Memory Lane [1]


Herself sez: The Ol’ Curmudgeon has a stock of posts that are slightly dated. But they are still interesting. So from time to time, we will stroll Memory Lane. This one comes from July 2007.

Conundrum –

If we are invaded, do we have the right to forcibly resist? If the Germans had occupied us would the correct response have been to try to throw them out a la French Resistance? Would we not rejoice if we won our freedom and killed and drove out the conquerors? Is it morally correct if we can do it to the original invaders? Is it still correct if it takes a generation to get rid of the bad guys? Two generations? Four? 200 years? 400 years?

A good term for taking the country back and driving out the invaders might be ‘ethnic cleansing’. Think about that.

If it is morally correct, as some of the more radical left states, to give the US back to the Indians – oops, pc = ‘native American’. Or to the Mexicans – who took it from the Indians, who took it from the previous occupying tribes, ad nauseum. Mostly you will notice that they hate the country and that the operative word is ‘give it back’. Now, as I say, if the preceding is morally correct, then why do the same aforementioned leftists get their panties in such a wad over the Serbians? It was their country for quite a while. As in centuries. As in longer than some of the Indian tribes occupied their territories. The Bosnians are Moslem invaders. About 400 years ago the Moslems came in and raped, murdered, pillaged, and occupied. They didn’t go home. To drive people out usually takes a bit of force. I will not defend torture and other such heinous acts. But let us remember, the Bosnians are equally guilty of atrocities against the Serbs. Today. Now. Yesterday. And for the last 400 years. Yet, thanks to the left, the US sided with the Moslems, bombed and invaded the Serbians and forcibly stopped them from driving the invaders from their homes.

Where is the cutoff? When does an occupying people become the native people? Is it ok for one Indian tribe to conquer another? Is it ok for Moslems to conquer and hold territory? Or is it that it is only wrong for European (white) Christians to occupy territory?

There is a marvelous scene in Shogun, both the book and the mini-series. What a concept – a movie that pretty much followed the book! Anyway, Toranaga asks Blackthorn if the Dutch were not vassals of the Spanish throne. Blackthorn allows that this is true. Toranaga states that it is unpardonable for a vassal to rebel against his lord. A true betrayal. Blackthorn insists that there is a case when it may be considered moral. Toranaga queries. Blackthorn’s response – “…if you win!” After a stunned moment Toranaga laughingly admits that Blackthorn has the right of it.

In his Starship Troopers – the real thing, the book, not the movie. How unusual, a movie that has damn near nothing to do with the book. There is considerable philosophy in the book – none in the movie. There is a discussion of the role of force in the history of the world. The upshot is that the drivel about force never solving anything is just that – drivel. The fact is that war – force, is a necessary part of the political process. When discussion, compromise, and diplomacy have failed, then a people can (and will) resort to force to gain their ends. If the opposing group is bent on the destruction of one’s group, either to take all of the food (a rational reason) or for pure hatred (a psychotic motivation), the only choice may be for one’s group to resist with force, or to just surrender and die. I suppose that it is my narrow and provincial attitude, but I prefer for my own group to survive. I think that if we defend because of rational reasons, it will be better for the future if our seed is preserved rather than that of psychotics. Do you lefties want the future to be populated by rational, peaceful people who only use force to defend? Do you want it to be populated by those driven by hatred that will kill anyone who thinks differently? Your choice. Right now you are not headed down a path of survival, for those who will not defend and their offspring will die. Those who are tougher and more determined will populate the future. Think about it. May not be fair. You may want to take your toys and go home. But – that is the way the world works. Think about it.

When the other guy’s goal is your death, non-resistance is always fatal. This may fit your individual philosophy. It doesn’t fit mine. I don’t think it is very noble to let a serial killer get his perverted sexual thrills by one’s pain and death. I would resist. I would not stand by and let a member of my family die horribly and painfully to satisfy another’s wishes. I would resist. I will not stand by while my fellow citizens are brutally butchered because they do not agree with some sick, mad bastard’s view of what their religion should be. I will resist. I will not stand by while other people are enslaved or tortured or brutalized to satisfy another group’s whims. I will resist – with force.

Hey lefties – a question. Why are you all emotional about Darfur? Yes, the Moslem Sudanese government is sponsoring horrible acts of brutality. You know – the standard mix – rape, torture, murder, on men, women, children. So. I see. OK. But why was there no outcry from the left during the Second Sudanese Civil War when 1.9 million were brutally slaughtered and over 4 million driven from their lands? Is it because the victims at Darfur are Moslems and the victims in the Second Civil War were Christian? I hope you guys see that I don’t object to going in to kick the Sudanese Government into some kind of civilized behavior, or changing it. I don’t mind protecting the innocent of Darfur. I do object to not being consistent. I do object to your – I hope unconscious – bigotry against Christians. There’s a damn sight more Christian victim of Moslem cruelty than there have ever been Moslem victims of Christians. I do want to see some of you libs that want us to send the military into Darfur to get off your sanctimonious asses and put your lives on the line for the protection of these people. Enlist. Put your life where your mouth is. Sauce for the goose.

Here’s a lovely quote from George Orwell:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Notes on Nationalism, May 1945

The only addition that I would make is that the thing admired now seems to be the failed socialist system. The libs in this country are still hoopee-hollering for socialized medicine and the Brits are drafting ways to return to private medicine. There is no country practicing socialized medicine successfully today.

It seems to me that Amnesty International talks more about US ‘atrocities’ than they do murder and torture of the innocent practiced as policy by other nations. I will not pay any attention to this crap nor believe them until they start impartially reporting facts instead of showing their hatred of our western democracies.

Hey righties – (you didn’t think I only kick lefties, did you?) – yes, you are on the right general track. Protect our own. Good. Defeat those who would kill us. Good. But – don’t demonize anyone who disagrees with you. This leads you to think that the end always justifies the means. That is true – only if you are a soulless animal. Your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. It is ok to have civil discourse with opponents. It is ok to disagree. Is also ok to kill those who would kill you. But – remember – the populous does not always reflect the murderous desires of their mad leaders. They may be ordinary people caught up in a tidal wave of insanity. Fight to victory – yes. But be rational and compassionate when the victory is won. Be greater in victory than in battle. Don’t try to shove your beliefs on everyone. We are not robots. We have free will. Let us exercise that as civilized humans. A civilized human will fight to victory in response to aggression, but is not the aggressor.


One Response to “Memory Lane [1]”

  1. The Sagebrush Gazette Says:

    Perhaps the Lefties would have a better understanding of war and agression — and the defense against oppressors — if they were to take the time to read the Federalist Papers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: