Pacifists are inherently pro-fascist

Here is Kevin Willis' brilliant take on Quakers, socialism and the inherently violent nature of pacifism:

Walker writes: Quakers have always accepted injustice, slavery, and oppression and, indeed, today they actually advocate full scale socialism.

And it's worth noting that socialism is, functionally, institutionalized injustice--because in the utopian vision of socialism, the ends always justifies the means. And that isn't just because the socialist/communist state simply hasn't been done "right" yet: it has been done exactly right, because the institutionalization of injustice and inhumanity that we've seen in the Soviet Union, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Cuba, and see even now in Latin America is an inherent, indispensable part of socialism in practice. Just as economic inequality is inherent in capitalism and the free market, and bad leadership and nepotism will be inherent flaws in democracies, so political prisoners and wholesale slaughter--in addition to general political oppression and mass starvation--are features of socialism in action.

It's always fascinating to me how liberals who can easily see the natural "flaws" inherent to capitalism, the free market, and liberty cannot see that the repeated failures of socialism are natural flaws inherent to that system. But I digress.

The larger point is that Quakers, to the degree they agitate for socialism, are supporting current and unquestionably future oppression and brutality and despotism to that same degree.

They may not themselves raise a hand in violence, they may not themselves pull a trigger, put the generous pat on the back they give themselves for their pacifism is undeserved, as one of the natural consequences of their pacifism and their socialism is that they support and even actively agitate for systems that will not be (or are currently not) controlled or run by Quakers, and will be heartless, brutal, oppressive, violent and--like most socialist states--ban (or have banned) religion and persecute Christians. One might argue that Pontius Pilat and Herod make strange bedfellows for modern-day followers of Christ. But, that's up to them.

I'm entirely tolerant of Quakers, but I do not see them as examples to be followed, Christian or otherwise, and they certainly don't need any big pats of their back for their noble pacfisim. Especially from themselves.

George Orwell described pacifism best when he said: "Pacifists are inherently pro-fascist."

One could just easily say that pacifists are inherently nihlist. When you do not believe there is anything worth fighting for, you do not truly believe there is anything worth living for. You do not truly believe anything has any true worth at all.

So I'm all for the Quakers doing their Quaker thing, just like I'm all for the nihilists doing their nihilism thing. But neither are examples, to me, and neither deserve praise from my vantage point.