Home / “Violent” and “Pacifist” — Two Great Words That Go Great Together

“Violent” and “Pacifist” — Two Great Words That Go Great Together

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Next time someone tells you they're a "peace activist" or a "pacifist," I would suggest you activate your body's natural fight-or-flight response system.

An apparently hippy-dippy New Zealander by the name of Christiaan Briggs, aged 30, was recently jailed for eight months for hitting a 19-year-old so hard that the younger man stumbled against a sidewalk, cracking his head on it, and suffering a fractured skull that needed five hours of surgery to correct. The teenager, Billy Leeson, was the lead guitarist of a local band which had just played a successful London gig and was on his way home. While travelling on a night bus, Leeson had cause to reprimand Briggs because the alleged pacifist had been staring at his girlfriend.

Leeson asked him to cease his ogling and Briggs failed to do so. When, a short while later, Leeson and his partner got off the bus, Briggs followed and assaulted Leeson with the knock-out blow. According to Lesson's horrified girlfriend, Briggs walked away smirking.

The judge, Peter Birts, said that a prison sentence was inevitable for Briggs but that the violence-prone Kiwi was "someone who was so talented and gave pleasure to so many others in life." It seems to me that it would be a lot more apropos to say that Lesson was the talented one who, through his guitar-playing, gave pleasure to many others. What did Briggs ever do but hang out with The Great Unwashed? I mean, he's a white man with dreadlocks, for Chrissakes.

Briggs: Like, wow, lily-white men with dreadlocks are just, like, sooooo bad. Just depends on how you define "bad."

We could say this was a moment of madness for Briggs. But then again, "peace activists" tend to be mad to begin with. Briggs went to Iraq to act as a human shield shortly before the war in March 2003. He thought Saddam Hussein was as fond of the Iraqi citizenry as he was, so he joined the "Don't Attack Iraq" brigade. As the Dread Pundit Bluto so eloquently wrote: "Briggs' swinish behavior perfectly illustrates the utter arrogance of the mindset that leads people to become human shields for barbaric regimes."

This reminds me of an experience recounted by a fellow blogger a few years ago. He had attended a meeting of pacifists who were preparing for a march — what a joke, it should be called a "crawl," taking into account its dictator-appeasing nature — and had expressed regret at the tactless nature of a sign that announced "Tony Blair, Pull Out! As Your Father Should Have Done." (That, right there, should tell you all you need to know about the peace-loving mindset.) An individual, who in any other setting might best be considered a thug, apprehended him and asked if he had any issues that he'd like to settle outdoors.

Then there's the pacifists' constant wet-dreaming over Bush's assassination. There was a firestorm of controversy over the British TV station Channel 4's airing of a film by British direct Gabriel Range entitled Death of a President. The film takes a look at the events leading up to, and the subsequent investigation into, the assassination of Mr. Bush at a Chicago anti-war rally. The film was — no surprise here­ — all the rage at the 2006 Toronto Film Festival, as it fulfills every whim and wish of the "peace-loving" crowd, Canuckistani or otherwise. Many Americans were shocked, the G.O.P. was alarmed, and even the pro-war stalwart Senator Hilary Clinton opined to a local New York state newspaper, "I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick." But don't believe the hype.

In my honest opinion, Death of a President accurately predicts what could result from the President straying too close to an anti-war rally. In this respect, the film presents an up-front assessment of the anti-war, "pacifist" mindset. Furthermore, Bush is presented as a strong leader, assured and confident in the course he's chosen. Not exactly defamation-of-character material. Time film critic Richard Corlis described it best, opining that Death of a President was "not an incendiary documentary but a well-made political thriller." To be fair, Range is only speculating here, indirectly meeting Lefty consumer demand in the process. He's not trying to be Michael Moore — though no doubt Moore and his legion of scruffy fans were applauding the assassination scene.

Meanwhile, Briggs is off to prison to serve his sentence. He'll be free to assualt another man more than ten years his junior in eight months. It's just too bad that Briggs wasn't protesting in Israel. "Peace activists" tend to do the world a favor while doing that—just ask the relatives of Tom Hurndall or Rachel Corrie.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • This is stupid– this person is obviously not a pacifist. Your approach seems to be to associate actual pacifists with scummy ‘peace activists’ and then to associate these peace activists with a desire to see Bush murdered. Neither association holds up.

    Try http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/30/004516.php for an actual pacifist.

  • MCH

    This from Gonz in #3 bears repeating:

    “…but that whole “turn the other cheek” bit ain’t as easy as cheering War on from the sidelines, is it?”

  • Clavos

    One suggestion: Paragraphs make a tome that much easier to read.

    So would some verifiable documentation, if you expect us to believe that fantasy, Enlightenment.

  • Enlightenenment – No, there’s no danger of Bush being too close to an anti-war rally – again, the film was just pure speculation, an extrapolation of the pacifist pipe-dream.

    Also, in the Internet age, conspiracy theories all even more easy to manipulate, so you have to take every thing about 9/11 that may or may not be factual with a grain of salt.

    One suggestion: Paragraphs make a tome that much easier to read.

  • Enlightenment

    Well i don’t think there is much chance of Bush “straying too close to an anti-war rally”. The Secret Service normally keeps the “freedom of speech zones” pretty far removed from the War Criminal in Chief.

    One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying “We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]”. Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I’ve ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four “pilots” among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake “pilot” of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These “hijackers” somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn’t work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn’t work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won’t let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you “aren’t supposed to think about”. Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn’t respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn’t happen, not even close. Somehow these “hijackers” must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn’t have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were “supposed to see”. Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these “hijackers” wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn’t even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying “We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down” attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers’ magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be “Muslim hijackers” the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don’t laugh) one of their passports was “found” a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously “surviving” the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also “survived” the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be “indestructable” like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn’t bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the “nineteen hijackers” is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.

  • Dr. Kurt – OK, granted, I look a little “rough” in that photo, but I thought it was appropriate given my controversial writing style. There was a method to my madness, I assure you.

    And I’m no hippy – I bathe every day, which automatically disqualifies me from being so.

  • Martin – Leeson didn’t deserve his beating. He was telling the so-called hippy to stop ogling his girlfriend. And the so-called pacifist took exception to that. What would you do if someone was eyeing your partner up? Turn the other cheek? It goes to show that Briggs is a total hypocrite. It’s amazing how many anti-war types are quick to fight. If you’re going to be a pacifist, live up to the name! I don’t pull my punches either, but then I don’t claim to be a pacifist while putting someone in a coma.

    Gonzo – Yeah, I thought I’d bait you with this. Good to hear from you. And, I repeat, it’s good that you did your service and I thank you for that – it’s just a shame that you don’t seem to believe in the purpose that you signed up for.

  • yo Mark…as usual, i think you have gone off the deep end here…

    here’s two “pacifists” you might wanna look up


    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    oh yeah…and there’s one long haired hippy freak pacifist you might have heard of, didn’t like war, and took some serious punishment for what he thought and believed

    you know…Jesus

    but that whole “turn the other cheek” bit ain’t as easy as cheering War on form the sidelines, is it?



  • Martin Lav

    Protesting against an invasion of another country doesn’t mean you are a wimp and don’t punch someone in the nose that needs it.
    I think there’s plenty of reason to fight someone that is trying to fight someone for no reason.

  • Dr. Kurt

    Judging by your photograph, it is odd that you slag off peaceniks as “scruffy” and”unwashed”… although many are, I don’t think Ghandi qualified for either slur.
    Not sure what you are trying to achieve here, except to point out the very obvious: humans are prone to hypocricy. Now, how about an article about a Norweigian satan-worshipping death-metal musician saving a puppy?