Let me be utterly superficial. Which country do I prefer? A democracy with certain basic freedoms and a determination to be utterly ruthless in protecting what it has achieved? Or a fascist state, full of neurotic incompetents making historical claims based on their adherence to a religion of conquest and submission? (Forget about the aboriginal stuff. Sensible aborigines don't want to live in bark huts, and to think that their religion is based on the retention of things like bark huts is to misunderstand them altogether. Culture in the "Palestinian" sense doesn't even pretend to be anything other than the supremacy of one group of people over another.)
To know history is to know morality and politics. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that anyone else share my preferences, but from the point of pure jurisprudence people's preferences are truly the basis of the shittiness of their lives.
Was it "just" for the Jews ("the Jews") to take over "Palestine" seventy-five odd years ago? Did they "start" something then that truly needs to be revenged? Yes, if your religion is a religion of revenge, and you can't bear to think that a tiny part of your World Conquest has been compromised by people making you take a step back. Tears form in my eyes. But I do think I understand the world-historical processes that involve people of one sort battling people of another. "Justice" has nothing to do with it. There is nothing "just" about the State of Israel and there is nothing "just" about any part of the Unrealised Caliphate (like your backyard) where Jihad Justice Warriors could conceivably at any time take up a proprietorial claim.
The fact that they are incompetents with a good line in self-pity makes the whole thing hilarious, not "just". What is particularly hilarious is that the West, with its long and rich traditions of persiflage and doublethink (and I am not underestimating the present contribution of Ethiopia to this) takes a quick look at a few bomb-craters and declares "This all must stop". Heraclitus first conceived the word for people like this. In the original Greek (where it means "person of limited intelligence who doesn't get out much"), as well as in current parlance, the word is "idiots".
Not intellectually dishonest, but it raises an interesting point on motivation. Did “leaders”!like Netanyahu, Biden, Johnson, Morrison et al force jab their populations with the intent of thinning the herd or just because their owners told them it was a great idea, get with programme?
In the latter case the Netanyahus, Bidens and so on are stepping it up a bit when they move from thinking they are just carrying out orders to the point where they are quite open in their intent to facilitate genocide while still following orders.
Or they could just have been comfortable with genocide from the start.
I guess the result is similar even if the means is simply these wonderful people wading deeper into the mire at the behest of their bosses.
Oct 27, 2023·edited Oct 27, 2023Liked by J.J. Dawson
You write above : "War is bad, and it benefits only the global corporate superstructure – specifically, the Military Industrial Complex."
I will be quite brief also in my assessment of your statement : WHAT ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
War is, and has always been, an essential, necessary factor in humankind's developing civilisations over the last 8-10,000 years - valiantly defending your very existence against enemies, motivating people to fight for their ideals. opinions or religions. And winning wars proves your strength - and the success of your visions. Imagine, for example, if Hitler had won the second world war - which was in fact quite possible to begin with. Do you really think our world would have a better place now? Or if the American civil war against slavery had been won by the Southern states?
We are now at war with Militant Islam. And you MUST CHOOSE on which side you belong! It is Either/Or. I think you should choose, using a Christian yardstick - as reflected in our European Enlightenment which has so successfully permeated the whole world over the last 300 years.
I do take you point Andy, but I cannot agree with your position here. I did, in fact, used to think just as you do with regard to war, I have however unearthed too much dirt on the origins of most wars to hold onto that world world view, for the fact is that most of them are engineered by the rich and powerful for entirely their own interests at the expense of the common folk who always pay the price in blood; and World War 2, much as I hate to admit it - as I revere both my grandfathers (and my mum's stepdad) all of whom were active servicemen in various theatres of that conflict - was no exception.
Hitler could have been stopped in the early 1930s, but he was hugely assisted in his rise to power by Wall Street - who, funnily enough were also bankrolling the Soviet Union. The US bankers knew that they could benefit hugely from a war in Europe which the US could eventually join, and Roosevelt was up to his neck in it too. We all like to think of WW2 as "the good war" but that is a myth; it did not need to happen, but it was eagerly egged on for at least a decade before its outbreak by the same big-monied interests that started the Vietnam War, the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the Ukraine War, and I would argue, the current conflict in Israel/Gaza.
You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but that's just how I see it now. And this is as a keen history buff who spent his entire life looking up to his grandfathers and believing the "good war" fairy-tale.
Now, is that to say that no war is ever necessary? No. I agree that in certain circumstances armed conflict is necessary, but it's not black and white and what I have found, especially in the case of modern warfare, is it almost always has its genesis in the diabolical machinations of those with the most to gain (e.g. the bakers and arms manufacturers and their puppets in the politics).
This may be our greatest point of contention so far, but I do hope we can continue to converse on these subjects. Suffice to say, I reject your assertion that I 'must choose' - for that is exactly what The Machine wants... don't you see that? I am not at war with any religion (apart from the new non-theistic religion of Woke). I am at war with the internationalist elite who want to turn this world into one gigantic digital bio-fascist gulag for all - Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike. And I won't be sucked into this latest psy-op by 'picking a side'. I'm on the side of humanity, and this is yet another unnecessary conflict engineered by the globalist banking and arms cartels.... (in my humble opinion) - and as I always conceded, I don't have all the answers and could of course be wrong.
“Essential, necessary factor?” Bit depressing Andy, I have seen the odd argument that progressing beyond war is a good option. How? Wars come about or are made to come about by shysters organised into a form of collective. Rather than falling for that perhaps we might consider rejecting the collective. That would at least have the virtue of giving Everyman his voice.
“Valiantly defending your existence” is sort of resisting warmongers surely, so hardly a resounding ra ra for war. If you have to defend your existence, valiantly or otherwise, you are kind of saying fuck your and your warlike ambitions. That seems more like a solution than signing up to kill others for some clown in a position of stolen power.
Oct 27, 2023·edited Oct 27, 2023Liked by J.J. Dawson
I hate war. I was born in 1935 in Denmark. My whole childhood was coloured throughout by those horrible years.
But nobody ever wanted ceasefire before the Germans were beaten. "There is a time for war - there is a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes). So what, if hospitals in Gaza cannot function (to care for wounded Hamas fighters and perhaps a few others -if there is room). People then simply have to die the way we did it for 100,000 years. There is nothing inhuman about that.
And, as a matter of fact, that is still the case in many poor nations in both Africa and Asia.
Certainly. But, and there always seems to be a but these days since the psychos are opening up new fronts everywhere ( hopefully as a signal of desperation at their tactical failures), and the but is that each of these - convid, Ukraine, climate panic, and now the Middle East - is a tactical push as part of a greater strategic intent. So the weight of each of these tactical pushes within the strategic imperative will only be judged by the clowns at the wheel by its level of success. On the other hand if we are going to gauge their relative importance by casualty numbers let’s see how the maniacal US military build up develops. If it goes as per the intent of these psychotic clowns we could be looking at casualty figures to dwarf the convid not too far into the future. Those responsible appear unconcerned by which works best as long as the casualties keep coming. There is cause to revive the old cry of “a la lanterne.”
Yes I totally agree - the final body count could indeed dwarf vaccine deaths. I simply refer to the 1400 casualties that sparked the initial international outcry and Israel's mobilisation as a means of juxtaposing the far greater number who were killed by their own government. It could be construed as intellectually dishonest I suppose, but I think the comparison has merit.
Oct 27, 2023·edited Oct 27, 2023Liked by J.J. Dawson
The big picture on Palestine-Israel is (a) that the modern left is so historically illiterate that it thinks there is a Roman province called Palestine somewhere in the world, (b) that the modern left is so historically illiterate that it thinks that the United Nations is fit to wash its hands of a situation it itself created, (c) that the modern left is so historically illiterate that it regards a combination of Himmlerian politics and Soviet economics as a state of positive utopia.
In a world run by people like that why wouldn't you put in for a triple vaccination?
As for the state of Israel, while it is full testimony to the UN's pseudo-idealism, it was the one mistake they made that was actually worth something. It should have put an end to the blood-libel, and the perennial claim of the Jews as "saboteurs". Instead, the Himmlerian left got to work on their greatest act of world-sabotage yet.
But no-one will believe you, Heinrich! Palestinian Sunday-school is even funnier than the Horst Wessel Lied.
Please consider "The Abraham Accord". It was suggested that this should be called "The Trump Accord" - but I believe Trump himself insisted it be called the Abraham Accord - because Abraham is such central figure for both Jews and Muslims.
The Abraham Accord was one of the more positive achievements of the Trump White House. Seems now, not surprisingly that the Biden regime is undoing those positive steps.
I agree the US needs to back the hell off - which is why I still prefer Trump in 2024. I'm about to jump over and re-read your latest 'The Two Wars I've Fought' for some further insight.
Let me be utterly superficial. Which country do I prefer? A democracy with certain basic freedoms and a determination to be utterly ruthless in protecting what it has achieved? Or a fascist state, full of neurotic incompetents making historical claims based on their adherence to a religion of conquest and submission? (Forget about the aboriginal stuff. Sensible aborigines don't want to live in bark huts, and to think that their religion is based on the retention of things like bark huts is to misunderstand them altogether. Culture in the "Palestinian" sense doesn't even pretend to be anything other than the supremacy of one group of people over another.)
To know history is to know morality and politics. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that anyone else share my preferences, but from the point of pure jurisprudence people's preferences are truly the basis of the shittiness of their lives.
Was it "just" for the Jews ("the Jews") to take over "Palestine" seventy-five odd years ago? Did they "start" something then that truly needs to be revenged? Yes, if your religion is a religion of revenge, and you can't bear to think that a tiny part of your World Conquest has been compromised by people making you take a step back. Tears form in my eyes. But I do think I understand the world-historical processes that involve people of one sort battling people of another. "Justice" has nothing to do with it. There is nothing "just" about the State of Israel and there is nothing "just" about any part of the Unrealised Caliphate (like your backyard) where Jihad Justice Warriors could conceivably at any time take up a proprietorial claim.
The fact that they are incompetents with a good line in self-pity makes the whole thing hilarious, not "just". What is particularly hilarious is that the West, with its long and rich traditions of persiflage and doublethink (and I am not underestimating the present contribution of Ethiopia to this) takes a quick look at a few bomb-craters and declares "This all must stop". Heraclitus first conceived the word for people like this. In the original Greek (where it means "person of limited intelligence who doesn't get out much"), as well as in current parlance, the word is "idiots".
Well said sir. I tend to agree with you on this.
Not intellectually dishonest, but it raises an interesting point on motivation. Did “leaders”!like Netanyahu, Biden, Johnson, Morrison et al force jab their populations with the intent of thinning the herd or just because their owners told them it was a great idea, get with programme?
In the latter case the Netanyahus, Bidens and so on are stepping it up a bit when they move from thinking they are just carrying out orders to the point where they are quite open in their intent to facilitate genocide while still following orders.
Or they could just have been comfortable with genocide from the start.
I guess the result is similar even if the means is simply these wonderful people wading deeper into the mire at the behest of their bosses.
You write above : "War is bad, and it benefits only the global corporate superstructure – specifically, the Military Industrial Complex."
I will be quite brief also in my assessment of your statement : WHAT ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
War is, and has always been, an essential, necessary factor in humankind's developing civilisations over the last 8-10,000 years - valiantly defending your very existence against enemies, motivating people to fight for their ideals. opinions or religions. And winning wars proves your strength - and the success of your visions. Imagine, for example, if Hitler had won the second world war - which was in fact quite possible to begin with. Do you really think our world would have a better place now? Or if the American civil war against slavery had been won by the Southern states?
We are now at war with Militant Islam. And you MUST CHOOSE on which side you belong! It is Either/Or. I think you should choose, using a Christian yardstick - as reflected in our European Enlightenment which has so successfully permeated the whole world over the last 300 years.
I do take you point Andy, but I cannot agree with your position here. I did, in fact, used to think just as you do with regard to war, I have however unearthed too much dirt on the origins of most wars to hold onto that world world view, for the fact is that most of them are engineered by the rich and powerful for entirely their own interests at the expense of the common folk who always pay the price in blood; and World War 2, much as I hate to admit it - as I revere both my grandfathers (and my mum's stepdad) all of whom were active servicemen in various theatres of that conflict - was no exception.
Hitler could have been stopped in the early 1930s, but he was hugely assisted in his rise to power by Wall Street - who, funnily enough were also bankrolling the Soviet Union. The US bankers knew that they could benefit hugely from a war in Europe which the US could eventually join, and Roosevelt was up to his neck in it too. We all like to think of WW2 as "the good war" but that is a myth; it did not need to happen, but it was eagerly egged on for at least a decade before its outbreak by the same big-monied interests that started the Vietnam War, the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the Ukraine War, and I would argue, the current conflict in Israel/Gaza.
You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but that's just how I see it now. And this is as a keen history buff who spent his entire life looking up to his grandfathers and believing the "good war" fairy-tale.
Now, is that to say that no war is ever necessary? No. I agree that in certain circumstances armed conflict is necessary, but it's not black and white and what I have found, especially in the case of modern warfare, is it almost always has its genesis in the diabolical machinations of those with the most to gain (e.g. the bakers and arms manufacturers and their puppets in the politics).
This may be our greatest point of contention so far, but I do hope we can continue to converse on these subjects. Suffice to say, I reject your assertion that I 'must choose' - for that is exactly what The Machine wants... don't you see that? I am not at war with any religion (apart from the new non-theistic religion of Woke). I am at war with the internationalist elite who want to turn this world into one gigantic digital bio-fascist gulag for all - Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike. And I won't be sucked into this latest psy-op by 'picking a side'. I'm on the side of humanity, and this is yet another unnecessary conflict engineered by the globalist banking and arms cartels.... (in my humble opinion) - and as I always conceded, I don't have all the answers and could of course be wrong.
Oh dear.
“Essential, necessary factor?” Bit depressing Andy, I have seen the odd argument that progressing beyond war is a good option. How? Wars come about or are made to come about by shysters organised into a form of collective. Rather than falling for that perhaps we might consider rejecting the collective. That would at least have the virtue of giving Everyman his voice.
“Valiantly defending your existence” is sort of resisting warmongers surely, so hardly a resounding ra ra for war. If you have to defend your existence, valiantly or otherwise, you are kind of saying fuck your and your warlike ambitions. That seems more like a solution than signing up to kill others for some clown in a position of stolen power.
I hate war. I was born in 1935 in Denmark. My whole childhood was coloured throughout by those horrible years.
But nobody ever wanted ceasefire before the Germans were beaten. "There is a time for war - there is a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes). So what, if hospitals in Gaza cannot function (to care for wounded Hamas fighters and perhaps a few others -if there is room). People then simply have to die the way we did it for 100,000 years. There is nothing inhuman about that.
And, as a matter of fact, that is still the case in many poor nations in both Africa and Asia.
Certainly. But, and there always seems to be a but these days since the psychos are opening up new fronts everywhere ( hopefully as a signal of desperation at their tactical failures), and the but is that each of these - convid, Ukraine, climate panic, and now the Middle East - is a tactical push as part of a greater strategic intent. So the weight of each of these tactical pushes within the strategic imperative will only be judged by the clowns at the wheel by its level of success. On the other hand if we are going to gauge their relative importance by casualty numbers let’s see how the maniacal US military build up develops. If it goes as per the intent of these psychotic clowns we could be looking at casualty figures to dwarf the convid not too far into the future. Those responsible appear unconcerned by which works best as long as the casualties keep coming. There is cause to revive the old cry of “a la lanterne.”
Yes I totally agree - the final body count could indeed dwarf vaccine deaths. I simply refer to the 1400 casualties that sparked the initial international outcry and Israel's mobilisation as a means of juxtaposing the far greater number who were killed by their own government. It could be construed as intellectually dishonest I suppose, but I think the comparison has merit.
The big picture on Palestine-Israel is (a) that the modern left is so historically illiterate that it thinks there is a Roman province called Palestine somewhere in the world, (b) that the modern left is so historically illiterate that it thinks that the United Nations is fit to wash its hands of a situation it itself created, (c) that the modern left is so historically illiterate that it regards a combination of Himmlerian politics and Soviet economics as a state of positive utopia.
In a world run by people like that why wouldn't you put in for a triple vaccination?
As for the state of Israel, while it is full testimony to the UN's pseudo-idealism, it was the one mistake they made that was actually worth something. It should have put an end to the blood-libel, and the perennial claim of the Jews as "saboteurs". Instead, the Himmlerian left got to work on their greatest act of world-sabotage yet.
But no-one will believe you, Heinrich! Palestinian Sunday-school is even funnier than the Horst Wessel Lied.
A cryptic take Jim. Let's simplify. What (if either) side are you on?
Trump bringing about World War Three?
Please consider "The Abraham Accord". It was suggested that this should be called "The Trump Accord" - but I believe Trump himself insisted it be called the Abraham Accord - because Abraham is such central figure for both Jews and Muslims.
The Abraham Accord was one of the more positive achievements of the Trump White House. Seems now, not surprisingly that the Biden regime is undoing those positive steps.
I agree the US needs to back the hell off - which is why I still prefer Trump in 2024. I'm about to jump over and re-read your latest 'The Two Wars I've Fought' for some further insight.