This is a piece by ajacksonian concerning the legal complexities of piracy or rather the punishments given to pirates, otherwise known as enemies of humanity.
Archive for August 2007
As described by one author,
George Orwell would have understood the attraction of privileged young people to the Peace Racket. “Turn-the-other-cheek pacifism,” he observed in 1941, “only flourishes among the more prosperous classes, or among workers who have in some way escaped from their own class. The real working class . . . are never really pacifist, because their life teaches them something different. To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” If so many young Americans have grown up insulated from the realities that Vegetius and Sun Tzu elucidated centuries ago, and are therefore easy marks for the Peace Racket, it’s thanks to the success of the very things the Peace Racket despises above all—American capitalism and American military preparedness.
What’s alarming is that these students don’t plan to spend their lives on some remote mountainside in Nepal contemplating peace, harmony, and human oneness. They want to remake our world. They plan to become politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, journalists, lawyers, teachers, activists. They’ll bring to these positions all the mangled history and misbegotten ideology that their professors have handed down to them. Their careers will advance; the Peace Racket’s influence will spread. And as it does, it will weaken freedom’s foundations.
I think the short version is that the logical cost of ending war is the ending of everything that might cause a person to fight, kill, or die for. Love of family must be gotten rid of in one way or another to be replaced by love of something more collective or at least less potentially conflict ridden, which means loyalty to the state rather than loyalty to oneself or one’s family. After all, nations are built upon the love of family, the protection that nations provide their families is returned by the love of each individual towards their nation. Thus this causes war and if war must be ended, the things that people fight for must be rendered non-existent or at least less valued.
What else must be de-valued, de-constructed, and disappeared for war to end? The obvious next logical step would be liberty. Liberty has fueled many wars and many conflicts throughout the ages, from Ancient Greece onwards. Even more than nationalism and family, the pursuit of liberty has ended many lives, both of the slave and the oppressor.
Since the United States holds the great majority of the liberty in existence in the world, it serves as a beacon and inspiration to others that such a thing as liberty is worth fighting for because it proves that you can obtain such a thing as ephemeral as liberty. It is not a slogan of the insurgent which calls for freedom from the Shah, freedom that has little meaning except on paper; ultimately in the end it is replaced by theocracy and deeper repression, rather than liberty. Given that the US is the way it is, the US must be undermined for if liberty causes wars and wars must be ended for the good of humanity, then the icon of the US must be weakened and destroyed if at all possible.
Much of these connections are simply assumed to be true, thus you don’t see it often spoken of around anywhere. It is only seen by strict analysis of where actions and beliefs lead as well as where they come from, that allows the illumination of why people believe and what people believe, for them to say and do such things as they do. Comment ot Subadei
Here be the Kitty
It’s funny, I swear. Especially given the comments over at Villainous Company concerning Hello Kitty, the cute little kitten face you see in the link.
Some funny stuff I found.
Growing tensions in France between opponents and supporters of genetically modified crops have led to violent confrontations.
Gendarmes used tear gas and batons to prevent pro-GM farmers from invading a picnic for militant opponents of genetically modified maize at the town of Verdun-sur-Garonne in south-west France over the weekend.
Hardly a day has gone by this summer without opponents of GM maize – both environmental campaigners and small farmers – invading fields and trampling or cutting down crops. The protesters, led by the small- farmers’ leader, José Bové, claim a citizens’ right to destroy crops which, they say, threaten ecological calamity and the subjection of farmers to the whims of agro-industrial, multinational companies.
Here we have Hitler.
Hitler delivered this speech on 30 January 1937, the anniversary of the Nazi takeover of power in 1933, and always the occasion for a major Hitler speech.
And we have SGT. Mom. Which is sort of like matter and anti-matter in a way.
Primary sources in history are said to be either direct testimonials by people that were alive at the time of the events in question, or any other data records recorded during the time in question. They are often used as a sort of jigsaw puzzle piece in order to figure out where the rest of the historical pieces go.
“I wonder how much longer we are going to see this?” I showed it to Mom. The label said “Cinnamon” and in smaller letters “Saigon”.
Mom looked at it thoughtfully, and said,
“Get three. We’d better stock up.”
Cinnamon was the only consumer good that we knew of that came out of South Vietnam, and as of the cruel month of April, 1975, there would probably be no more of it.
The North Vietnamese had overrun and taken all of the South. The last helicopter had taken off from the room of the American Embassy, and the newspaper was full of pictures, pictures of frantic people mobbing the gates, crammed into boats, thousands, hundreds of thousands of desperate people, pleading for rescue, for shelter, for succor. Their city was gone, their country was gone. There would be no more jars of “Cinnamon-Saigon” on the grocery store shelves. The war was over, but not the responsibility that seemed to hang— for some people—like an albatross around our necks.
The Left erased the names and histories of many individuals to maintain the narrative of an arrogant United States falling to hubris over a corrupt South Vietnamese people too corrupt and weak to deserve anything but the sword.
They did not silence everyone, however, for not everyone was in Saigon and Vietnam.
At the time when I used to go here and there throughout the country, simply as a public speaker, people from the bourgeois classes used to ask me why we believed that a revolution would be necessary, instead of working within the framework of the established political order and with the collaboration of the parties already in existence, for the purpose of improving those conditions which we considered unsound and injurious. Why must be have a new party, and especially why a new revolution?
The answer which I then gave may be stated under the following headings: —
(1) The elements of confusion and dissolution which are making themselves felt in German life, in the concept of life itself and the will to national self-preservation, cannot be eradicated by a mere change of government. More than enough of those changes have already taken place without bringing about any essential betterment of the distress that exists in Germany. All these Cabinet reconstructions brought some positive advantage only to the actors who took part in the play; but the results were almost always quite negative as far as the interests of the people were concerned. As time has gone on the thought and practical life of our people have been led astray into ways that are unnatural to them and injurious. One of the causes which brought about this condition of affairs must be attributed to the fact that the structure of our State and our methods of government were foreign to our own national character, our historical development and our national needs.
The parliamentary-democratic system is inseparable from the other symptoms of the time. A critical situation cannot be remedied by collaborating with the causes of it but by a radical extermination of these causes. Hence under such conditions the political struggle must necessarily take the form of a revolution.
(2) It is out of the question to think that such a revolutionary reconstruction could be carried out by those who are the custodians and the more or less responsible representatives of the old regime, or by the political organizations founded under the old form of the Constitution. Nor would it be possible to bring this about by collaborating with these institutions, but only by establishing a new movement which will fight against them for the purpose of carrying through a radical reformation in political, cultural and economic life. And this fight will have to be undertaken even at the sacrifice of life and blood, if that should be necessary.
In this connection it is worthy of remark that when the average political party wins a parliamentary victory no essential change takes place in the historical course which the people are following or in the outer aspect of public life; whereas a genuine revolution that arises from a profound ideological insight will always lead to a transformation which is strikingly impressive and is manifest to the outside world.
The Fall of Saigon was certainly strikingly impressive and manifest to the outside world, wasn’t it?
This is going to be a pretty straight up post, with a linear format, that won’t go into anything too general at all.
First of all, Cassandra‘s post at VC concerning the media’s attempt to re-write the history of Vietnam and wash out all the little inconveniences such as the personal stories of heroism and sacrifice of Americans, sets the stage and foundation. It is rather long and linear as well, so I would suggest reading it afterwards. It is not all that critical to what I wish to write about. Which is how to best counter-act the influence of the media. What are their weak spots? Where are they vulnerable and where do they believe they are vulnerable?
Bill raises such questions, at least as a start.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we are told it is wrong to censor or attempt suppress political speech, but on several occasions Democratic Senators have done just that and the media have remained strangely silent?
Rather, we should ask the media that question, loudly and continuously.
Better not hold our collective breath waiting for an honest answer, though…
Posted by: BillT at August 26, 2007 02:29 PM
Here is my response to him.
Rather, we should ask the media that question, loudly and continuously.
The media doesn’t care Bill. I think it would be more productive to ask the advertisers that about the media that they advertise in.
In fact, disinformation campaigns should be targeted against the Mass Sewer Mind while propaganda campaigns designed to produce guilt and conscientious actions be targeted against advertisers. The MSM doesn’t have any guilt or sense of responsibility that could be fired by you asking them whatever. They just don’t care, and if they ever did care, they would just stomp on you by running some character assassination pieces. The media, like with all occupations and inflexible organizations, are vulnerable at the logistics. The tail end. Place where the armor is weakest.-Ymar
You see my point, I hope. The media may be thought of as the occupation forces and the blogosphere as the guerrila resistance fighters. Even such sites as Instapundit and Michelle Malkin and LGF are peanuts compared to the Associated Press and Reuters. Therefore what you do against an occupation force, such as attacking their logistics rather than going mano on mano, is what you should do against the media. So what are the media’s logistics? The logistics of an army are food, transportation of munitions, maintenance parts, replacements for destroyed equipment, and direct cash salaries (not applicable in our electronic transfer methods, but still applicable to other nation’s militaries). The logistics of the media are their advertisers, their credibility, and their sources (or ability to acquire sources, leaks, whistleblowers, etc).
After I made such comments, Book got a response to her post here. This is a good example of the subject.
I’m the Assistant Vice President of Public Relations for Orkin, Inc. I was interested to read the negative response genreated from our advertising during the August 21 episode of “God’s Jewish Warriors,” and I’m very sorry you were offended. First – you’re right – we usually buy advertising in dayparts, not by particular shows, so we didn’t buy advertising during this specific show. Second, I have not seen the show mentioned, so I can’t comment on its contents; however, I will take your complaint to the Chief Marketing Officer, and we will consider adding this show to our “do not buy” list of offensive shows where we do not allow our ads to run. No need for an e-mail campaign – you’ve been heard.
Comment by Martha Craft | August 27, 2007
Notice the bold.
I wish to personally thank Martha for demonstrating that the private sector is more ethical and concerned with individuals and the realities of our day than the media.
Comment by ymarsakar | August 27, 2007
Please read Book’s post for what show she was objecting to and for her response to Martha Craft.
I will add something else, of course. Original so to speak. Private companies and advertisers have their reputations to think of, because they live in the real world of market factors. In the real world, you simply cannot create profit and sustainable business expansion simply by producing the odd word or two. Even for the businesses that attempt to lie, they are caught eventually. Relying upon a pardon by Clinton is also a long shot. This is not the rules by which the US media operates under, however. The more they lie, slander, and bring down their reputation, the more damage they do and the more they believe they are doing well.
It is simply not in the strategic interests of advertisers and businesses to associate themselves with such self-destructive people. Therefore it is in the interests of the blogosphere and individual consumers to make it known to those that would benefit from such. It doesn’t require a campaign of hate emails or anything else unpleasant. It is simply a changing of alliances. Like Al Anbar did by turning on Al Qaeda, their former allies, and siding with the Coalition, their former enemies.
The MSM media and their leaders do not care what individual people believe or do. And that in turn makes them poor choices for companies seeking to acquire more customers.