The Real 4th of July
by Dan Gifford
“A revolution principle certainly is, and certainly should be taught as a principle of the Constitution of the United States, and of every State in the Union.” — James Wilson, Scottish lawyer, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a major force in the drafting of the Constitution, a leading legal theoretician and one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Each time July 4th rolls around, whoever lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue makes speeches celebrating American freedom and some other stuff like baseball and apple pie. But the guy at that address never gets down to lauding what the 4th of July is really all about: It’s a celebration of violence to achieve what most would agree was a just political end.
Yes, that political end was the achievement of independence from what America’s mostly British-born founders considered English tyranny by its German king and Parliament. But let’s have an honesty moment: I seriously doubt many today would consider the British rule that so angered our Founding Fathers anything to fight about. I mean, didn’t Screen Actors Guild members recently vote some fellow thespians onto the SAG Board of Directors who believe in taxation without representation?
That was a platform plank Marcia Wallace, Bob Newhart’s TV-shrink office receptionist, pitched to me on the Director’s Guild steps when she was running for a SAG Hollywood board slot. Her idea and that of some others who got elected last go ’round is to bar actors who don’t make a certain amount of money from voting in SAG elections and on union issues while, at the same time, forcing them to pay dues and be SAG members if they want to work. Is there any real difference between that scheme and the plight of the colonists who had to pay taxes levied in London even though they had no representation in Parliament? Maybe Wallace and those who voted for her should share some time on Bob’s cognitive dissonance couch with Mr. Carlin.
Talk about violence.
Anyway, when violence is used for the reason George Washington and Baron von Gekko used it, violence, for lack of a better word, is good. Violence is right, violence works. Violence clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
But the man in the White House right now doesn’t believe in violence for just cause. He gave the order for the Navy SEALS to shoot the Somali pirates to save the American ship captain they were holding hostage, you say? No. My military sources say he equivocated and the SEALS took the initiative themselves just as they are trained to do. He boldly sent the USS John McCain to intercept that North Korean ship believed to be carrying ballistic missiles for Iran? No, my military sources say top Pentagon brass leaned on him behind closed doors until he acted. Against that record, his deployment of additional troops in Afghanistan appears to be an aberration.
I believe the real view of the man currently living in our presidential mansion was stated quite clearly last month while positioned in his classic Mussoliniesque uplifted chin, quarter shot pose: “Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.” The Borg could not have said it better. But why stop there? Our president then compounded the intellectual insult: “For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding.”
Those ideals embodied as rights in the American Constitution include equality before the law, rights of due process against the power of the state and the right to be left alone by the minions of government. But the paramount right is at all times the right to use violence against a government that violates those and other fundamental portions of its contract with the people — aka: the Constitution — when all lawful and peaceable remedies have failed. To say “it was not violence that won full and equal rights” may be literally true in the sense they were not won at the point of a gun, but the statement perpetuates a highly misleading myth about passive resistance in general.
The non-violence of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are shibboleths among the urban elite and academic classes for the only moral way to challenge oppression and injustice. Fortunately, George Orwell understood the brutal reality of that game even if his fellow intellectuals didn’t: “Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.”
Gandhi’s and King’s non-violence only worked because they were not facing a Stalin or a Saddam or a Hitler or a Mao or a … Peaceful protest against those and like regimes is a guarantee of becoming worm food. Fact is, Gandhi and King protested the unjustness they saw within a fundamentally just system constructed by those aforementioned dead guys from Britain, and they didn’t just pull those principles out of their rear ends.
Those principles we take for granted that permit a balance between the sovereignty of the individual and that of the state we take are the accrued wisdom of centuries within an Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Viking alloy of cultures that valued personal freedom and its legitimate limits within the group that protected that freedom. Ya know, “The strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack,” as Rudyard Kipling put it. There are other ways of being akin to the beehive, but if individuals want to remain individuals, the occasional sting of violence or its threat is the only thing that prevents it.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
96 Comments
Talk about a perfect comparison! When Dan describes Obama, " in his classic Mussoliniesque uplifted chin, quarter shot pose" he couldn't have stated it any better!
Amen! Too many Americans are afraid to even consider such a thing. But, if all else fails, what else is left? Our Founding Fathers faced charges of treason that carried a death penalty and particularly brutal death penalty . . . and probably no chance of a 20 year appeal either. Yet they believed so strongly that America should be free and govern herself that they put their lives on the line, put their money and property on the line and fought, after they had tried every other way at their disposal to get the situation rectified.
Quite frankly, I am more than ready to make the next move, if it comes to that. But not until we have used every other means to correct the situation.
LawHawk,
If the message you've chosen to take from both of the World Wars is that 'violence works', then you've missed the point in such a spectacular way that it has to be deliberate. The point proven by both is the exact opposite.
The article itself is bellicose nonsense. Non-violence only works when… well, er, when it does. Enlightening stuff. You'll note that there's nothing to suggest that violence should be the last resort; it is, instead, suggested as the default action. Some people just get a warm, tingly feeling every time they see a hospital bombed, I suppose.
Go to Iran and spout that, will ya?
Dan! You da Man! Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, the most cognitive, lucid, compelling dissertation of why WE THE PEOPLE must retain the right to "throw da bums out". Of course the 2nd Amendment is the spearhead of our power to use force against force of tyranny. Some people will say "You can't use rifles against modern military equipment". In the 1st place, if we ever were to have "civil unrest" directed against a tyrannical despot, I think I can guarantee, enough of our own military, who by the way , are vastly more patriotic than the average populace, would also rebel and side with the true patriots that it would probably supercede the tyrant from trying to use our military against civilians wholesale. In the 2nd place, if the tyrant were to think that civilians actually had the backbone to stand shoulder to shoulder and absorb some losses without running, the use of force would never be considered. Of course this thought is beyond comprehension to the average American nowadays. Thank You for such a thought-provoking post on this, possibly our most important holiday(besides Christmas) of the entire year.HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Amen and God Bless our uniformed men and women…may they dispatch as many non-uniformed "insurgents" to 7th heaven as possible then come home victorious!
Moron, d'uh, Scuffle, don't shuffle away mad. Scuffle, just shuffle away.
That would be a good project…there are lots of photos of Mussolini and his fascist protoge Obama striking the same pose, it'd be fun to see them side by side.
Let 'em continue to think that. If worse comes to worse, it'll just make things that much easier.
I'm sorry, I'm still astounded that any adult person of resonable intelligence would have the opinion that "non-violence" was an option in WWII. Our participation in WWI is at least minimally debatable, but WWII? What kind of leftist garbage are they teaching in high schools these days? WE WERE ATTACKED at Pearl Harbor! HITLER PERSONIFIED EVIL! What non-violent response does a country make to that kind of provocation? Is it time Big Hollwod install an idiot filter? Are idiot sheep like this really walking our streets, calling themselves Americans?
You know, it is rapidly beginning to occur to people that if our Congresscritters are voting on tax legislation they blithely admit to not even having read, it amounts to taxation without representation.
What would you do to a lawyer that represented you in a contract negotiation that failed to read the contract itself?
What should we do to those who sign us on for taxes they aren't even aware exist in the Bills they're supporting?
Should be awhile, James, what could this troll come back with besides more nonsense and/or talking points from HuffHoe. It's probably hiding under the bed, or a bridge.
Scuffle: Then make your argument to the author. I didn't say anything about violence being the first resort. Non-violence and violence are both equally useless when used against the wrong adversary. All the non-violence in all of history put together would not have stopped Hitler or Tojo. You seem to be suggesting that non-violence would have worked. Your comment that "The point proven by both is the exact opposite" doesn't even make sense. And non-violence does indeed work "only when it does"–against an adversary who has values that require he be ashamed of what he has done. That's why Gandhi's non-violence worked, but the non-violence of the Jews and "non-Aryans" didn't.
Thanks, and ditto! I responded to Scuffle on his idiotic post below, but naturally I went into moderation because I used the proper noun for the six million members of a certain ethnic group who went peacefully to prison, the camps and finally the crematoria.
JamesB: My comment to dingbat Scuffle went just below yours one second before mine went into moderation. I hope it shows up later. All the old BH moderation black holes seem to be returning.
You gave Scuffle alot of leeway there…"any adult person of reasonable intelligence"… : )
Thank you for your excellent article on the wisdom of the inclusion of the second amendment in our Constitution
Jamessb falling right into the trap that the myopic flag-waving nutcases can't help but fall into, there. Did anyone mention American involvement in either of the World Wars, James?
Of course not. The argument you'll have to make, if your point has any validity at all, is that the wars *had* to start in the first place. That's the issue. Now, there is a credible argument that WWI was the result of a boiling tension that made the eruption of violence inevitable, but WWII? I'm not going to be the one to defend Hitler's strategy as the correct course of action. If you'd like to take a stab at it, then go right ahead.
What happened after both wars kicked off was just reaction. Violence precipitated violence, and eventually the grind ended. Again, if the lesson you've chosen to take from either of them is that violence is something to be celebrated in a masturbatory fashion, you've missed the point.
Two side-notes, as we're here, James. Firstly: As you've invoked Neda, can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that your thoughts about Iran stretched beyond 'bomb it back to the stone age' six months ago? You'd be very lonely amongst American conservatives if the answer is yes. Remember how violence was going to sort that whole 'issue' out, before the brown mass of probable terrorists inconveniently presented themselves as faces, names, and lives?
Secondly: Don't ever call me American or liberal again.
Wow, talk about one of the brainwashed masses, you don't even make sense, much less a valid point. Lets just take 1 of your talking-points, "What happened after both wars started was just reaction", okay. Now ,AFTER we were attacked at Pearl Harbor we were supposed to do exactly what? REACT, RIGHT? Okay, we reacted to the Japanese and, voila , after 2 years of brutal combat, including immense sacrafice of the highest order, by American soldiers, half of the entire worlds population, the entire Pacific Basin, was freed by American soldiers. What was your point again? That you are not American, therefore you can criticize American sacrifice to free the entire world? Don't worry, we won't call you American, though plenty of other words come to mind. Now go masturbate like you said you would, does TROLL fit you?
You write like a liberal American.
What are you, again? TROLLMEAT. You should try to make sense someday. If you are saying I write like a liberal American ala Thomas Jefferson, I can live with that. Otherwise, don't shuffle away mad, just shuffle away.
Ah, Hanzo. I thought James was a bit dim, but you've really won the dented trophy. Can I strip the argument down even further? I'll try, but if I simplify it any more, there'll come a point when I'll be forced to communicate in colours and flashing lights. I'll limit it to one sentence, and it'll be in the form of a question.
Before I do, though, it's hilarious that you've also perceived some slight against the American war effort here. 'Brainwashed masses', indeed… you've heard a trigger phrase and pushed the button marked 'stock response D'. Need I remind you that, for the purposes of this discussion, America is entirely irrelevant?
Alright, here we go, then. Here's the question that distills the argument, and it's one that you have to answer honestly:
Q: Do you think that the outbreak of WWII was a good thing?
I'll await your response.
Scuffle,
Q: Do you think that the outbreak of WWII was a good thing?
Non sequitur from all the previous. The right question is: Was it necessary to fight WW2?
If you're not American, then:
a) what are you doing here at an American blog and
b) why do you care to comment at all about what's going in a country of which you are not a citizen?
If you're not a liberal, then:
a) why do you insist that non-violence is the only means to end conflict and
b) why do you make stupid, inaccurate, irrelevant and inflammatory remarks about bombing hospitals and "warm tingly feelings?"
Scuffle,
If you're not American, then:
a) what are you doing here at an American blog and
b) why do you care to comment at all about what's going in a country of which you are not a citizen?
If you're not a liberal, then:
a) why do you insist that non-violence is the only means to end conflict and
b) why do you make stupid, inaccurate, irrelevant and inflammatory remarks about bombing hospitals and "warm tingly feelings?"
Is thay Scuffle or Scruffle? Okay, here we go, dude. " Was the outbreak of WW2 a good thing?' With 6million Jewish and other ethnic minorities dead in Europe alone, much less the wholesale slaughter the Japanese precipitated in the Pacific Basin and Asia, WW2 may not have been a good thing, but definitely inevitable. Et Tous, Brutus? What do you think? When you keep it down to just a few sentences you still don't make a valid or cognitive point but it is easier to respond to your drivel.
*Bangs head against brick wall*
Okay, if you'd rather we do that, Hector: Was it necessary for Germany to fight WWII?
once the western powers decided that they had given as much as they could give and that they drew the line at Poland, so far and no farther, then yes, it became necessary for Germany to start and fight WW2.
Keep banging your head against the wall. It's amusing.
Sorry, Scruffy old boy, the site admins is hopefully approving my comment right now. Without getting as involved with this comment, perhaps it will get through sooner. Real quick, "Do you think the outbreak of WW2 was a good thing?" Without going into particulars that you probably wouldn't understand anyway, a good thing, perhaps not, inevitable, definitely. Et Tous, Brutus?
Scuffle,
so here's a return serve question: Should the western powers have drawn the line or should they have continued a line of appeasement that served to direct Hitler more toward the East and toward the Soviet Union?
Excellent Ally. My comments are being held up, hopefully to appear soon.
Scuffle,
I'm still awaiting YOUR response to my questions above.
I know that you don't need me to respond for you, but it's pleasure anyway!
JamesB: Thanks for watching my back while I was in Moderator's Hell. My comment finally appeared (below). Regards.
You've phrased that question in an interesting way, Hector. A very 'Children's Ilustrated History of WWII' way. I could answer it in the same manner; I could outline my brilliant strategy for conquering Hitler and saving us all a lot of blood and lives, but it'd be dishonest. Truth is, before the war broke out, Hitler was just another right-wing expansionist nut-job. Halfway through the war, he was still just another right-wing expansionist nut-job, albeit one who had converted his rhetoric into violence. It wasn't until the war was over that we began to ask how he could have been stopped.
Anyway, that's a nice diversion, but it's not germaine to the argument. Back to it.
ah yes, the return shot of ad hominem, lacking substance, because you can't answer it in the manner you want to. I always like that kind of riposte. The problem, sir, is that strawmen are easy to knock down, but easier to just blow away in a puff of breeze.
The question, as stated, so child-like, remains: Should the western powers have drawn the line or should they have continued a line of appeasement that served to direct Hitler more toward the East and toward the Soviet Union?
Sorry, I didn't notice this reply before responding below.
In simplifying it for the simple-minded, you're right, you tripped me up on a word. I shouldn't have used 'necessary'. I should have stuck to 'good', as in the original phrasing.
You realise that you're avoiding the actual issue being discussed, right? I wish I could get away with that. Do you do this in your real life, too? I might have to try it. The next time my credit card bill comes in, I'm calling them up and discussing the colour of the envelope it came in in the hope that the whole thing will just go away.
So, you realize that the original phrasing was such that you were backed into a corner…but you call me simple-minded. I love the retreat to ad hominem. The re-phrasing of the question to whether it was good for Germany to fight WW2 depends on when you ask the question. If you're Guderina on the heights overlooking Dunkirk, it sure looks good. If you're Guderian on the outskirts of Moscow in 1941, again, it looks good. If you're Donetz and you're reading the U-Boat reports about the sinking of shipping in the Atlantic in 1942, it looks good.
If you're Von Paulos in Stalingrad in 1943…not so good.
D'uh, you would have *Nuked* him, right? By the way, Hitler was a Left-wing expansionist nut-job, a SOCIALIST. You have been banging your head against the wall all night long, right? That's okay, no brain, no head-ache.
Do you have a real life? I couldn't imagine a real person actually being so low in self-esteem that they would spend time with you, a rubber doll, perhaps?
You'll find I've already answered that question, Hector, if you can stop beating your chest for a minute. The response is in the post you're responding to. It was the one that didn't contain an ad hominem attack or a strawman argument. Are you sure that these terms mean what you think they mean?
Hanzo, if you want to bring up the 'Hitler was actually left wing because the Nazi's called themselves socialist' nonsense, then give me your address. I've got some magic beans you might be interested in.
We appear to have splintered into a two-pronged debate, but let's go with it.
Hector, you seem to have a real problem with context. You're blatantly attempting to slide the debate away from its actual subject, and onto one that you feel you can 'win'. I'm afraid that I'm not interested in that kind of dishonesty. Have a read of the article at the top of the page, and remind yourself of what we're talking about. Read my posts. Now, is it possible for anyone interested in rational debate to interpret my posts in the way you've pretended to?
Honestly, gloves off, I find it depressing. As with Libertas and DHP, the only reason I shored up here is to have an honest debate. It's the last thing anyone seems to want, though. The goalposts have to keep moving, because nobody's interested in examining their beliefs. If there's a win to be had, it has to be on a technicality, because nothing's genuinely discussed because that's not the point. The point is to have accepted 'truths' re-affirmed and clap, clap, clap, like the good, obedient drones you are.
I'm throwing in the towel for tonight. If I'm back, it'll be to face someone capable of a fight.
Oh, and Hanzo? You called ME a troll? The term doesn't just mean 'politically incorrect', you know.
Sorry, I can't seem to find them. Did you post them with a different username?
A valedictory address regarding the above carnage, then, because I feel that we've all learned absolutely nothing this evening.
I posed a question here earlier that was never answered, because dull bureaucracy got in the way. The point of the question was, of course, to gauge how far the celebration of violence can be taken. Unfortunately, I set some of the resident automatons off in the process, and it never got answered. Not that I really expected anyone to say 'well yes, Hitler was right, because he was achieving his objectives'. We skirted very close to it, though.
WWII was the real struggle. The drones couldn't really cope with the concept that hey, maybe those six million people and everyone fighting on either side of them didn't really *need* to die. As far as I can decipher the argument, though, it's that they did; because without those deaths, there wouldn't be a victory to celebrate. And let's face it, what's more important? Yay violence. It gives us a reason to feel good about ourselves if we win.
Morality didn't enter into the discussion. Mainly because, when you're talking about violence, morality goes out of the window. You might be annexing Poland. You might be occupying Iraq. You might be punching your wife in the face because she's burned your dinner. You are of a type.
Resistance is another thing, but that's a distinction missed in the article and in the responses. Fighting back is admirable and necessary, if it's against appropriate targets. Starting the fight, though? Worshipping violence for its own sake? No. This is the way of thinking that gave us two world wars, and I'm not all that keen on seeing another.
Omigod! You mean they've been lying to us all these years? Violence occasionally does solve something (like American Independence, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and hopefully Iraq and Afghanistan). Aw shucks, and I believed everything I read in the newspapers, and believed Walter Cronkite's every word. Darn.
Ah, here they are. I was a little concerned that I'd left an I undotted or a T uncrossed, but your comments just took a while to show up.
You do realise how blazingly stupid your first pair of questions are, don't you? If the concept of this being an 'American blog' wasn't daft enough, you could just have a shuffle through the last few pages of articles to flip your question back on itself. There's been a lot of discussion about Iran here recently, hasn't there? I struggle to believe that everyone who has written an article or posted a response is actually an Iranian citizen.
To the second pair, then:
a) Haven't insisted that. Just that violence should be the last resort, rather than something engaged in for its own sake, or because it's the easier option. This is clearly a radical opinion, as a thorough read of this thread will demonstrate.
c) See the above answer. I can't really identify with people who enjoy violence, and to paraphrase Ballard, if it means rubbing people's faces in their own vomit and forcing them to look in the mirror, then so be it. The people who were slavering for the Iraq war, for example, got what they wanted within the first six months. The outcome? Irrelevant. The entertainment? Oh, that's the thing.
Naive garbage. Non-violence only works when it's allowed to work, by benevolent democratic governments. Ask Neda in Iran if peaceful assembly works in that theocratic cesspool. Only the U.S. stands up, mans up and goes to war to protect those that can't protect themselves. American liberals live in an ignorant bliss, awash in their own self importance and self satisfaction. That's fine, and it'll continue to work. as long as there is a heavily armed U.S. Marine, Army or Air Force volunteer defending that liberals right to live fat and happy and "preach nonsense". By the way, I get the "hospital bombed" crack on Israel. Don't you have the courage to criticize Israel straight up? You support Hamas terrorists that HIDE in hospitals and schools and cause death and destruction of their own people to advance their terrorist agenda and the destruction of Israel?
Further more what in the hell do you think WWI and WWII were all about? You have the "Obama audacity" to think non-violence WOULD HAVE WORKED? That is stupid and ludicrious in a "spectacular way". I suppose throwing marshmellows at the Waffen SS and Werhmacht as they smashed into the Low countries and on to France really would have worked, right? Talking sense to Hitler really worked for the J ews right? Make a cogent argument then get to us…we'll wait here. Of course as distasteful as it is to you, American fireworks are "non-violent" representations of BOMBS, and MISSLES, and ARMED CONFLICT. ..and WE WON! So I'll go celebrate some successful violence, you go hide with the dog under the bed.
Ya. I gave Scuffle two pieces of intellectual meat to knaw on, now I'm waiting for an intelligent response…could be a while…he/she/it MUST be afraid of fireworks.
I'm sorry, I'm still astounded that any adult person of resonable intelligence would have the opinion that "non-violence" was an option in WWII. Our participation in WWI is at least minimally debatable, but WWII? What kind of leftist garbage are they teaching in high schools these days? WE WERE ATTACKED at Pearl Harbor! HITLER PERSONIFIED EVIL! What non-violent response does a country make to that kind of provocation? Is it time Big Hollywood install an idiot filter? Are idiot sheep like this really walking our streets, calling themselves Americans?….oh ya, Obama voters…I hope the 467,000 unfortunate but newly unemployed workers ALL VOTED FOR THAT SOCIALIST PIG!
Scuffle,
I would like to address some of the things you've said. I won't address everything since there is so much. Below are some quotes from you.
"If the message you've chosen to take from both of the World Wars is that 'violence works', then you've missed the point in such a spectacular way that it has to be deliberate. The point proven by both is the exact opposite."
-You missed LawHawk's point and proceeded to open a discussion by assuming everyone was saying that WWI and WWII were not only good, but needed to be started. He said, "Violence occasionally does solve something (like American Independence, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and hopefully Iraq and Afghanistan)." Notice these are wars America fought, not Germany, not USSR, etc. It is obvious LawHawk is stating that our involvement in these wars was a good and just thing. He is saying our involvement to end WWI and WWII were good since everyone knows the US did not start them.
cont'd
-Your expanded argument insinuates that these other comment submitters agree that it was good that Hitler started WWII even though they won't come out and say it. You said in your last post, "Not that I really expected anyone to say 'well yes, Hitler was right, because he was achieving his objectives'. We skirted very close to it, though." Did they really come that close? They are saying that the United States involvement to fight Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany was a good thing. They never stated, suggested, or alluded that starting these wars were good. Ending them was good.
cont'd
"Non-violence only works when… well, er, when it does"
-The article deliberately states that is not the case. It states: "Gandhi’s and King’s non-violence only worked because they were not facing a Stalin or a Saddam or a Hitler or a Mao or a … Peaceful protest against those and like regimes is a guarantee of becoming worm food. Fact is, Gandhi and King protested the unjustness they saw within a fundamentally just system constructed by those aforementioned dead guys from Britain, and they didn’t just pull those principles out of their rear ends." That's pretty clear that the author is not saying "…only works when… well, er, when it does". He is saying that non-violence only works under certain circumstances, when confronting a “fundamentally just system".
Concerning ad hominem attacks:
Responding to Hector you said, "It was the one that didn't contain an ad hominem attack…"
-It seems you do not appreciate ad hominem attacks, yet you use outright ad hominem attacks beginning with your first post. Examples below:
"Some people just get a warm, tingly feeling every time they see a hospital bombed, I suppose." – People that disagree with you like to see innocent, disabled, and others die because it makes them happy? They like death and destruction?
"Jamessb falling right into the trap that the myopic flag-waving nutcases can't help but fall into, there." – People that disagree with you have only one view and need psychiatric care?
"Ah, Hanzo. I thought James was a bit dim, but you've really won the dented trophy." – People that disagree with you are also stupid?
"You've phrased that question in an interesting way, Hector. A very 'Children's Ilustrated (sic) History of WWII' way." – People that disagree with you have the mental capability of children – another way of saying they are mentally retarded?
"You'll find I've already answered that question, Hector, if you can stop beating your chest for a minute." – People that disagree with you are just apes or perhaps they are Tarzan? Either way, they are not at your intellectual level?
"… resident automatons…" – People that disagree with you are mindless robots?
"You might be annexing Poland. You might be occupying Iraq. You might be punching your wife in the face because she's burned your dinner. You are of a type." – People that disagree with you about the use of violence are as evil as Hitler, Bush, and wife beaters?
Finally – It seems as if you did not read the full article or chose to ignore some of it. You start a discussion, supposedly based on the article, but change the parameters and ignore what others say. You belittle their arguments, as well as their mental acuity. At the risk of hurling a much hated ad hominem attack, you react like a child that thinks he is smarter than everyone else. You change the rules so you can not lose. You purposely ignore or misconstrue other's arguments so you are not wounded. You belittle others, but complain when others do likewise so that they can not have the same weapons as you. You shoot from the hip with a splattering of misleading comments that makes it difficult to respond to them all.
I think this last bit might prompt you to think I favor violence especially with my use of violent metaphors (weapons, shoot from hip, etc.). You would be wrong. My real gripe is the way you treat others and respond to them. If you are truly looking for answers and an intelligent debate, then perhaps you could lead by example.
Good luck to you and God bless.
I think you greatly underestimate the true military person. It is no coincidence that the US has never had a military coup. Most members of the military would never go against the government. They are subservient to the government. Even someone as arrogant as Douglas MacArthur, who some said could be a Caesar, would never think of going against the law to overthrow the government.
You are right about the 2nd Amendment being the people's use of force against tyranny.
no, you're weren't looking for a discussion, you were looking to score easy points and found that tougher than you expected and you started spluttering. I've seen it many times in young engineers who, when asked a tough question, will try to answer the question they wanted you to ask them, and then hope you don't notice.
"But the man in the White House right now doesn’t believe in violence for just cause. He gave the order for the Navy SEALS to shoot the Somali pirates to save the American ship captain they were holding hostage, you say? No. My military sources say he equivocated and the SEALS took the initiative themselves just as they are trained to do. He boldly sent the USS John McCain to intercept that North Korean ship believed to be carrying ballistic missiles for Iran? No, my military sources say top Pentagon brass leaned on him behind closed doors until he acted. Against that record, his deployment of additional troops in Afghanistan appears to be an aberration."
Well I can certainly see why I'd take the word of your anonymous sources over that of the public record. You do write for Big Hollywood and all, so your credentials are above reproach.
Get rid of the liberals, and there will be no liberal problem, using evolution as the driving principle.
Just chalk their judgmentalism up to their own most-holy relativism. It's darwin time for liberals.
Miles, the facts are there, this side story to the Somali pirate story, started leaking out as soon as the incident was over.The people who were actually there and participated in this event were the sources. I'm not going to do your research for you, just dig a little bit and the truth is there. As I said above, the events surrounding this story started coming out as soon as the event was concluded, therefore, this is not really "new news".
Bravo Tommy, very well stated.
Scruffy old boy, you seem to suffer from "CLS"(Chronic Loser Syndrome), don't be afraid to win if your cause is just, old bean.
I believe you think that I overestimate the patriotism of the true military person, as it was couched in my original comment. You do indeed make a very good point, its just that I know quite a few young soldiers who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and I believe they are cut from the cloth of true patriotism to God and country, not government.
That reminds me of the scene in Aliens when the magazines were collected and one of the Marines says "what are we supposed to use, harsh language?"
There can be no successful "Second American Revolution" without the support of significant parts of the US military, and local and federal law enforcement.
Federal law enforcement's role has morphed from protecting the Constitution from "all enemies foreign and domestic". to protecting the government. The government will ruthlessly suppress any armed insurrection in the same manner that the mullahs just did in Iran. Indeed the troops and police will be lied to, to get them to cooperate in using lethal force against their own countrymen. They will be told that the insurgents are neo-nazis, or some other convenient lie to get them to cooperate.
While I agree that the Constitution gives Americans the right to overthrow their government by force of arms if that government ever becomes tyrannical. I have serious doubt in the success of such an endeavor.
I'm HIGHLY GRATIFIED that you are not an American, thank God Almighty. How can you NOT think of American involvement in the World Wars when particularly in WWII it was mostly the U.S. verses the Axis. G.Britian was bankrupt and tapped out. The rest of western Europe was under the heel of a jackboot. The violence that you continue to seem to believe could have been ended with a nice talk over tea and crumpets is a stupid fantasy. Chamberlain proved that. As for Iran and Neda, NEVER presume to know my opinion about Iran. Iran will fall from inside, their nuclear capability will be surgically removed, like a cancerous tumor. Radical Islam, the "brown people" you speak of, racist description by the way, is a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. They must be eradicated or subdued. Period. Britian is finally waking up to the threat, look at the op-ed in the "Daily Mail" from May 23rd concerning out of conrtol immigration in Great Britian from as you would say, "brown countries".
Secondly, you obviously don't understand what conservatism means. Typical Euro-conservative stance, a slightly less liberal shade of liberal. Dim? DIM? From the likes of you? F— you, c-cksu-ker. I can stand toe to toe with you intellectually any day.. and take you on in any dark alley. Texans don't back off from arrogant posers. You've accomplished nothing but to come of as a self satisfied wanker with too much time on your hands.
You can't be as ignorant as you post, right? Conflict between humans goes back to the start of humans…it is an unsavory part of the human condition…Socrates knew that, Hobbes knew that, every great philosopher KNEW THAT. You presume to know better? You're a wanker, a real calloused palmed wanker…piss off.
James, I'm afraid this self-absorbed twit is as ignorant as his posts seem to be
Tommy,
I'll reply to your points as separate responses, as it seems the most reasonable way of going about it.
Believe me, I got LawHawk's point. What I wanted to do last night was see how far it could be defended, which is why I latched onto the world wars. Faced with an article that argues that we should 'celebrate violence', I wanted to shake out a bit of genuine feeling on the issue. Because, admittedly, it stuck in my craw. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, and like most veterans, they didn't like talking about their experiences. It was a grim job, and an effort to – and this is crucial – *bring an end* to a level of violence that makes you question the worth of the human race. Not a cause for breaking out the bunting and having a bit of a dance, but for lamenting that a resistance was necessary in the first place.
A reminder, in case you get bogged down in the sludge that dogged last night: we are talking about 'celebrating violence'.
I didn't assume that everyone was saying that the outbreak of WWII was a good and healthy; I asked whether it was, given that the celebration of violence would suggest that it was at least no bad thing. The closest I got to a response was a punter who was more interested in playing the parlour game of re-thinking pre-war strategy. This isn't a game I can play, because it means having to put yourself into a mindset where the holocaust isn't an historical fact. It was irrelevant, anyway, to an argument about whether violence is something to be celebrated.
No, they were parochial enough to assume that I was talking about the US. As I stated several times, US involvement in WWII was irrelevant to the discussion; a discussion that was, of course, about the kind of mentality that allows such wars to begin.
Hanzo stated that instigating the war was the correct move for Germany, incidentally. But that really is incidental, because it was a statement made in the dry, detached, hobbyist style that characterises such judgements. Also incidental is the fact that you and I wouldn't have been on Germany's side.
Oh, I appreciate a nice ad hom, don't get me wrong. The disgusting treatmeant of anyone who has a slight difference of opinion on sites like this force you to come out swinging. The point is, he accused me of using one, and a straw man argument, in a post that included neither. It seemed like these were just terms he'd picked up and was throwing around to see if he could get a hit.
In the interest of full disclosure, as you've gone to the trouble of quoting me, here's the meaning behind each statement: 1-4, top down.
1. A great many people sadly enjoy death and destruction if they're slightly removed from it. They love the idea that they're winning, and that someone else is losing. That is, after all, what this entire discussion is about.
2. James assumed that any discussion about WWII must be about the involvement of the US, because he believes it to be the only significant part. Myopic is definitely the word. I stand by nutcase, too.
3. Hanzo, like James, didn't really disagree with me. He, similarly, ignored the argument and ranted on about the US war effort. I stand by the point that people who don't understand what they're disagreeing with are a bit stupid, yes.
4. And this is, I think, the one that Hector thought was an ad hominem attack. If you'd care to read the question I was responding to, you'll see what I was getting at. It's a question that isn't just loaded, it's rammed. The phrasing is of a type used only in propaganda or books for children, and that's not a way of saying that he's mentally retarded. Craven manipulation takes a bit of wit, after all.
5. A *person* who disagreed with me – if he even disagreed with me, as he was so committed to dodging the argument it's difficult to tell – was more interested in the business of being seen to win an argument through obfuscation rather than engaging in it. That's chest-beating, right there.
6. Ah, and now we've hit on something. 'Automatons' may be hyperbolic, but it's not that far from the truth. Check out any article on here that has a decent number of responses, and see the level of debate that occurs in those responses. There is none. Any mild disagreement is hounded out via trolling. I visited the sites that led me here because I wanted to engage with people who held beliefs that I couldn't quite understand. I wanted to debate with them, and see if a little healthy argument could produce something that both sides could learn from. It's become clear over the years, though, that the people I call the 'automatons' don't come here in the same spirit. What they want is their beliefs reaffirmed, because the outside world seems to be casting doubt on them. To use a crude phrase, they want a circle-jerk behind a closed door.
7. People who consider violence as the first course of action are of a type. I see nothing wrong with that statement. From the smallest act to the largest, we're talking about the same thing.
In conclusion, then…
Tommy, your questions were reasonable up to this point, but you've stumbled off the cliff here. If you re-read the whole thread, you'll see that, if anything, I was stubbornly attempting to keep the parameters to what they were, while others were desperately attempting to change them. That's what caused the friction.
I've complained about being belittled exactly once, and it was in response to a bizarre outburst by someone who accused me of being a troll, before saying that I'm intimately acquainted with rubber dolls. Even that wasn't a complaint; I was just pointing out that he wasn't in any position to accuse people of trolling.
I think I've covered most of your other points in the responses to your other segments, but I'll leave you with this: check through some of the other threads. Read how grim and vitriolic the average replies tend to be. It's okay, though. That viciousness is okay, because it's in *support* of the lead article. We can be as nasty as we like if we're moving with the herd. Dissent, though? Dissent clearly has to be crushed. It doesn't matter what the message is, it can be disfigured and characterised as something ridiculous. Everything can become normal again, and everyone can fall back into line. One thought. One thought. One thought.
I doubt you'll ever get it, James, but here's one last try. Your own words, right back at you:
'The violence that you continue to seem to believe could have been ended with-'
Do you see? If you don't, then there's not much I can do for you other than remind you that we're all gathered here to *celebrate* violence, and send you on your way.
Anyway: WWII was 'mostly the US verses the Axis?' What are they teaching in schools these days? Not English, on the evidence of your post, but that's incidental. Anyway, let's see you trip over again:
'Radical Islam, the "brown people" you speak of'
Oh dear. That's a revealing mistake, isn't it? That's the problem with false indignation. It's false. I won't presume to know your opinion on Iran again, petal. I won't presume that you know it either.
I'm amused that you think that the Daily Mail is a trustworthy source, though. That explains a lot.
Who do you think KEPT England alive for the duration? It was what was left of British merchant shipping and the massive U.S. industrial might POURING arms and munitions into the fight. When given their head the Brits managed to screw the pooch regularly. Cyprus, the Canadians at Dieppe, later in Montgomery's mess called Market Garden , there's just part of the list. You used the term "brown" people in reference to the Middle East, not me. You're an obvious anti-Semite and totally misunderstand what happening there. Stop criticizing diction and the like, mine use of the "Mother Language" is accurate and you getting tedious.
I've no idea how Miles is faring, but I can't find much about this that isn't opinon about it from right-wing blogs, Hanzo. Not much primary information. If we agree on nothing else, we can at least agree that when somebody doesn't cite their sources, they're probably just making it up? It doesn't matter if you agree with what they're saying; hack tactics are hack tactics.
Sorry, I don't use screen parlez, but if if ever there was a justified reason for typing LOL then 'I've seen it many times in young engineers' would have to be it.
You'll recall that you didn't ask me any 'tough' questions. You asked me only one, which I answered honestly, with the caveat that it was completely irrelevant to the discussion. You wanted to play the old pipe-and-smoking-jacket game of pre-WWII strategy, a game that is, of course, meaningless when played with 21st Century eyes. It was a cute distraction; attempting to shift the conversation towards something you thought you could answer, and hoping that I wouldn't notice. You've clearly learned well from your young engineers.
But I don't play those games, Hector, and I am here for honest discussion. If I'm here to 'score easy points' then I have to ask: what game do you imagine we're playing?
Sorry son, but that reply just seems incoherent. Please try again.
sorry
James-this little piss-ant just got ahold of me, trying to refute the facts of the Somali pirate story. I don't know if you saw my comment to Miles, below, who questioned the validity of the true facts of this event, but the fact is BHO wouldn't allow the SEAL snipers to "fire at will", so when the snipers next had all targets in sight, the on-site SEAL commander gave his own order as on-the-scene authority to fire.Of course the MSM gave all of the credit to BHO. I'm sure you heard this also, its not even "new news".Hmmm,Miles and Scuffle, a new British Invasion,ala the 60's rock groups, or just attack of the Wankers?Haha…my money is on the latter..
Anything else Scuffle? You got most of this argument wrong. In a phrase, violence works. It's an unfortunate part of the human condition but it has been a fact of the matter since the first organized "towns" sprung up near the Tigris and Euphrates thousands of years ago…Someone will always be there to "conk" the other guy on the head. It's what we do, were humans. I prefer to be the "conker" not the "conkee", got it?
This twit merely wants to yank chains, Hector. Your'e right, he's not even coherent, must be off his meds.
"Hanzo stated that instigating the war was the correct move for Germany, incidentally." WTF are you talking about? Find that comment from me, lying SOB. The only question I answered to you was "was the start of WW2 a good thing?" Once again, my answer, "good,maybe not. Inevitable, definitely". What say you now? My comment about you not having a life seems to have been borne out by you. Why do you have time to just try to start shit with everyone?By Jove, I think your'e just envious of us Americans, old bean.
You are seriously demented, can you get internet service at the insane asylums over there? Once again, I answered your stupid question, now you answer it for me, was the start of WW2 a good thing? Just answer the question, if you can.
Scuffle, you need to look into the mirror for your daily affirmations,"I am smart, and darnit, I am somebody." You continuously talk out both sides of your mouth, spouting lies and changing your story time after time to anyone who will listen to you.I just followed your comments through this thread and you should too. If you are that seriously self-deluded, I suggest you seek professional help post-haste. When I received your first comment tonight I decided to try another round with you, I now see it's hopeless. Why do you talk about masturbation so much, Freudian slip? Good Riddance, you'll just have to envy and hate us from afar, in silence.
James, I don't know if you have or not, but you should follow the thread on down again. I just got finished with Scuffy, there is absolutely, positively no chance for him to see the light of day, having his head so far up his ass.I have came to the conclusion, as I'm sure you have, he just wants to prevaricate and try to start shit with us because he is so insanely jealous of us, he is truly Euro-trash.
Your very dry and lame attempt at some form of psychotic psycho-babble will not convince 1 person to take you seriously, I don't believe. You try to get someone to see your side of the argument when the truth is right here for all to see.You seem to be very insecure, if you don't like this site, simply go elsewhere, someplace your*geniass* can be appreciated, good luck with that, hahaha.
Scuffle, as I said before, this story is an old news story in this day and age of the internet. It sounds as if you did find something and you dis-qualified it as being "opinion about it from right-wing blogs". What, exactly , did you find? Besides, in the debate from Saturday evening(where I live) you asked that no one call you American or liberal ever again. If you are not liberal, why would you not accept as news something you read, from what you claim to be , a "right-wing blog"? Anytime you want to reply, I'll be here, I also welcome spirited debate, but last night went over the line with vitriole from both sides. All I can say is, keep looking, hopefully you'll find a source you can trust, I know I did.
By the way I read many British publications mostly the OP/ED pages, not the two headed calf pages and they are basically unanimous on the fundemental problems concerning immigration into England in advance of the Dec. 2010 law change that will make much more difficult to gain British citizenship, which of course grants a whole raft of "free" benefits. Please, don't be such a phony snob. You haven't yet effectively refuted a word I've written. The genesis of this was violence v. "non-violence" as means of dispute settlement. An armed motivated bunch of British subjects said "enough is enough" and from that grew THE dominant country on earth. That is a fact, it beyond dispute…sometimes the other party doesn't WANT a peaceful, spoken settlement…
That's so much BS Scuffle, you are the one who wouldn't answer honestly, only half-assed personal attacks and more irrelevant questions. I answered your questions several times, not one honest answer from you, only more prevarication.
So true, I actually also believe Scuffy is so filled with hate and envy towards us, when combined with a large dose of hubris and delusions of grandeur that he really can't help himself, I truly believe he is mentally unbalanced, spending large parts of his waking hours absorbed in fantasy, seeing those who plot against him and his rightousness around every corner. He just dosen't make sense…. : )
Your comment to him about prefering to be the conker instead of the conkee was great, although I'm sure he just denies the truth in anything we say.
That figures, it's to bad when facts get in the way of revisionists and trolls. You know that it was a military decision that is probably on the books as doctrine, not a command and control type presidential situation. The Cuban Missle Crisis was a POTUS "hands on" situation, not 4 idiot Africans in a motorized rowboat. The lenghts people will go to elevate the "Empty Suit" to presidential like stature…amazing…
He may be on furlough from HuffPo or Kos….needs an outlet to spread ignorance and hate cloaked as a "progressive" thinker. I still astounded that a modern liberal would think that his avocation of unilateral "non-violence" is superior or an alternative to the facts of the matter as articulated by Plato ( not Dana or "Different Strokes") other philosophers that clearly acknowledged the reality of violence as part of the human condition. He probably used "The Republic" as a door stop or more likely has never heard of it. It's "yucky" to a liberal, so full of violence…
[...] six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the UnitedRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2009/07/04/the-real-fourth-of-july/ Tags: Post, the, Washington « crocs discontinued >> Crocs: From Revolutionary [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.