Dialectics and the ‘pro vs anti-war’ con

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