent. The very people who, a few years ago were at Woodstock making free love smoking pot, condemning the then administration for its actions or inactions, are now in those seats, in government, corporations, and have taken that 180 degree turn into the me era—or yuppie or baby boomers, if you prefer—cheating stockholders, amassing more wealth than anyone individual could spend in a lifetime and wanting more at the expense of anyone who does not watch their wallets and their stockbrokers.
During my era, it was taught, "If you cannot say something good about your competitor, don’t say anything." In other words, don’t bad mouth him, for it was believed, time would expose those perpetrators for what they were—and, to leave a little for the next guy. Today, lies, exaggerated half-truths and bad mouthing are the norm. And many of the instigators are so close to the trees they cannot see the forest or are consumed by the aura and charismatic presentations of some educated idiots—they are only looking at today, now, and not for tomorrow—let the ways justify the means—but why are we, the public, immersed in untrue facts through the media as though they were written truths? The answer is, to gain an edge—but that edge is insulting our intelligence as if we cannot see through their film of libel—for a check of history will prove the point.
There is very little difference in the liberal intentions of today than Hitler’s brown shirts during the 1930s. The political ranting and ravings of insanity—trying to force their agenda onto the masses by unruly demonstrations, property damage and civil disobedience. Their motto seems to be, if you lose, pay no mind to the majority of the people’s will, keep fighting and overthrow the incumbent at any cost—do not to back the present administration—instead of changing it when the next election rolls around—have the minority way, today, regardless!
Every American should study the different political parties and actually see just where they stand. Ref: The Republicans, by Malcolm Moos, published in 1956, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 56-5195.
The ex-Soviet Union is a good example of liberalism gone wild (don’t ask a Russian to define liberalism). Take from the haves and give to the have nots. A government cannot give anything to its people that it first does not take from them. It has no money. Its industrious people have the money or the will to make the money. In our American Republic, we pay dearly for the conveniences or entitlements the government sponsors today—however, it’s the best there is—not perfect by any means, and there are many things that are needing change—controlling corporate powers and wealth (that one is a story within itself)—medical assistance for the underprivileged—clean our own back porch before trying to clean someone else’s—take care of our own before spending billions on others of the world, who, when the money runs out, turns on the givers of that money—the American people.
Radical liars have their own agendas and, there is where the red flag should be "ran up the pole" for everyone to see. i.e., propaganda that does nothing but feed the egos of terrorists.
On the other hand, a) Woodrow Wilson, democrat, a college professor, engaged us in WW I. RE: German invasion of Poland—1939. b). Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) blockaded Japanese shipping in the South Pacific, RE: Japanese assault on China and Singapore—retaliation was Pearl Harbor and WW II. c) Harry Truman (D) held his finger on the Atomic Bomb during the Korean War, RE: North Korean invasion of South Korea 25th of June 1950. d) John Kennedy (D) sent troops to Laos begetting the Viet Nam fracas. RE: Communist take-over of Indo China (Fiasco). e) Bill Clinton (D) intervened us in Serbia. RE: Ethnic cleansing between Christians and Moslems (Regional problem). Isn’t it interesting these people were all democrats?
Today, we basically have a religious war between Islam and the Jews—it is nothing new—it has been going on since the beginning of recorded time, only now they have modern weapons with which to fight those wars. We Americans are implicated simply because we support Israel and subsidize many of her activities. There has not been an Islamic and Christian war since the Spanish Inquisition (which has been overstressed by protestant leaders because it was a Catholic movement), which was to rid Spain and her provinces of the Moors or Berbers and Islam, with the exception of Bosnia, when America took the side of the Moslems. However, those incursions were small when compared to the world wide death rate incurred by different Arab sponsored terrorist of today.
The Arabs would embrace us now if—we terminated our support of Israel and become Moslem—and until that question is put to rest, but, it must be remembered, Islam is destined to try to rid the world of infidels (anyone who is not Moslem). Nevertheless, the Jewish factor in the United States is so powerful that a cessation of support for Israel could never, and will never be accomplished. Is the answer therefore the annihilation of Islam—if peace is to be maintained in the Mid-East? Israel and Egypt live in a precarious relationship. It remains to be seen just how long that relationship will last, however, which side would the United States take if—Israel uses nuclear weapons—which it has, on any of the Arab states?
From our standpoint in the Mid-East, Europe certainly is not aiding the situation. Both Russia and France have/had lucrative oil contracts with Iraq and subversive/covert payments to some of those high officials—the only reason they abstained and/or vetoed the assisting of the Coalition in Iraq. Certain high officials of the United Nations are now involved in covert monetary and sex perks with the food for oil program setup by their own UN.
So, pacifism certainly is not the answer, for we’ve used it for 60 years under United Nations pacifistic guidance —nor is liberalism or progressivism. There doesn’t seem to be an answer, with the exception of trying to educate Moslems, and other third world nations and bring them into the realm of living peaceably with their neighbors. However, it is very easy to stand on the street, or print articles, defaming certain leaders simply because we don’t like them personally, thanks to certain charismatic educated idiots. All of our leaders, whether they were liberals or conservatives, maintained the good of the American people in their agendas. That must always be our first and foremost exercise in the political realm, and when one side or the other is defeated, join the group for the good of all American citizens.
The Nicaragua fiasco—one only hears of the so called illegal activities of the Reagan administration. Whether or not they were true remains to be seen. The New York Times, The Nation and other liberal media did very little in publicizing of the priests, nuns, civilians that were murdered by the Communistas in that country simply because they did not agree with the Communist regime—and the forced take-over of that government by an illegitimate entity. I can sympathize with the people of those countries—but the corruption the communists say they were fighting, not through legal elections, but through force, stems from the times of Spanish rule. Spain did not, in most cases, pay, if they did, very little to their governors and/or administrators. They were expected to filch a little along the way and it has carried over and become the norm for them. Mexico is slowly beginning to emerge from the old traditions. It will take years for other Latin nations to emerge from the old Spanish traditions of ‘how to run a government’, not a kingdom.
The very essence of our winning the Cold War came down to a very simple answer. Reagan saw the answer and stated so. The USSR was afraid of the US. The US was afraid of the USSR. The difference being, their production costs of goods versus our production costs of goods. They could have survived had they given leeway to the manufacturing of their products to free enterprise. Without getting into percentages, the USSR’s return on investments was virtually nil—hence, no monetary means to support further military build-up. The reasons—manpower output. According to American businessmen visiting the USSR, one in which I knew quite well, they were over staffed on any given line of production. Where American manufacturers were using three men to do a certain job, the USSR was using eight or ten men to accomplish the same type of function. Their cost of production was misaligned by excesses in labor—which carried over to any materials they used in production of anything. Since the government owned company had no incentive, except to please their superiors or the ply for monetary or personal gains, production was at a loss when compared to free world manufacturing output. Thus, revenues lagged far behind the US and other free world nations and over the years slowly drained Russian coffers.
When ‘Star Wars’ was proposed, the USSR knew they were bankrupt and could not compete. Reagan, after listening to USSR and others complaints of ‘Star Wars’, he said to them, "When we get it, I’ll give it to you’, thus proving to the USSR that we were not their enemies. Soon after that statement, the Berlin Wall came down because she knew there wasn’t a way in which she could compete under a Communist system of government—or could her satellite countries.
Nevertheless, Communism was doomed from the day of conception. The USSR would have fallen into bankruptcy sooner or later without ‘Star Wars’. And, if it were to survive, she would have to join the federation of free societies in world trade and free enterprise.
China, on the other side of the Asian continent, was fairing a lot worse than the USSR. The great Communist leader, Mao, recalled farmers from the farms, put them to work making steel in home crafted smelters, in alleyways, backyards or wherever space permitted—results was a very poor grade of steel which did not meet world standards. Mao did not trust the USSR nor the USA—hence the homemade steel making. No one would buy their poor quality steel. Their economy fell to nearly nothing—shortages food, medical and all their needed supplies were not forth coming. Students and youth organization were turned to the nationalized farms—and again—because of the lack of incentives, production was shoddy and millions starved.
In essence, Communism is akin to Pacifism. Taking a passive view, if each and every individual performed to his best, Communism would be a Shangri-La to live under. However, pride, greed, wealth and social standings are the enemies of Communism. One step ahead of our neighbor, as it were, led to a select few that were living the ‘good life’. Others were no better off than they were under the czarist rule in Russia.
In summary, politicos, in my view, have a touch of ego mania. They are driven by impetus that borders on insanity. When falsehoods, organized disobediences and character assassinations peal throughout the media, then we must judge which is the lesser of the evils and which would be the best for Americans—and certainly not to endorse radicals simply because it ‘seems’ to be the in thing offered by a few charismatic educators. The conservatives believe taxation is not the answer. Taxation only takes money from one hand to feed another (politically). By leaving money in the pockets of the people, who in turn spend it, creating a market for materials, causing others to be employed to produce more for the people. Cutting taxes on the ‘wealthy’, is a way of re-investing in industry, thus, creating jobs and mass opportunities for working class people to rise into the mainstream of middle America.
The things I see wrong with our system at present is, a) corporations are being allowed to merge too freely, eliminating competition. It is always best to have as many firms manufacturing the same item or providing the same service—thus being more competitive in pricing and better manufactured products and/or service. b) Merging corporation tend to ‘price fix’ causing the cost of goods to rise—creating more profit for their bottom line. c) Our government, whether conservative or liberal, is not protecting our industrial people. RE: Aero-Especial (spelling) and British Aerospace is a joint venture (who built the SST Concord, that was a complete failure, monetarily) of the governments of the British and the French, subsidizing their aircraft builders, competing in the airline industry of the US and the world. However, they still could not overcome Boeing—they proposed, and are using, a rental system to deliver their commercial aircraft—nothing down, just pay the rent on a 60 million dollar airplane.
Even though their SST was never profitable, billions of dollars were spent trying to overcome Boeing, an independent contractor’s control of the airline market. It failed. Boeing knew that when one needed to get 1000 people from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ they would accomplish this faster with the industry’s standard, the 747, i.e., transporting four or five hundred people in one aircraft versus one hundred in one aircraft at a higher rate of speed. Now, the European governments are producing aircraft on a rental basis; nothing down, pay as you go. Nevertheless, one does not have to be a industrialist to understand just who is picking up the tab for the ‘giveaway’ aircraft—Europe’s high taxation on each individual.
We need to protect our home industry against foreign governments subsidizing in joint efforts to overcome American independent ingenuity—or else subsidize our own and bring manufacturing to a level playing field. However, subsidizing is not the answer—it only brings higher cost of manufacturing.
A few years ago I was sitting under a palapa (?) on the beach in Acapulco, having a drink when a German businessman struck up a conversation. One thing led to another, but he continually berated American industry—this was no good, or that was no good. Finally, I tired of his verbiages and asked him, "How did you get to Acapulco?"
His answer: "By jet airline." My question: "What airline?" His answer: "Lufthansa," he said very proudly. My question: "What make of jet?" His answer: "747."
My question: "Do you know where that aircraft was made?" That ended the conversation. I didn’t see him around the bar of the hotel after that—he may have gone home.
One must always remember, we cannot make a logical decision unless we have scrutinized all of the facts. Outright lies and half-truths does not make it so—however, they may feather the nest of the instigator—for a while.
One might say, after reading this, that I am an ultra-conservative—that is far from the truth. I am an American first, a moderate conservative second and, last but not least, a person who believes in a government by the people and for the people and let the majority rule—not the minority, which has nothing to do with ethnic or racial backgrounds, but of what the majority of the people want of their electorate.
However, Pacifism is nice to think about, and would work in a perfect environment. Nevertheless, we aren’t perfect and never will be, for ruthless people will emerge, as in the past, with designs to control others. Egomania has tossed countries into to war at the drop of a hat. The pacifistic are the conquered.
So, in order for our Republic to survive in a world of chaos, we must be strong and courageous militarily, kind and helpful to the downtrodden, strong in our moralistic values and remember the feudal state we were before the Boston Tea Party.
I remember, years ago, while sitting in a university classroom and listening to a supposed educated man tell how wonderful the world would be if communism/socialism could be installed throughout the world—a paradise where all would be equal in wealth and social standing. What he didn’t say was, how one accomplishes this Utopia. I had just returned from Korea, where as far as the eye could see, long lines of North Koreans, walking is sub-zero weather—a blizzard, were migrating south, away from Communism and the Chinese Red Army—we were with them—picking up as many as our military vehicles could possibly hold. I’ve often wondered how many had survived that migration.
Success breeds envy. We’ve all had instances where we may have wished we had the wherewithal to achieve what others owned. The world is no less than we were/are. Is it our fault that we have the ingenuity, know-how and the ability to produce some of the wonders we enjoy today? Are we to say, ‘forgive us for we know not what we do’? Forgive us for working when you were taking two and three months vacations each year (France and Germany)? Forgives us for coming to the aid of the underprivileged of the world? Forgive us for giving billions of dollars to people most of us have never heard of? Forgive us for removing tyrants from France and Germany—at a terrible cost to our own?
I don’t believe so—and if these so-called European leaders feel we are a world bully, they need to rethink the very reason they are standing on their own free soil, courtesy of our country. We are a Republic, not a democracy and heaven forbid the day we would become a democracy—for history has proven democracies have lasted no longer than two hundred years—since the beginning of recorded time.