J Thomas on July 07, 2011, 08:48:19 am

Wars are life-or-death struggles by countries that are throwing everything they have into the conflict.

Sometimes. That wasn't true for the Cod Wars, for example.

Wars cover a whole spectrum from almost-not-war to genocide.

Wars by governments are usually *about* something. When you're losing, you can stop fighting and give the winner what he wants, and he'll stop killing you. Once the winner has what he wants he will agree to peace on his terms.

Sometimes governments will agree to peace without victory, when victory looks like it isn't worth the cost to either side.

There's a continual battle between the guys who want to hurt the enemy as much as possible so he'll surrender, versus the guys who want to make a deal and end the war.  The USA is special that way -- we figure that the other side is eeevil or we wouldn't be fighting them, so we need victory no matter how much it costs. We hate to compromise with evil, so we only agree to less-than-unconditional surrender when we have found out we can't win -- 1812, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

My own thought is that if you're going to win a war and live with the losers afterward -- if you don't intend genocide -- then you should try for a victory that's decisive, quick, and mild. If you're too mean about it then they'll resent you for several generations, and that can come back and bite you. The british were fairly lucky about that. The irish are still kind of miffed at them, but britain never had an enemy that the irish could assist, and never will. Russia was unnecessarily evil in their last war with Finland, but the Finns have had no opportunity to retaliate whatsoever. Etc.

Very often you can get by just fine with a lot of unnecessary roughness. The big deal is don't start to genocide people and then botch it. Germany has come out like roses about that, and the turks have done very well about the armenians, but are having a little trouble with kurds. So that isn't a surefire bad thing either, but sometimes it can be pretty bad.

sam on July 07, 2011, 03:52:15 pm
My own thought is that if you're going to win a war and live with the losers afterward -- if you don't intend genocide -- then you should try for a victory that's decisive, quick, and mild. If you're too mean about it then they'll resent you for several generations, and that can come back and bite you. The british were fairly lucky about that. The irish are still kind of miffed at them, but britain never had an enemy that the irish could assist, and never will. Russia was unnecessarily evil in their last war with Finland, but the Finns have had no opportunity to retaliate whatsoever. Etc.

State sponsored mass rape seemed to quell the Germans mighty thoroughly, and they have shown absolutely no tendency to retaliate.  They are to this day too frightened to think unkind thoughts about Russia and Russians.

Similarly, observe the various Islam on Islam wars.  The Shia minority of Saudi Arabia was subjugated mighty thoroughly, and no one ever hears the slightest peep out of them.

sam on July 07, 2011, 04:23:37 pm
Similarly, the guys who conquered the British empire were the greatest experts on efficient warfare, since they made war for a profit, and they routinely used collective reprisals, killing an entire village for an offense by a single individual in that village.  The people who were most pissed off by this practice, were generally killed by it.

And here I thought it was those terrible French colonialists and Italian colonialists and German colonialists who did things like that, while Britain was enlightened.

The British empire only came into existence in 1876, but most of it was conquered a century earlier, in the 1700s.

Before the British empire was an empire, Briitish pirates and brigands conquered most of the world.  They were surprisingly popular with the conquered.  I suppose that they were unpopular with those they killed or enslaved, but those killed or enslaved do not write history.

From around 1830 to 1880 or so, the British government started taking over what in 1876 became the British empire, on the grounds that British pirates and brigands were unenlightened, and British bureaucrats were highly enlightened.  They would either hang the pirates, or knight them.  If knighted, history was adjusted to erase their piratical past, so that they were enlightened all the way back.

Enlightened rule proved strangely unpopular.  I am not sure whether it was actually unpleasant and oppressive, because it was rule by far away bureaucrats instead of nearby pirates, or whether it was perceived as unpleasant and oppressive because it was safer to complain about far away bureaucrats than nearby pirates.  One of the causes of the Indian mutiny was do-gooder land reform.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 04:46:44 pm by sam »

ContraryGuy on July 07, 2011, 05:35:35 pm

The next two years will matter a lot.  Go left.  The possibility of war goes up.  To the right in name only.  Same result.  The movement to limit and simplify government is gaining support.  It's not going to be easy or fun. I suspect it will be down right painful as people reorganize their lives.

The reorganization will take one of two roads: the painful path of "do-without" forever and ever, Amen, as more wealth is sucked up by the 400 richest people and their staffs; or,
the path of revolution where limits are set on government and corporation alike, where 250-300 of those aforementioned 400 richest people are burned a the stake, and their money with them.


Quote
We have a final chance to change things.   We still have to deal with people like .....  George Soros, Michael Bloomburg, and etc.

Dont forget the Koch Brothers, Glenn Beck, and all of the other billionaire political donors.


ContraryGuy on July 07, 2011, 05:47:15 pm
I believe you are correct, the discussion and shape of our government will be as you described.  We just have to get out there and take part in shaping the discussion.  Whether it is letters to the editor, talking with family and friends or on the internet.  It's up to us. 

No, it isnt.  We have already lost.  Presently, and for the foreseeable future, one dollar equals one vote, and it doesnt matter a damn how many people "we" talk to.
If the silent majority takes to the streets in protest, and a Republican is in power, we are ignored.
If a Democrat is in power, the news media refuses to cover the protests and anyone not involved thinks nothing has happened.

I would be interested in hearing how "WE" can change things when everything is arrayed against "us".  We dont live in a comic strip, you know; life doesnt have to end well.
Sometimes the hero loses.

dough560 on July 08, 2011, 03:53:17 am
Look at the direction of social development.  As individual arms, easily operated by anyone, predominated.  Individual rights have become widely recognized as a goal to reach for.  Repressive governments and religions move to suppress civil rights.  Especially self-defense and possession of efficient personal weapons.  U.N. and U.S, prohibitions are public records.  In every case these prohibitions have been failures.  Spectacular failures with millions of deaths.  Deaths due to violent criminals, government and religious actions.  These deaths may have made the governments and religions all warm and fuzzy, "secure in their "power".  Survivors?  The survivors incurred a hate and desire for freedom they probability don't recognize. They provide for their families.  They reach for freedom, if not for themselves, then for their children.  Changes are incremental.  Three steps forward, two steps back.   ;)  These changes spread with the opening of individual communications.  Changes protected by the existence of individual arms.    ;D

They change one person at a time.  As individual communications improve;  ideas spread,  In-spite of public school systems.  People see or hear things, they think about and incorporate into their beliefs.  Why do you think TransProgs have such a vested interests in Public Schools, TV Programing, and Movies?  In-spite of these social controls and prohibitions, ideas about individual freedom still spread.  Otherwise we wouldn't be talking on this form or reading the stories.  We wouldn't be seeing changes in Shall Issue, Constitutional Carry and Castle Laws in the U.S.  Or the social and market changes in Russia and China as people reach for freedom.  The fear reactions by every prohibitive government or religious group in the world.  Yes, I especially mean the Muslim Mullahs and Government Leaders.

J Thomas on July 08, 2011, 07:24:17 am

State sponsored mass rape seemed to quell the Germans mighty thoroughly, and they have shown absolutely no tendency to retaliate.  They are to this day too frightened to think unkind thoughts about Russia and Russians.

Similarly, observe the various Islam on Islam wars.  The Shia minority of Saudi Arabia was subjugated mighty thoroughly, and no one ever hears the slightest peep out of them.

Sometimes that seems to work. It's risky. Consider the Jews, who were mighty thoroughly subjugated by, well, almost everybody. And yet they have probably done mighty thorough revenge against, well, almost everybody, in sneaky deniable ways that would get you branded an antisemite to mention.

As I was saying, the British have got off easy. In WWII the Germans contacted IRA to do sabotage. They paid IRA a significant amount of money and probably sent them significant weapons and bomb-making material and training. The IRA sent them reports of significant sabotage. The British maintained then and now that the IRA never did much sabotage, that everything they claimed they did was really normal industrial accidents that they took credit for to get the money. British propaganda held that the Irish were dirty, lazy fools who couldn't trust each other any more than anybody else could trust them. Almost exactly what Israelis say about Palestinians!

If the Germans had been stronger, would the Irish have helped them more? I want to say no, because the Nazis didn't really offer any better treatment to Irish than the English did. But it's always hard to be sure how things would have inevitably gone if they were different.

Have the Irish done sneaky hard-to-detect retaliation against the English? Have the Welsh? The Scots? I tend to think not, but I have no actual evidence. Maybe a whole lot of the troubles of the world today come from people who have been hurt who are trying to take revenge.

Maybe a lot of it comes from people who believe that oppression work because it worked on them and theirs -- and that pathology makes it into an unending cycle. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

People like you.

sam on July 08, 2011, 02:17:35 pm
State sponsored mass rape seemed to quell the Germans mighty thoroughly, and they have shown absolutely no tendency to retaliate.  They are to this day too frightened to think unkind thoughts about Russia and Russians.

Similarly, observe the various Islam on Islam wars.  The Shia minority of Saudi Arabia was subjugated mighty thoroughly, and no one ever hears the slightest peep out of them.

Have the Irish done sneaky hard-to-detect retaliation against the English? Have the Welsh? The Scots? I tend to think not, but I have no actual evidence. Maybe a whole lot of the troubles of the world today come from people who have been hurt who are trying to take revenge.

Maybe a lot of it comes from people who believe that oppression work because it worked on them and theirs

While individuals tend to return good for good, and harm for harm, the observed tendency of groups of individuals is the other way around.  Nothing the British did to the Irish compares to what Muslims have been doing to each other.

deliberatus on July 10, 2011, 04:19:38 pm
WHAT in the flaming name of J.R. 'BoB' Dobbs is "Theodorism", and does it involve a chipmunk?

quadibloc on July 10, 2011, 09:01:34 pm
Consider the Jews, who were mighty thoroughly subjugated by, well, almost everybody. And yet they have probably done mighty thorough revenge against, well, almost everybody, in sneaky deniable ways that would get you branded an antisemite to mention.
Ah, yes. The Jews. And also the Freemasons, but in other ways.

Among other things, through their despicable wiles, the Jews have brought many of us to addiction to gambling and pornography. Through this tactic, and many others, the Jews, along with their partners the Freemasons, have driven a wedge between the White Race and its natural leaders... those who embody its cultural virtues and the true spirit of Christianity!

Yes - it's because of them that we have failed to accept our true leaders, like Jerry Falwell and Sarah Palin!

Odd... for some strange reason I can't really feel angry at the Jews (or the Freemasons!) for denying us this fate.

sam on July 10, 2011, 11:39:58 pm
Among other things, through their despicable wiles, the Jews have brought many of us to addiction to gambling and pornography. Through this tactic, and many others, the Jews, along with their partners the Freemasons, have driven a wedge between the White Race and its natural leaders... those who embody its cultural virtues and the true spirit of Christianity!

Yes - it's because of them that we have failed to accept our true leaders, like Jerry Falwell and Sarah Palin!

You imply that antisemites are right wing, and right wingers tend to be antisemitic.  This is not what I observe:  On this board the most obvious anti semite is Thomas, who is pretty far left - he is a nationalist and  a socialist, which is to say, a national socialist, and that is as left as you can be short of being commie.

Today, anti semites hate "Zionists", and "neoconservatives".  If you want to see signs condemning zionists, those carrying those signs are in left wing protests, protesting "globalism" and capitalism and weeping big salt tears on how Palestinians are oppressed by Jews.

For example: http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/



Anti semites are lefties, and have been lefties since 1860 or so.

If someone opposes "globalism" and "capitalism" and "neo liberalism", he is a national socialist, in which case he opposes Jews.  If someone is a national socialist, he shows up at every anti war protest when a Republican president is in power.  Observe, however, that when Obama is in power, this lot no longer is protesting wars as a sinister Jewish plot.  When Obama invades Libya without the slightest pretense of congressional authorization, without the slightest appearance of any threat to Americans or American interests emanating from Libya, the national socialists are fine with that.  Imagine how they would have reacted had Bush invaded Libya.

Bush was supposedly a tool of the Jews, supposedly the simple minded puppet of sinister Jews in his staff (google "Bush neoconservative") yet when Obama bends over for Goldman and Sach, somehow Obama is never accused of being a tool of the Jews.

Possibly the reason Obama is never accused of being a Jewish tool is his pastor the Reverend Wright, whose theory is that today's Jews are fake Jews - that the original Jews taken into exile by the Babylonians were black, and the ones that returned from the Babylonian exile were fakes who stole the land.  The sign above carries a reference to fake Jews, and is thus a pro Reverend Wright poster.

You might think that if the Jews in Palestine at the time of the Romans were supposedly fakes, this might give Obama's pastor the Reverend Wright a little problem with Jesus, and you would guess correctly.  Wright's Christianity is 99% Christ free.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 12:28:56 am by sam »

ContraryGuy on July 13, 2011, 01:22:12 am
WHAT in the flaming name of J.R. 'BoB' Dobbs is "Theodorism", and does it involve a chipmunk?


There is no consensus definition of "theodorism" outside of this forum, and, yes, most do agree it does involve a chipmunk.

 ;D

ContraryGuy on July 13, 2011, 01:27:15 am
Among other things, through their despicable wiles, the Jews have brought many of us to addiction to gambling and pornography. Through this tactic, and many others, the Jews, along with their partners the Freemasons, have driven a wedge between the White Race and its natural leaders... those who embody its cultural virtues and the true spirit of Christianity!

Yes - it's because of them that we have failed to accept our true leaders, like Jerry Falwell and Sarah Palin!

You imply that antisemites are right wing, and right wingers tend to be antisemitic.  This is not what I observe:  On this board the most obvious anti semite is Thomas, who is pretty far left - he is a nationalist and  a socialist, which is to say, a national socialist, and that is as left as you can be short of being commie.

Today, anti semites hate "Zionists", and "neoconservatives".  If you want to see signs condemning zionists, those carrying those signs are in left wing protests, protesting "globalism" and capitalism and weeping big salt tears on how Palestinians are oppressed by Jews.

For example: http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/



Anti semites are lefties, and have been lefties since 1860 or so.

If someone opposes "globalism" and "capitalism" and "neo liberalism", he is a national socialist, in which case he opposes Jews.  If someone is a national socialist, he shows up at every anti war protest when a Republican president is in power.  Observe, however, that when Obama is in power, this lot no longer is protesting wars as a sinister Jewish plot.  When Obama invades Libya without the slightest pretense of congressional authorization, without the slightest appearance of any threat to Americans or American interests emanating from Libya, the national socialists are fine with that.  Imagine how they would have reacted had Bush invaded Libya.

Bush was supposedly a tool of the Jews, supposedly the simple minded puppet of sinister Jews in his staff (google "Bush neoconservative") yet when Obama bends over for Goldman and Sach, somehow Obama is never accused of being a tool of the Jews.

Possibly the reason Obama is never accused of being a Jewish tool is his pastor the Reverend Wright, whose theory is that today's Jews are fake Jews - that the original Jews taken into exile by the Babylonians were black, and the ones that returned from the Babylonian exile were fakes who stole the land.  The sign above carries a reference to fake Jews, and is thus a pro Reverend Wright poster.

You might think that if the Jews in Palestine at the time of the Romans were supposedly fakes, this might give Obama's pastor the Reverend Wright a little problem with Jesus, and you would guess correctly.  Wright's Christianity is 99% Christ free.

Since this is one of sams posts, there is not and cannot be any response; so none is provided.

Although, I understand that sam's leader in the non-mainstream media, Rupert Murdoch, is going down in flames.

J Thomas on July 13, 2011, 02:12:44 am

On this board the most obvious anti semite is Thomas, who is pretty far left - he is a nationalist and  a socialist, which is to say, a national socialist, and that is as left as you can be short of being commie.

I don't find this post worth responding to except to point out that you have completely misunderstood my thinking, as is only to be expected.

I am not an antisemite, not particularly a nationalist, not a socialist, not a national socialist, and not a leftist.

"Left" and "Right" are now hardly any better at describing the essential issues than "Tory" and "Whig". I would consider myself part of the Radical Center except that somebody else has already used the term for things I don't particularly agree with.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2011, 08:04:47 am by J Thomas »

sam on July 13, 2011, 07:15:34 pm
I am not an antisemite,

You wrote, among other things:
Consider the Jews, who were mighty thoroughly subjugated by, well, almost everybody. And yet they have probably done mighty thorough revenge against, well, almost everybody, in sneaky deniable ways that would get you branded an antisemite to mention.

And you have written a whole lot of stuff in similar style, including moral equivalencing between Hitler and the Jews - supposedly the Jews were making war on Germans, but in a sneaky way.  (A considerably stronger claim than Hitler made, though some Nazis made more extreme claims than Hitler did.)

As for being a leftist:  Leftism is the voice of the state at prayer, leftism is government as an organized interest group, leftism is government's political action committee, leftism is government astroturf.  You argue that libertarianism is selfishness (as if that was a bad thing), and that state intervention in the market is necessary to protect us against the evil corporations (socialism) and against foreigners (nationalism) and against people who differ from ourselves (nationalism).  You attribute to the state improbable power, competence, benevolence, and sanity, or at least considerable potential for those things.

 

anything