The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
The Military Instinct
The Human Race as Feral Dogs
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As Washington bombs Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, militarily threatens Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, and China, sanctions Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Iran..one may wonder: Why?

Are wars about anything, or just wars? In modern times, a reason of sorts is thought decorous, yes: Ruritania is threatening us, or might, or does something wrong, or Ruritanians don’t think rightly about the gods. We must kill them. And yet everywhere in all times, almost miraculously, some reason for a war is found. It would seem that wars are not about anything, but just what we do.

Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

Because wars are what we do.

It may surprise many people to learn of evidence for a genetic foundation of human behavior. This should not be surprising. Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts..

Consider conservatives, as they are more relevant to the fighting of wars. (Liberals appear as genetically determined,)

Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy. They see the world in terms of threats, conflict, and dominance. They favor capitalism and the Second Amendment, revere the military, speak of blood and soil, oppose taxation of themselves to give to the less fortunate.

An important point here is that these traits clump together, although there is no logical connection. For example, one might rationally favor ownership of guns as necessary to self-defense yet oppose having a large military as unnecessary. One might favor a large military in what appeared a dangerous world, yet favor extensive governmental charity as what one might see as common decency.

Yet this almost never happens. If you tell me that you oppose abortion, with confidence I can predict that you fit the description above of a conservative. If you tell me that you oppose the Second Amendment, I can be pretty sure that you favor abortion, acceptance of immigrants, marriage of homosexuals, and so on.

We all have access to the same information about the world, to the internet, the same books and newspapers, and we all live in very much the same society. Yet liberals and conservatives arrive at sharply differing conclusions from identical evidence. This suggests an innate predisposition.

Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily. For example, if an ancient Russian prop-driven recon plane, technically a bomber in the Fifties, flies near England, fighters will leap into the air to intercept it, grrr, woof, though the idea that the Russians would send one ancient bird to bomb Britain is lunatic. It is very like dogs barking frantically at a passing pedestrian.

People in general seem designed to think about small groups, not countries of millions of people. It is impossible to think of, say, Russia as millions of individuals, especially when we have never seen even a single Russian. The almost invariable response is to compress a whole nation mentally into a sort of aggregate person. As I write, America is barking at North Korea, said to be a rogue state threatening several other countries. Countless men from the President through Congress to growling patriots in bars are saying angrily that “We can wipe North Korea of the face of the earth.” We’ll show the bastards.

North Korea consists of twenty-five million people of whom perhaps fifty might want to attack anybody at all. The let’s-nukem men–almost always men, who are genetically more truculent than women, which is also true of dogs–think of the whole country as one pudgy man with a bad haircut. “We must punish North Korea” makes sense to them in these terms. Exactly why several million children in kindergarten need to be burned to death does not enter their minds.

A great deal of international behavior makes sense, or at least makes no sense but does it in a consistent manner, if you look at the history of empire. This too appears to be instinctive, and therefore presumably genetic. Throughout history men–again, always men–have formed armies and set out to conquer, usually at the price of unspeakable bloodshed, lands they didn’t need. Sometimes the plunder brought a degree of benefit, seldom commensurate with the cost, but often not.

Over and over and over, one country conquers its neighbors, sometimes forming large empires but often small ones almost lost to history. Then a new one arises and bursts the bubble of the first. This is instinctual as a dog peeing on a hydrant.

We see this now. The United States has no need for an empire of perhaps eight hundred military bases around the globe or to fight constant and exhausting wars for places it doesn’t need or even like. America has no need of Afghanistan, for example, and is there only to keep China out–that is, from the instinct for empire. Again, peeing on hydrants.

The lack of empathy usual in conservatives, in soldiers, appears all through military history, from the practice of putting cities to the sword to today’s indiscriminate bombing. It results from the tribal instinct. A fighter pilot will in time of peace be a good citizen, perhaps a good father, obey the laws and, should an earthquake occur, work tirelessly to save the trapped. Yet order him to bomb a crowded city in a country that has done nothing to deserve it–Baghdad, for example–and he will do it and pride himself on having done it.

ORDER IT NOW

The behavior is innate and immutable, unchanged over the millennia, but today we seem to need to pretend to decency. Militaries and “intelligence” agencies, the chief vessels of brutal behavior, have become very sensitive to revelations of what we now call “atrocities.” Actually atrocities are what militaries normally do. The norm now is to employ euphemistms–collateral damage-and to insist that atrocities are “isolated incidents.” Today governments, to maintain public support for the wars, or as least to discourage attention, carefully censors photos of disemboweled children or the CIA’s torture chambers. But the butchery continues as it did among stone-age savages. Pilots still bomb cities. The CIA tortures and probably enjoys it. Plus ca change, plus ca doesn’t.

There is a slight difference. Militaries now know they are doing wrong, This is why soldiers become furious when persistently asked about atrocities. They would rather you not know. Yet the bombing continues and from the less politically careful conservatives come cries of, “Untie the hands of our soldiers,” and “Let the military do its job.”

It is innate. We do what we do because it is how we are.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military 
Hide 83 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Fred is way, way off base in this piece.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oldeguy
    Fred is really, really spot on in this piece.
    , @ThreeCranes
    How? and Why? is Fred "way off base in this piece."?

    Fred is merely restating what Robert Ardrey wrote in African Genesis and The Territorial Imperative. (sorry Fred, I don't mean to imply that you're just a copy cat. I mean, even Einstein admitted that he stood on the shoulders of Newton)

    And the notion that human's have an inborn urge to violence over which they have sporadic control is pretty well established. We inherited it from our ancient ancestors. Here's Wiki on Ardrey;

    "Ardrey postulated that precursors of Australopithecus survived millions of years of drought in the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, as the savannah spread and the forests shrank, by adapting the hunting ways of carnivorous species. Changes in survival techniques and social organization gradually differentiated pre-humans from other primates. Concomitant changes in diet potentiated unique developments in the human brain.

    The killer ape theory posits that aggression, a vital factor in hunting prey for food, was a fundamental characteristic which distinguished prehuman ancestors from other primates. Ardrey also argued that aggression was therefore an inherited evolutionary trait still present in man. He challenged the reigning blank-slate hypothesis (similarly aligned with cultural determinism), then in currency among social scientists. The blank-slate hypothesis was famously defended (and Ardrey was famously attacked) by Ashley Montagu. This debate sparked a major controversy in anthropology and led to widespread popular interest in human origins. ....

    Though some of Ardrey's theses on aggression have been contradicted, his popularization of the theory of African Genesis (as opposed to European or Asian Genesis) remains a major turning point in understanding the dawn of humanity."

    Notice, the word "contradicted" does not mean "refuted".

    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Fred is way, way off base in this piece.
     
    Nope, Fred is correct in every respect. What's more, he left out a lot ... religion as another justification for war, for instance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/the-military-instinct/#comment-2048758
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Oldeguy says:
    @anon
    Fred is way, way off base in this piece.

    Fred is really, really spot on in this piece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @anon
    Fred is way, way off base in this piece.

    How? and Why? is Fred “way off base in this piece.”?

    Fred is merely restating what Robert Ardrey wrote in African Genesis and The Territorial Imperative. (sorry Fred, I don’t mean to imply that you’re just a copy cat. I mean, even Einstein admitted that he stood on the shoulders of Newton)

    And the notion that human’s have an inborn urge to violence over which they have sporadic control is pretty well established. We inherited it from our ancient ancestors. Here’s Wiki on Ardrey;

    “Ardrey postulated that precursors of Australopithecus survived millions of years of drought in the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, as the savannah spread and the forests shrank, by adapting the hunting ways of carnivorous species. Changes in survival techniques and social organization gradually differentiated pre-humans from other primates. Concomitant changes in diet potentiated unique developments in the human brain.

    The killer ape theory posits that aggression, a vital factor in hunting prey for food, was a fundamental characteristic which distinguished prehuman ancestors from other primates. Ardrey also argued that aggression was therefore an inherited evolutionary trait still present in man. He challenged the reigning blank-slate hypothesis (similarly aligned with cultural determinism), then in currency among social scientists. The blank-slate hypothesis was famously defended (and Ardrey was famously attacked) by Ashley Montagu. This debate sparked a major controversy in anthropology and led to widespread popular interest in human origins. ….

    Though some of Ardrey’s theses on aggression have been contradicted, his popularization of the theory of African Genesis (as opposed to European or Asian Genesis) remains a major turning point in understanding the dawn of humanity.”

    Notice, the word “contradicted” does not mean “refuted”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. denjae says:

    ??? anon <<>> oldguy ???

    Fred may have just started another war

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Ben Frank says:

    Friedrich Nietzsche — ‘In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    I didn't know that Nietzsche had said something so perceptive. Did he also comment on how unintelligent people in groups can be?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @anon
    Fred is way, way off base in this piece.

    Fred is way, way off base in this piece.

    Nope, Fred is correct in every respect. What’s more, he left out a lot … religion as another justification for war, for instance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. peterAUS says:

    Military instinct…
    Only military?
    Yeah……

    Why not “state instinct”?
    Or…..”country instinct”?
    How about “society instinct”?

    Or, to be really into the matter “human instinct“?
    And when you try to approach the problem from this point…….good luck in solving it.

    There is a deep hypocrisy in Western society today (or any society for that matter) in “hating wars”, blaming “bad military” for them, but not mentioning that implicit, even explicit support for those “military adventures”.
    Military does killings, but, societies, people in general there, consent.
    Or, simply, do not care.

    So, feels good to blame military for all that. Makes an average person feel good about himself/herself.

    But the ugly truth it isn’t.

    Want proof?
    Imagine draft, again (EVERYONE eligible).
    Then, and only then, you’d see reaction, and most likely, check on all these imperial wars.

    But, as long as killed and maimed are people we don’t want to know about or our own underclass/deplorables…..who cares.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    Ironically, the US government has devised a pathway out of this quagmire of violence. The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else

    The ideal war would be one in which the US Army fought another similar all volunteer army in a close matchup and huge numbers on each side were killed. The problem is that the US Army usually fights innocent conscripts and others forced to defend their actual homes and families. It also kills many civilians. Those are relatively good genes the US Army is removing from the gene pool.

    I favor nonviolence for myself and other nonviolent people, but do not hope to change other's who are constitutionally predisposed to violence. Those of us who are constitutionally nonviolent or less violent should encourage all volunteer armies of young men and women to fight each other in hopefully remote places. We should hope for large scale slaughter on both sides. We should encourage it, maybe even attempt to make some sort of sporting event out of it

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Ossettian says:

    “Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs.”

    Not here in England.

    Are American dogs as strange as American humans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    In a favourite pub of mine you have to step over the many dogs to get to the bar. Half of the patrons in there have gotten up from the dinner table and said to the wife, "I suppose I'd better walk the bloody dog" and then it's off to the pub for a pint. The dogs all get along fine.
    , @helena
    Actually the number of people keeping big dogs in urban areas, not training dogs and thinking they respond to being shouted at, is really depressing. Well trained/looked after dogs are a joy to be with because they are just as friendly and sociable as well trained/looked after humans.
    , @AnalogMan
    I spent a year in England, about 20 years ago. I learned that the English fancy themselves the world's greatest dog lovers, but they aren't, really. The dogs I saw there, in general, didn't look very happy. Overly regulated, leashes, muzzles, no space to run free. Depressing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. dearieme says:
    @Ben Frank
    Friedrich Nietzsche — 'In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.'

    I didn’t know that Nietzsche had said something so perceptive. Did he also comment on how unintelligent people in groups can be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Nietzsche said quite a few perceptive things. You just have to look a long time to find them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. I think there is ample evidence to challenge the notion that this trait is consigned to the male of the species.

    A Adam said,

    “The women you gave me . . .” a tad tongue and cheek. But Hellen of Troy, that face that launched a thousand ships has a long history of ending men oblivion to cause.

    A rose by any other name: Queen Elizabeth, Catherice the Great, Joan of Arc, Sec Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Haley or Queen Boudica –

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. “Yet this almost never happens. If you tell me that you oppose abortion, with confidence I can predict that you fit the description above of a conservative. If you tell me that you oppose the Second Amendment, I can be pretty sure that you favor abortion, acceptance of immigrants, marriage of homosexuals, and so on.”

    The difference is that the former is likely to be able to give you a cogent reason for his views; the latter will merely sputter platitudes and feelings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    It is interesting to note how many conservative evangelicals will strongly take a stand against abortion, but will be the first to cheerlead the president for announcing he is thinking of destroying a whole country of 28 million.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

    Senor Cabbagehead aka Cabbage-Cabeza, you ask WHY? Which group in the US has (1) elite control over institutions and (2) special animus against Russia, Iran, and any nation disliked by Israel?

    Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Hindu-Americans? Greek-Americans?

    The answer is simpler. It’s Jewish Globalist power. If Jewish Power had never become supreme in the US, the US would not have invaded Iraq, would not freak out so much about Iran, wouldn’t have pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and would not have pushed ‘new cold war’ with Russia.

    True, there is a male-warrior instinct, but if that’s the case, why isn’t US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe? Who gets to choose the targets? It’s not this thing called ‘male’ or ‘conservative’ aggression. It is ethnic in nature.

    Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts.

    But dogs lack agency. They follow orders. If dogs are ordered to attack, they will. If they’re ordered to love, they will. If you make a dog attack and kill a cat, it will. If you tell the dog that the cat is a ‘friend’ and should be treated nice, it will treat the cat nice.
    Yes, the US military is like a dog, and it lacks agency. It follows orders. And its masters are in organizations like AIPAC. It’s like John McCain the militarist only hates nations hated by Jews.
    John McCaine is McCanine.

    Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

    Conservatives have more sympathy for people within the tribe. Liberals feel less sympathy for fellow folks. Also, ‘empathy’ isn’t necessarily sympathy. It means the ability to read other people’s thoughts and feelings. The reason why some conservatives lack sympathy for certain groups is because they are empathetic in reading the minds of others. For instance, a keen conservative can read the mind of a Negro and see through the BS about ‘justice’. They look into the Negro male mind and hear, “Where da white women at?” and read the Negro female mind and hear, “My booty be da center of da universe.” And keen conservatives are empathetic in reading the minds of Neocons and their dirty tricks.
    Liberals may seem more ‘empathatic’ cuz they seem to be more open-minded to OTHER peoples, but this has less to do with genuine empathetic understanding of others than a naive trust in the goodness of others. Most Libby-dibbers who open up to Muslims have NO IDEA what Muslims are really after. Most Libby-dibbers who get all mushy about homos have no idea how the homo mind really works. Homos are vain, narcissistic, self-centered, and bitchy. But libby-dibbers see them as new saints. True empathy requires the keenness to read the minds of others. It’s like what Michael Corleone says.

    [MORE]

    Now, it’s true that many conservatives are morons who are just into ‘Muh country, God and guns, and etc’. But so many libby-dibs are into ‘Muh self-righteous vanity, diversity and inclusion, and etc’.

    Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily.

    True, but the imperialist mindset is usually libby-dib. Most conzo-wonzos are content with what they got, what they are familiar with. It’s the libby-dibs who want more and get tired what they already have. Also, libby-dibs believe they are intellectually and culturally superior, and such mindset make them want to remake the entire world to conform to their ideal.
    So, the US empire is a fusion of doglike conzo-wonzo soldier and birdlike libby-dibby imperialist. Isn’t it funny that the US is now an empire that sends its soldiers to invade and transform other nations to… raise the Homo Flag?

    So, aggression has both a conzo-wonzo aspect and a libby-dibby aspect.

    Conzo warrior mentality is more defensive and preservative. Pre-Modern East Asia was very conservative, and its military was all about defending the realm from foreigners. This changed only in the 19th century as the the libby-dib West forced Asia to open. (The two times Japan went into imperialist mode had to do with Western influence. Hideoyoshi got guns and backing from the West. And modern Japan modeled itself on European and American empires.) KAGEMUSHA is about the wisdom of conservative caution in battle. Be like a mountain and preserve the domain. But the ambitious son wants to take it all and in the process gambles away his domain. (Ironically, the far-rightist Hitler was more of a libby-dib warrior in his ambitiousness, and far-leftist Stalin was more of a conzo-wonzo warrior in playing defense.)

    Libby holy crusader mentality is more offensive and transformative. The West became the most progressive part of the world and decided to conquer the world and transform it with Christianity, free trade, ‘human rights’, and etc.

    Same goes for religion. The conzo spiritual mindset is more orthodox and more about preserving tradition and dogma. The libby spiritual mindset is more about spreading the gospel to all of mankind, even if it means killing the heathen or infidel. Communism was a secular version of the libby missionary mindset.

    Now, there is a good and bad side to both conzo and libby mentality.

    Conzos are less aggressive outwardly, and so they are less likely to conquer other peoples. But this ultra-defensive posture can lead to isolationism, stagnation, and fear of new ideas that might actually be good. This is why East Asian fell behind the West.

    As for Libbies, they are more aggressive and ambitious. More adventurous. So, unlike the conzo East Asia, the more libby Western Europe discovered the world and created new trade routes and made advances in every field. But it also meant conquest, imperialism, slave trade on massive scale, genocide, and etc.

    The best is a kind of balance of conzo and libby tendencies. But in the US, both the conzo and libby tendencies of gentiles are harnessed to serve the ethno-ambition of Jewish globalists who use gung-ho US conservative soldiers to hate other nations to ultimately spread homo-ness and Hollywood values. Instead of a meaningful balance of conzo-ness and libby-ness, both are perverted to serve ethno-supremacist ambitions and homo-negro degeneracy.

    Now, the US could be a good policemen of the world. It’s like dogs left alone will often fight and bark. But if a responsible person comes along, he can make dogs get along and be friendly. US could play this role if it tried. But instead, the US is like a master that trains and encourages some dogs to attack other dogs. US has become the master of New World Disorder. It used Jihadis to tear Libya and Syria apart. It encourages Saudis to raise tension levels with Iran. It used neo-nazis in Ukraine. It provokes North Korea with crazy military exercises with SK. Also, even US allies come under US bullying. So, even if a nation wants to be peaceful and neutral and trade with US, Russia, and Iran, the US steps forth and says YOU CAN’T TRADE WITH THEM; IF YOU DO, WE WILL DESTROY YOUR ECONOMY.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The amazing benevolence of Bnai Brith towards Nazi monuments in Canada. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-deny-the-ukrainian-nazi-connection
    "A monument in Oakville commemorates those who served with the 14th SS Galizien Division (aka 1st Galician/Galizien or the 1st Ukrainian Division). Another monument in Edmonton honors Roman Shukhevych, the leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army."
    Bnai Brith reaction? - Aidan Fishman, the interim director of B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights: “The Russian government sometimes uses the word ‘Nazi, ‘especially in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, with somewhat broader meaning than other groups would use it.”

    "Before going to to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Shukhevych was commander of the Ukrainian battalion called Nachtigall. The men of Nachtigall rounded up Jews in Lviv in June 1941, massacring men, women and children. The Simon Wiesenthal Center estimates that the Nachtigall Battalion, along with their German military counterparts, managed to murder around 4,000 Jews in Lviv. Other historians put the estimate at around 6,000.
    SS Galizien Division was used by the Nazis in a variety of operations, one of the most controversial being the 1944 destruction of the village of Huta Pieniacka. ... The SS units surrounded the village. Men, women and children, who had taken refuge in the village church, were taken outside in groups and murdered. Kids were executed in front of their parents, their heads smashed against tree trunks, one witness testified. Others were burned alive in houses."

    Case closed. Nuland-Kaga, the whole Kagans' clan, and Bnai Brith know better when and how to cooperate with Nazis, the memory of WWII victims be damned.

    , @denk

    True, there is a male-warrior instinct,

     

    beating up the likes of Grenada, Panama etc doesnt look
    too 'warrior like' to me !
    More like vultures preying on road kills.
    murkkan flag is an insult to that majestic eagle !

    ' but if that’s the case, why isn’t US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe?'
     
    I think some prez called Saudi 'our gas station in ME',


    Whereas Bush once quipped
    ''Jp is our ATM which requires no pin numb !

    Ergo,
    these two bitches are out of bound for USAF , babe. !

    'Why not Zim' ?
     
    just give it some time .
    uncle sham's hand is full messing up Myanmar,
    lighting up the NK tinderbox,
    poking the Russian bear,
    Stirring up shit in TW strait, SCS, ECS.
    Whats with that wot in Niger ?

    Not that uncle 'the multi-taskster' hasnt been trying its damndest to whack Zim ? tho,

    ' Who gets to choose the targets? It’s not this thing called ‘male’ or ‘conservative’ aggression. It is ethnic in nature. '

     

    Yes its in fukus genes. [fukus = fuck uk + us]
    no argument frome me !

    hhhhh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. The Female of the Species

    WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
    He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
    But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    [MORE]

    When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
    He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
    But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
    ‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
    For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
    But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other’s tale—
    The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
    Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
    Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
    To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

    Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
    To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
    Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
    Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

    But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
    Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
    And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
    The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

    She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
    May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
    These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
    She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

    She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
    As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
    And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
    Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

    She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
    Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
    He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
    Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

    Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
    Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
    Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
    And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

    So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

    And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
    Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
    And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
    That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

    Rudyard Kipling

    . . . Golda Meir, Elizabeth Dole, Marie Stopes, Winnie Mandela . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    . . . Golda Meir, Elizabeth Dole, Marie Stopes, Winnie Mandela . . .
     
    ...Mrs. Kipling...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    America has no need of Afghanistan, for example, and is there only to keep China out–that is, from the instinct for empire. Again, peeing on hydrants.

    The China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has formally granted Afghanistan full membership, taking the lender’s membership to 80.

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2115457/china-led-aiib-ushers-afghanistan-full-member

    Which one works better? bombs or banks that help build infrastructure that bombs destroy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. So people have a bad nature.

    I suppose this is why Jesus said, “You must be born again.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    The violence of man against his neighbor comes early in the history of time according to Scriptures. Cain violently kills his brother Abel soon after the account of the fall of man. The long, sordid flow of murder and mayhem have continued from that time forward in the sad history of mankind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. epnngg says:
    @The Alarmist

    "Yet this almost never happens. If you tell me that you oppose abortion, with confidence I can predict that you fit the description above of a conservative. If you tell me that you oppose the Second Amendment, I can be pretty sure that you favor abortion, acceptance of immigrants, marriage of homosexuals, and so on."
     
    The difference is that the former is likely to be able to give you a cogent reason for his views; the latter will merely sputter platitudes and feelings.

    It is interesting to note how many conservative evangelicals will strongly take a stand against abortion, but will be the first to cheerlead the president for announcing he is thinking of destroying a whole country of 28 million.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Well, here's one to break your mold: I'm not particularly religious, but I think abortion is wrong in nearly all cases, and I think we should leave the Norks in peace and stop starving them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. epnngg says:
    @The Grate Deign
    So people have a bad nature.

    I suppose this is why Jesus said, "You must be born again."

    The violence of man against his neighbor comes early in the history of time according to Scriptures. Cain violently kills his brother Abel soon after the account of the fall of man. The long, sordid flow of murder and mayhem have continued from that time forward in the sad history of mankind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    So nothing will change until mankind becomes extinct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. How about this Modest Proposal?

    All wars among nations must be fought on equal footing. It’s like sports. In the World Cup, all nations must abide by the same rules and regulations. So, each team has same number of players, and all teams must respect the referees.

    This way, if the US wants to fight another nation, both sides must use same number of men and same kinds of weapons. US vs Iran would be 1000 US soldiers vs 1000 Iranian soldiers. Both sides must use 50 tanks, 50 helicopters, and 5 jets each. And each soldier gets an assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo.

    Now, that is fair and square. And the US won’t be pushing other nations around.

    Wars should be fought like sports. ONLY exception would be when the nation is invaded. Then, ANYTHING goes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Ossettian
    "Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs."

    Not here in England.

    Are American dogs as strange as American humans?

    In a favourite pub of mine you have to step over the many dogs to get to the bar. Half of the patrons in there have gotten up from the dinner table and said to the wife, “I suppose I’d better walk the bloody dog” and then it’s off to the pub for a pint. The dogs all get along fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. An interesting fact is that reactive (the grr, woof, woof, types, reacting to perceived threat) and proactive (pretty close to predatory) violence are two very different things processed in two different parts of the brain. People can be reactive for a lot of reasons including the their “nature” and as a reaction to experience (like PTSD). Predators are mostly natural born, not made.

    The predatory types have long known how to get the reactive types going to manipulate them for a purpose. “Machiavellianism” is the fancy word for it – part of the “dark triad.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Issac says:

    Vae victis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    That's the epitaph at Yad Vashem, isn't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. pyrrhus says:

    Hint to Fred–it’s about the money for the elites, contracts for the military industrial complex,and promotion for the generals. You are confusing neocons with conservatives, which they are not..True conservatives oppose foreign wars, whereas every major war the US has been in was started by liberals, or lately, neocon liberals like Bush….Historical note: the Little England movement, which opposed England’s expanding empire in the 19th century, was a conservative movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Just curious.

    Were the warhawks of 1812 and James K. Polk liberals?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Issac
    Vae victis.

    That’s the epitaph at Yad Vashem, isn’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @epnngg
    It is interesting to note how many conservative evangelicals will strongly take a stand against abortion, but will be the first to cheerlead the president for announcing he is thinking of destroying a whole country of 28 million.

    Well, here’s one to break your mold: I’m not particularly religious, but I think abortion is wrong in nearly all cases, and I think we should leave the Norks in peace and stop starving them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @peterAUS
    Military instinct...
    Only military?
    Yeah......

    Why not "state instinct"?
    Or....."country instinct"?
    How about "society instinct"?

    Or, to be really into the matter "human instinct"?
    And when you try to approach the problem from this point.......good luck in solving it.

    There is a deep hypocrisy in Western society today (or any society for that matter) in "hating wars", blaming "bad military" for them, but not mentioning that implicit, even explicit support for those "military adventures".
    Military does killings, but, societies, people in general there, consent.
    Or, simply, do not care.

    So, feels good to blame military for all that. Makes an average person feel good about himself/herself.

    But the ugly truth it isn't.

    Want proof?
    Imagine draft, again (EVERYONE eligible).
    Then, and only then, you'd see reaction, and most likely, check on all these imperial wars.

    But, as long as killed and maimed are people we don't want to know about or our own underclass/deplorables.....who cares.

    Ironically, the US government has devised a pathway out of this quagmire of violence. The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else

    The ideal war would be one in which the US Army fought another similar all volunteer army in a close matchup and huge numbers on each side were killed. The problem is that the US Army usually fights innocent conscripts and others forced to defend their actual homes and families. It also kills many civilians. Those are relatively good genes the US Army is removing from the gene pool.

    I favor nonviolence for myself and other nonviolent people, but do not hope to change other’s who are constitutionally predisposed to violence. Those of us who are constitutionally nonviolent or less violent should encourage all volunteer armies of young men and women to fight each other in hopefully remote places. We should hope for large scale slaughter on both sides. We should encourage it, maybe even attempt to make some sort of sporting event out of it

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "It selects for the most violent amoral young American men": does it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. I concur that it is genetic, in that is the fallenness due to original sin passed down to us from those who give us birth, in which each of us by choice eventually concurs. Yet the dogs of war we become share this difference: a realization that it is morally wrong and has fallen short of what we ought: hence the euphemisms and excuses.

    It is not immutable, because by the power of God’s spirit individuals can be transformed and redeemed, if we become desperate enough to reject this sentence of death carried out against ourselves (those we are alienated from and call other.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. vx37 says:

    Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

    Because the Republicans are afraid of standing up to the racial war that is being waged against white America back home. That’s what defines them as cucks. They’re afraid of standing up to the racism of the media, SJWs, and lefty professors, so they send soldiers to be brave for them overseas in order to take the minds of their constituents off of the Republican sell-out.

    The Cuck-in-Chief George W. Traitor was on the tube just yesterday excoriating evil white people for thinking they might have group interests and have the right to band together to resist the wholesale robbery and ethnic cleansing they are facing. He has, of course, never condemned, racial bloc politics of non-whites, nor their white-hating racism. Again, that’s what defines a cuck, not that he isn’t pro-white (though he ought to be) but that he never lifts a finger against the genocidal racism of the left/non-white coalition, even when that racism leads to rape and murder. Indeed he collaborates with it, as Bush was doing yesterday. The only place you’ll hear less about racist violence directed at innocent whites than in the Washington Post or New York Times is from prominent Republicans or in conservative rags like the National Review.

    Our leaders also want to be big shots on the world stage, and the primary way they accomplish that is by whoring out the military. I sometimes think that there is a tacit agreement in the world’s power centers to continue using the dollar as a reserve currency as long as the U.S. military continues to do the dirty work around the world. The EU will never be a dominant power because the EU won’t fight, or even be threatening. They won’t be a power no matter how much of the danegeld they pass out. That’s why they and others have the U.S. Why keep a big dog and do the barking yourself, as the old saying goes.

    What if they gave a war and no white men came? Want to end this madness? Whites should boycott the Army and Marines. They can still defend what’s left of the nation in the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard if they want, but boycott the ground forces. Why fight useless wars for a system that hates your guts and sees as its highest principles, as Bush made clear yesterday, the subjugation and extermination of your people? Let ‘em fight with La’Quisha and Mauricio. Boycott the NFL? Chickenshit fake resistance. Boycott the Army, or at least demand a little quid pro quo for not doing so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I hope I won't regret this. Suppose I take the matter of whiteness as a determiner seriously (I find the idea dubious) But if I did, history take your argument and defeat it.

    If there is a war against white people, it's hardly made a dent in the power that white people have.

    99% of the those who make decisions about war are white. The economic system that seems bent on making up the rules as it goes a along and violating the rule that don't suit them are white.

    The educational system is predominantly white. Those occupying the positions of power and influence in science are white.

    By far, whites are more responsible for more wars against others, even whites on a world wide scale.

    The country operating soley under white ambitions was at war even when the blacks and reds were walled off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. dearieme says:
    @The Scalpel
    Ironically, the US government has devised a pathway out of this quagmire of violence. The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else

    The ideal war would be one in which the US Army fought another similar all volunteer army in a close matchup and huge numbers on each side were killed. The problem is that the US Army usually fights innocent conscripts and others forced to defend their actual homes and families. It also kills many civilians. Those are relatively good genes the US Army is removing from the gene pool.

    I favor nonviolence for myself and other nonviolent people, but do not hope to change other's who are constitutionally predisposed to violence. Those of us who are constitutionally nonviolent or less violent should encourage all volunteer armies of young men and women to fight each other in hopefully remote places. We should hope for large scale slaughter on both sides. We should encourage it, maybe even attempt to make some sort of sporting event out of it

    “It selects for the most violent amoral young American men”: does it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    If one were to plot violent and amoral tendencies on a graph and compare those who volunteer for the armed forces against those who did not, those who volunteer would come out higher. So, yes. Admittedly,it is not perfect. There would be other factors such as those susceptible to propagandandistic recruitment practices etc. That one would have got me in my younger days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Seneca44 says:

    “America has no need of Afghanistan, for example, and is there only to keep China out–that is, from the instinct for empire. Again, peeing on hydrants.”

    While I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of it, the reported reason for the US’s continued presence in the graveyard of empires is the thought that if we engage the Taliban in Afghanistan they will not increase their influence in nuclear armed Pakistan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Fred is right but don’t expect anything to change until the human race is extinct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @epnngg
    The violence of man against his neighbor comes early in the history of time according to Scriptures. Cain violently kills his brother Abel soon after the account of the fall of man. The long, sordid flow of murder and mayhem have continued from that time forward in the sad history of mankind.

    So nothing will change until mankind becomes extinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    Despite my bleak comment on the violent state of mankind, I truly believe that man is not headed for extinction. Residing deep in the majority of mankind is a strong desire for peace and those good things that go along with peace: productive, meaningful work, good friends, a loving family, hopeful interactions within the communities in which we live. How do we flesh out these yearnings for a better more hopeful life? The heart of man is truly evil, and man has lost his way in this world. I believe there is only one answer to that, a return to the One that has made each one of us for Himself. I believe that God is in the business of reconciling all men unto Himself and He will not allow mankind to completely destroy themselves.
    , @Lana Kane
    "So nothing will change until mankind becomes extinct."

    That's about the size of it. Check out Jay Hanson's "A Collective Behavioral Loop" at dioff.org

    A book he references, "Constant Battles, Why We Fight" by LeBlanc is also well worth your time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @vx37
    Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

    Because the Republicans are afraid of standing up to the racial war that is being waged against white America back home. That's what defines them as cucks. They're afraid of standing up to the racism of the media, SJWs, and lefty professors, so they send soldiers to be brave for them overseas in order to take the minds of their constituents off of the Republican sell-out.

    The Cuck-in-Chief George W. Traitor was on the tube just yesterday excoriating evil white people for thinking they might have group interests and have the right to band together to resist the wholesale robbery and ethnic cleansing they are facing. He has, of course, never condemned, racial bloc politics of non-whites, nor their white-hating racism. Again, that's what defines a cuck, not that he isn't pro-white (though he ought to be) but that he never lifts a finger against the genocidal racism of the left/non-white coalition, even when that racism leads to rape and murder. Indeed he collaborates with it, as Bush was doing yesterday. The only place you'll hear less about racist violence directed at innocent whites than in the Washington Post or New York Times is from prominent Republicans or in conservative rags like the National Review.

    Our leaders also want to be big shots on the world stage, and the primary way they accomplish that is by whoring out the military. I sometimes think that there is a tacit agreement in the world's power centers to continue using the dollar as a reserve currency as long as the U.S. military continues to do the dirty work around the world. The EU will never be a dominant power because the EU won't fight, or even be threatening. They won't be a power no matter how much of the danegeld they pass out. That's why they and others have the U.S. Why keep a big dog and do the barking yourself, as the old saying goes.

    What if they gave a war and no white men came? Want to end this madness? Whites should boycott the Army and Marines. They can still defend what's left of the nation in the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard if they want, but boycott the ground forces. Why fight useless wars for a system that hates your guts and sees as its highest principles, as Bush made clear yesterday, the subjugation and extermination of your people? Let 'em fight with La'Quisha and Mauricio. Boycott the NFL? Chickenshit fake resistance. Boycott the Army, or at least demand a little quid pro quo for not doing so.

    I hope I won’t regret this. Suppose I take the matter of whiteness as a determiner seriously (I find the idea dubious) But if I did, history take your argument and defeat it.

    If there is a war against white people, it’s hardly made a dent in the power that white people have.

    99% of the those who make decisions about war are white. The economic system that seems bent on making up the rules as it goes a along and violating the rule that don’t suit them are white.

    The educational system is predominantly white. Those occupying the positions of power and influence in science are white.

    By far, whites are more responsible for more wars against others, even whites on a world wide scale.

    The country operating soley under white ambitions was at war even when the blacks and reds were walled off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Hey I thought my Rudyard Kipling reference very appropriate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Rich says:

    I’m not sure I understand Fred’s point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands while others (liberals) are willing to put their asses in the air for any invader that threatens them? If the US and its allies hadn’t stood up to the Communist threat from both Russia and China after WWII you think they wouldn’t have conquered most of the rest of the world? If certain Muslim groups are allowed to consolidate their power, you think they won’t threaten American interests and eventually America itself? Pacifism doesn’t work. Don’t fight back in high school and the bully takes your lunch money, don’t fight back in international affairs and the bully takes all of Eastern Europe for fifty years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    The Soviet Union made it very clear that they intended to "bury us".

    China's Communism is the direct result of colonial powers dancing on their dance floor. And there i little evidence that China was ever a threat to the US as a communist power.

    I don't think there i much evidence that any Muslim state or community at large was in the attack of Sept. 11. That includes the state of Afghanistan. September 11 demanded a response, but neither response sent a message that the US is not to be meed with. If anything it has exposed our vulnerabilities. That we can be irrational and careless. That we lack discrimination, prudence and skill in identifying who is our enemy and willing to violate any and all social norms to exert our will. Both China and Russia have been empowered by our carelessness.

    Christians by supporting the excessive force (that's a shock) have squandered so much credibility that afforded enemies of the faith to question our rationale about marriage, killing children in the womb. They have even gone so far as to drag Christian into their peculiar ceremonies of same relational marriage and turned objective biological construct in their head.

    Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, even Afghanistan were not threat to the US , a few Muslims were -- yet, we have managed to tun a crime into a war in which we are the bullies (at least by appearance).

    In the end, it doesn't appear as though anyone we imagined as bullies is intimidated much. In light of the Us presence in Asia, China stated in an Atlantic interview -

    "Asia is for Asians." They don't appear to be shaking in their boots.

    It might be a good idea for us to actually know who the bully's are.
    , @The Scalpel
    I am a medical doctor. I would call myself independent not liberal or conservative but tending libertarian. If the Germans invaded and won, today I would be a medical doctor. Go into work the same, etc. Maybe get paid a little differently - who knows? Same goes for Russians, Chineese, etc. if they took over.

    The spoils of war are not for working class dogs like me. War is for those ignorant enough to participate or for those few in power who will benefit.
    , @Truth

    I’m not sure I understand Fred’s point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands...
     
    Yeah, they're called "Vietcong."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand Fred's point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands while others (liberals) are willing to put their asses in the air for any invader that threatens them? If the US and its allies hadn't stood up to the Communist threat from both Russia and China after WWII you think they wouldn't have conquered most of the rest of the world? If certain Muslim groups are allowed to consolidate their power, you think they won't threaten American interests and eventually America itself? Pacifism doesn't work. Don't fight back in high school and the bully takes your lunch money, don't fight back in international affairs and the bully takes all of Eastern Europe for fifty years.

    The Soviet Union made it very clear that they intended to “bury us”.

    China’s Communism is the direct result of colonial powers dancing on their dance floor. And there i little evidence that China was ever a threat to the US as a communist power.

    I don’t think there i much evidence that any Muslim state or community at large was in the attack of Sept. 11. That includes the state of Afghanistan. September 11 demanded a response, but neither response sent a message that the US is not to be meed with. If anything it has exposed our vulnerabilities. That we can be irrational and careless. That we lack discrimination, prudence and skill in identifying who is our enemy and willing to violate any and all social norms to exert our will. Both China and Russia have been empowered by our carelessness.

    Christians by supporting the excessive force (that’s a shock) have squandered so much credibility that afforded enemies of the faith to question our rationale about marriage, killing children in the womb. They have even gone so far as to drag Christian into their peculiar ceremonies of same relational marriage and turned objective biological construct in their head.

    Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, even Afghanistan were not threat to the US , a few Muslims were — yet, we have managed to tun a crime into a war in which we are the bullies (at least by appearance).

    In the end, it doesn’t appear as though anyone we imagined as bullies is intimidated much. In light of the Us presence in Asia, China stated in an Atlantic interview -

    “Asia is for Asians.” They don’t appear to be shaking in their boots.

    It might be a good idea for us to actually know who the bully’s are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Yeah, yeah, America is always the bad guy with you pinkos.

    Your theories about the "Muslim community at large" are interesting, but don't seem to me, to be very well thought out. Are you so naive as to believe that if an Al Quaeda or an ISIS gain control over enough territory they wouldn't threaten the interests of the US and its allies? Are these groups joking around when they say they want to attack us and convert everyone to their religion?

    The Red Chinese are responsible for the deaths of about 65 million people in their attempts to build a "socialist paradise", they're not mild mannered monks. If they haven't gotten very far in exporting their brand of communism, it's because they were one of the poorest nations on the planet up until very recently. We'll see what they end up doing now as America's elite keep propping them up and enriching them.

    Trying to use the Faith of Christians against them, so they won't defend themselves, is nonsense. Christians have fought much more aggressive wars in the past and never, in the history of the religion, did it accept pacifism as a major tenet.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. epnngg says:
    @Simply Simon
    So nothing will change until mankind becomes extinct.

    Despite my bleak comment on the violent state of mankind, I truly believe that man is not headed for extinction. Residing deep in the majority of mankind is a strong desire for peace and those good things that go along with peace: productive, meaningful work, good friends, a loving family, hopeful interactions within the communities in which we live. How do we flesh out these yearnings for a better more hopeful life? The heart of man is truly evil, and man has lost his way in this world. I believe there is only one answer to that, a return to the One that has made each one of us for Himself. I believe that God is in the business of reconciling all men unto Himself and He will not allow mankind to completely destroy themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    Apparently you are a believer, and so am I. But I still maintain that mankind is headed for extinction at some future date as written in the Bible which indicates the world will be destroyed by fire. That fire will no doubt be ignited by a war in which WMDs are employed massively. When the first atomic explosion was set off at Alamorgordo in 1945, concern was expressed by some scientists that a chain reaction was possible, but these doubts never carried much weight. But I think it is possible that a world-wide chain reaction could result given the right combination of circumstances connected with hydrogen bombs or a still unknown form of energy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. I’m a veteran of the… Vietnam anti-war movement.

    And I voted for Trump!

    Amazing, huh, Fred?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Lana Kane says:
    @Simply Simon
    So nothing will change until mankind becomes extinct.

    “So nothing will change until mankind becomes extinct.”

    That’s about the size of it. Check out Jay Hanson’s “A Collective Behavioral Loop” at dioff.org

    A book he references, “Constant Battles, Why We Fight” by LeBlanc is also well worth your time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Rich says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    The Soviet Union made it very clear that they intended to "bury us".

    China's Communism is the direct result of colonial powers dancing on their dance floor. And there i little evidence that China was ever a threat to the US as a communist power.

    I don't think there i much evidence that any Muslim state or community at large was in the attack of Sept. 11. That includes the state of Afghanistan. September 11 demanded a response, but neither response sent a message that the US is not to be meed with. If anything it has exposed our vulnerabilities. That we can be irrational and careless. That we lack discrimination, prudence and skill in identifying who is our enemy and willing to violate any and all social norms to exert our will. Both China and Russia have been empowered by our carelessness.

    Christians by supporting the excessive force (that's a shock) have squandered so much credibility that afforded enemies of the faith to question our rationale about marriage, killing children in the womb. They have even gone so far as to drag Christian into their peculiar ceremonies of same relational marriage and turned objective biological construct in their head.

    Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, even Afghanistan were not threat to the US , a few Muslims were -- yet, we have managed to tun a crime into a war in which we are the bullies (at least by appearance).

    In the end, it doesn't appear as though anyone we imagined as bullies is intimidated much. In light of the Us presence in Asia, China stated in an Atlantic interview -

    "Asia is for Asians." They don't appear to be shaking in their boots.

    It might be a good idea for us to actually know who the bully's are.

    Yeah, yeah, America is always the bad guy with you pinkos.

    Your theories about the “Muslim community at large” are interesting, but don’t seem to me, to be very well thought out. Are you so naive as to believe that if an Al Quaeda or an ISIS gain control over enough territory they wouldn’t threaten the interests of the US and its allies? Are these groups joking around when they say they want to attack us and convert everyone to their religion?

    The Red Chinese are responsible for the deaths of about 65 million people in their attempts to build a “socialist paradise”, they’re not mild mannered monks. If they haven’t gotten very far in exporting their brand of communism, it’s because they were one of the poorest nations on the planet up until very recently. We’ll see what they end up doing now as America’s elite keep propping them up and enriching them.

    Trying to use the Faith of Christians against them, so they won’t defend themselves, is nonsense. Christians have fought much more aggressive wars in the past and never, in the history of the religion, did it accept pacifism as a major tenet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    Are you so naive as to believe that if an Al Quaeda or an ISIS gain control over enough territory they wouldn’t threaten the interests of the US and its allies? Are these groups joking around when they say they want to attack us and convert everyone to their religion?
     
    Both AQ and ISIS are creations of the CIA, Israel, Saudi, and Turkey. Close our borders and they are not a threat to the US. Europe needs to defend themselves, they are not our responsibility.

    China is not much of a threat, never have been, never will be. Russia is the same, except they can threaten Europe. Yes, they both have nukes, but MAD had worked pretty well. Russia has never had the navy needed to invade the US, unless you think they will move all their troops to the Arctic Circle and invade through Alaska and Canada?

    Quit falling for the tales of boogey-men the MIC needs to keep draining the US of it's wealth. Our real threat is our open Southern border. That is where the US military needs to be stationed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Rich
    Yeah, yeah, America is always the bad guy with you pinkos.

    Your theories about the "Muslim community at large" are interesting, but don't seem to me, to be very well thought out. Are you so naive as to believe that if an Al Quaeda or an ISIS gain control over enough territory they wouldn't threaten the interests of the US and its allies? Are these groups joking around when they say they want to attack us and convert everyone to their religion?

    The Red Chinese are responsible for the deaths of about 65 million people in their attempts to build a "socialist paradise", they're not mild mannered monks. If they haven't gotten very far in exporting their brand of communism, it's because they were one of the poorest nations on the planet up until very recently. We'll see what they end up doing now as America's elite keep propping them up and enriching them.

    Trying to use the Faith of Christians against them, so they won't defend themselves, is nonsense. Christians have fought much more aggressive wars in the past and never, in the history of the religion, did it accept pacifism as a major tenet.

    Are you so naive as to believe that if an Al Quaeda or an ISIS gain control over enough territory they wouldn’t threaten the interests of the US and its allies? Are these groups joking around when they say they want to attack us and convert everyone to their religion?

    Both AQ and ISIS are creations of the CIA, Israel, Saudi, and Turkey. Close our borders and they are not a threat to the US. Europe needs to defend themselves, they are not our responsibility.

    China is not much of a threat, never have been, never will be. Russia is the same, except they can threaten Europe. Yes, they both have nukes, but MAD had worked pretty well. Russia has never had the navy needed to invade the US, unless you think they will move all their troops to the Arctic Circle and invade through Alaska and Canada?

    Quit falling for the tales of boogey-men the MIC needs to keep draining the US of it’s wealth. Our real threat is our open Southern border. That is where the US military needs to be stationed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    "AQ and ISIS are creations of CIA." Some people say that, I wouldn't say it's been proven. It's more of an assertion by those with a conspiratorial inclination

    Russia has never been a threat, eh? I suggest you buy a book about the history of Russia so you learn how much of a threat it has been over the centuries and the potential it has to be a threat in the future. Your confidence that China will never be a threat is interesting, maybe you'll be proven right, if you're not, we're headed for a very dark future. Probably best to prevent the murderous Reds from becoming hegemonic in the East and elsewhere.

    You should probably quit falling for tales of peace and harmony and free Coca-Cola for everyone and realize the world can be a harsh place and it's always best to be prepared. And I agree the open Southern border is a very real threat.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @dearieme
    "It selects for the most violent amoral young American men": does it?

    If one were to plot violent and amoral tendencies on a graph and compare those who volunteer for the armed forces against those who did not, those who volunteer would come out higher. So, yes. Admittedly,it is not perfect. There would be other factors such as those susceptible to propagandandistic recruitment practices etc. That one would have got me in my younger days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand Fred's point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands while others (liberals) are willing to put their asses in the air for any invader that threatens them? If the US and its allies hadn't stood up to the Communist threat from both Russia and China after WWII you think they wouldn't have conquered most of the rest of the world? If certain Muslim groups are allowed to consolidate their power, you think they won't threaten American interests and eventually America itself? Pacifism doesn't work. Don't fight back in high school and the bully takes your lunch money, don't fight back in international affairs and the bully takes all of Eastern Europe for fifty years.

    I am a medical doctor. I would call myself independent not liberal or conservative but tending libertarian. If the Germans invaded and won, today I would be a medical doctor. Go into work the same, etc. Maybe get paid a little differently – who knows? Same goes for Russians, Chineese, etc. if they took over.

    The spoils of war are not for working class dogs like me. War is for those ignorant enough to participate or for those few in power who will benefit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Well, were you a Czech, or a Pole, or a Jew and the Germans had won, you might not be a medical doctor. If the Reds had been able to take over the world and liberate us all from private ownership, you might not be a doctor either. Because better men than you are willing to stand up and fight the barbarians, you are able to enjoy your career. Doesn't that make you a little embarrassed? Those in power, those with wealth, aren't always bad guys.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Yet this almost never happens. If you tell me that you oppose abortion, with confidence I can predict that you fit the description above of a conservative. If you tell me that you oppose the Second Amendment, I can be pretty sure that you favor abortion, acceptance of immigrants, marriage of homosexuals, and so on.

    The clustering of opinions on seemingly unrelated issues is an interesting question that I had wondered about for a long time. The best book I read that attempted to answer this question was A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.

    He refers to the Constrained Vision and the Unconstrained Vision, which you could also think of as the Tragic Vision and the Utopian Vision. It roughly comes down to a view of human nature being intrinsically bad or intrinsically good.

    Conservatives generally come down on the side of it being “bad” – not in the sense that it’s all bad or that any progress is impossible, but that there are limits, harsh realities, “facts of life,” etc. that we have to deal with. Liberals are susceptible to naive beliefs in the perfectibility of human nature and society.

    Examples as applied to particular issues:

    National Defense / Foreign Policy: War is bad, weapons are bad, we should resolve our differences with talk and diplomacy, can’t we all just get along, hold hands and sing Kumbaya, etc. (the Utopian Vision) vs. the need for deterrence, necessity of maintaining military capability, aggressive regimes will want to invade and conquer just because they can, “weakness is provocation”, etc.

    Crime: understanding the “root causes” of criminal behavior, rehabilitating offenders, etc. vs. people commit crimes because they’re people, think they can get away with it, don’t have good values etc. and you need tough, effective policing, punishments, deterrence, etc.

    Sexuality: free expression, do what feels good vs. human sexuality can get out of hand without social and cultural restraints. (I think the abortion and homosexuality issues are basically just proxies for the general notion of “traditional sexual morality” vs the 1960′s sexual revolution).

    Guns: that’s violent, icky, just call 911 vs. there are criminals who would hurt you and your family, the police can’t be everywhere at once, need to be prepared, etc.

    Poverty: gov’t should take care of everyone vs. people will take advantage of handouts, no incentive to work, etc.

    Immigration: we’re all the same, diversity is strength, etc. vs. race, ethnicity, and language matter, diversity is an inherent source of conflict, groups differ in significant ways, etc.

    You could continue in this vein with other issues. Neither view is entirely right or wrong, I think you have to look at the status quo and see where we’ve gone to far. I think in general the media, academia, and political establishment (i.e. the conventional wisdom) has gone way too far off in a Utopian Vision direction at least with some issues (race/immigration especially).

    I think Fred is right that the U.S. is far too involved in too many wars and should become more non-interventionist relative to status quo. I also agree with other commenters that the main cause of this problem is special interest group pressure, rather than conservative philosophy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Good post, IMHO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Rich says:
    @The Scalpel
    I am a medical doctor. I would call myself independent not liberal or conservative but tending libertarian. If the Germans invaded and won, today I would be a medical doctor. Go into work the same, etc. Maybe get paid a little differently - who knows? Same goes for Russians, Chineese, etc. if they took over.

    The spoils of war are not for working class dogs like me. War is for those ignorant enough to participate or for those few in power who will benefit.

    Well, were you a Czech, or a Pole, or a Jew and the Germans had won, you might not be a medical doctor. If the Reds had been able to take over the world and liberate us all from private ownership, you might not be a doctor either. Because better men than you are willing to stand up and fight the barbarians, you are able to enjoy your career. Doesn’t that make you a little embarrassed? Those in power, those with wealth, aren’t always bad guys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    "Well, were you a Czech, or a Pole, or a Jew and the Germans had won, you might not be a medical doctor"

    Sorry, but that is just not true. There was no concerted effort to kill medical doctors or stop people from becoming medical doctors. What you were pointing out is that war is bad for people. I don't disagree with that. I would add that if I was an Iraqi when the US invaded under false pretenses, I might not be a medical doctor either.

    You are correct that war kills people. It is of no benefit to the common man. No one should volunteer to fight. It is simply not in the common man's best interest. There is no doubt about that. I would suggest that people do what they can to prevent war - as I have done. Beyond that, people should prepare for their own self protection in the event that people outside of their control choose to prosecute war anyway - just as they should lock car doors to prevent theft, or install an alarm system on their home to prevent burglary. Finally, as a last resort, one should defend themselves by whatever means are necessary. This last scenario is very unlikely, even in times of war, if one does not go looking for a fight.

    The survivors are the ones who recognize danger and get out-of-the-way, or at least don't try to confront it head on. If war is like a disease, then as a medical doctor my advice would be to first avoid being exposed. If one is exposed nonetheless, one should use the least dangerous method of fighting off the disease

    Your comment on private ownership reveals your susceptibility to propaganda. I live in the United States of America and if I do not pay my taxes the government will take my home and my car and anything else of mine that they desire. They will demolish my home if they want to build a highway. They will take as much money of mine as they desire in taxes. It is the same everywhere except, perhaps, in some area where there is no strong central government. Additionally, I have heard that there is private property in Russia and China also! I know! It's amazing, isn't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Rich says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Are you so naive as to believe that if an Al Quaeda or an ISIS gain control over enough territory they wouldn’t threaten the interests of the US and its allies? Are these groups joking around when they say they want to attack us and convert everyone to their religion?
     
    Both AQ and ISIS are creations of the CIA, Israel, Saudi, and Turkey. Close our borders and they are not a threat to the US. Europe needs to defend themselves, they are not our responsibility.

    China is not much of a threat, never have been, never will be. Russia is the same, except they can threaten Europe. Yes, they both have nukes, but MAD had worked pretty well. Russia has never had the navy needed to invade the US, unless you think they will move all their troops to the Arctic Circle and invade through Alaska and Canada?

    Quit falling for the tales of boogey-men the MIC needs to keep draining the US of it's wealth. Our real threat is our open Southern border. That is where the US military needs to be stationed.

    “AQ and ISIS are creations of CIA.” Some people say that, I wouldn’t say it’s been proven. It’s more of an assertion by those with a conspiratorial inclination

    Russia has never been a threat, eh? I suggest you buy a book about the history of Russia so you learn how much of a threat it has been over the centuries and the potential it has to be a threat in the future. Your confidence that China will never be a threat is interesting, maybe you’ll be proven right, if you’re not, we’re headed for a very dark future. Probably best to prevent the murderous Reds from becoming hegemonic in the East and elsewhere.

    You should probably quit falling for tales of peace and harmony and free Coca-Cola for everyone and realize the world can be a harsh place and it’s always best to be prepared. And I agree the open Southern border is a very real threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DocHollywood

    “AQ and ISIS are creations of CIA.” Some people say that, I wouldn’t say it’s been proven. It’s more of an assertion by those with a conspiratorial inclination - Rich
     
    Some of the people with a 'conspiratorial inclination':

    ”I mean, let’s remember here: The people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago, and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union.

    So there’s a very strong argument, which is: It wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let’s be careful what we sow, because we will harvest."
    - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2009

    "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents [Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin] of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul

    . . .What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
    - Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998 interview

    "The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. . .The West [U.S.A. and its allies], Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime."
    - declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency 2012 memorandum,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. peterAUS says:
    @Loveofknowledge

    Yet this almost never happens. If you tell me that you oppose abortion, with confidence I can predict that you fit the description above of a conservative. If you tell me that you oppose the Second Amendment, I can be pretty sure that you favor abortion, acceptance of immigrants, marriage of homosexuals, and so on.
     
    The clustering of opinions on seemingly unrelated issues is an interesting question that I had wondered about for a long time. The best book I read that attempted to answer this question was A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.

    He refers to the Constrained Vision and the Unconstrained Vision, which you could also think of as the Tragic Vision and the Utopian Vision. It roughly comes down to a view of human nature being intrinsically bad or intrinsically good.

    Conservatives generally come down on the side of it being "bad" - not in the sense that it's all bad or that any progress is impossible, but that there are limits, harsh realities, "facts of life," etc. that we have to deal with. Liberals are susceptible to naive beliefs in the perfectibility of human nature and society.

    Examples as applied to particular issues:

    National Defense / Foreign Policy: War is bad, weapons are bad, we should resolve our differences with talk and diplomacy, can't we all just get along, hold hands and sing Kumbaya, etc. (the Utopian Vision) vs. the need for deterrence, necessity of maintaining military capability, aggressive regimes will want to invade and conquer just because they can, "weakness is provocation", etc.

    Crime: understanding the "root causes" of criminal behavior, rehabilitating offenders, etc. vs. people commit crimes because they're people, think they can get away with it, don't have good values etc. and you need tough, effective policing, punishments, deterrence, etc.

    Sexuality: free expression, do what feels good vs. human sexuality can get out of hand without social and cultural restraints. (I think the abortion and homosexuality issues are basically just proxies for the general notion of "traditional sexual morality" vs the 1960's sexual revolution).

    Guns: that's violent, icky, just call 911 vs. there are criminals who would hurt you and your family, the police can't be everywhere at once, need to be prepared, etc.

    Poverty: gov't should take care of everyone vs. people will take advantage of handouts, no incentive to work, etc.

    Immigration: we're all the same, diversity is strength, etc. vs. race, ethnicity, and language matter, diversity is an inherent source of conflict, groups differ in significant ways, etc.

    You could continue in this vein with other issues. Neither view is entirely right or wrong, I think you have to look at the status quo and see where we've gone to far. I think in general the media, academia, and political establishment (i.e. the conventional wisdom) has gone way too far off in a Utopian Vision direction at least with some issues (race/immigration especially).

    I think Fred is right that the U.S. is far too involved in too many wars and should become more non-interventionist relative to status quo. I also agree with other commenters that the main cause of this problem is special interest group pressure, rather than conservative philosophy.

    Good post, IMHO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Rich
    Well, were you a Czech, or a Pole, or a Jew and the Germans had won, you might not be a medical doctor. If the Reds had been able to take over the world and liberate us all from private ownership, you might not be a doctor either. Because better men than you are willing to stand up and fight the barbarians, you are able to enjoy your career. Doesn't that make you a little embarrassed? Those in power, those with wealth, aren't always bad guys.

    “Well, were you a Czech, or a Pole, or a Jew and the Germans had won, you might not be a medical doctor”

    Sorry, but that is just not true. There was no concerted effort to kill medical doctors or stop people from becoming medical doctors. What you were pointing out is that war is bad for people. I don’t disagree with that. I would add that if I was an Iraqi when the US invaded under false pretenses, I might not be a medical doctor either.

    You are correct that war kills people. It is of no benefit to the common man. No one should volunteer to fight. It is simply not in the common man’s best interest. There is no doubt about that. I would suggest that people do what they can to prevent war – as I have done. Beyond that, people should prepare for their own self protection in the event that people outside of their control choose to prosecute war anyway – just as they should lock car doors to prevent theft, or install an alarm system on their home to prevent burglary. Finally, as a last resort, one should defend themselves by whatever means are necessary. This last scenario is very unlikely, even in times of war, if one does not go looking for a fight.

    The survivors are the ones who recognize danger and get out-of-the-way, or at least don’t try to confront it head on. If war is like a disease, then as a medical doctor my advice would be to first avoid being exposed. If one is exposed nonetheless, one should use the least dangerous method of fighting off the disease

    Your comment on private ownership reveals your susceptibility to propaganda. I live in the United States of America and if I do not pay my taxes the government will take my home and my car and anything else of mine that they desire. They will demolish my home if they want to build a highway. They will take as much money of mine as they desire in taxes. It is the same everywhere except, perhaps, in some area where there is no strong central government. Additionally, I have heard that there is private property in Russia and China also! I know! It’s amazing, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I suppose you are young and/or being in medicine, stayed away from the study of history and political science since you are ignorant of how the communists in both Russia (Soviet Union) and Red China stole land from their people and formed government run collectives that caused massive shortages of food. It's true, that nowadays, there are private property rights, but they are very recent.

    The Poles, Jews and Czechs, under Nazi rule wouldn't have been allowed to pursue a medical degree. Again, your ignorance of history may be to blame for your not understanding what being conquered means, or would have meant for your career. Many a brilliant Pole was forced to do manual labor for those who conquered his land and was unable to become a medical doctor, or a lawyer or even an Indian Chief.

    And yes, you should definitely pay your taxes, it's the price we pay for so many of our fellow citizens voting democrat.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Rich says:
    @The Scalpel
    "Well, were you a Czech, or a Pole, or a Jew and the Germans had won, you might not be a medical doctor"

    Sorry, but that is just not true. There was no concerted effort to kill medical doctors or stop people from becoming medical doctors. What you were pointing out is that war is bad for people. I don't disagree with that. I would add that if I was an Iraqi when the US invaded under false pretenses, I might not be a medical doctor either.

    You are correct that war kills people. It is of no benefit to the common man. No one should volunteer to fight. It is simply not in the common man's best interest. There is no doubt about that. I would suggest that people do what they can to prevent war - as I have done. Beyond that, people should prepare for their own self protection in the event that people outside of their control choose to prosecute war anyway - just as they should lock car doors to prevent theft, or install an alarm system on their home to prevent burglary. Finally, as a last resort, one should defend themselves by whatever means are necessary. This last scenario is very unlikely, even in times of war, if one does not go looking for a fight.

    The survivors are the ones who recognize danger and get out-of-the-way, or at least don't try to confront it head on. If war is like a disease, then as a medical doctor my advice would be to first avoid being exposed. If one is exposed nonetheless, one should use the least dangerous method of fighting off the disease

    Your comment on private ownership reveals your susceptibility to propaganda. I live in the United States of America and if I do not pay my taxes the government will take my home and my car and anything else of mine that they desire. They will demolish my home if they want to build a highway. They will take as much money of mine as they desire in taxes. It is the same everywhere except, perhaps, in some area where there is no strong central government. Additionally, I have heard that there is private property in Russia and China also! I know! It's amazing, isn't it?

    I suppose you are young and/or being in medicine, stayed away from the study of history and political science since you are ignorant of how the communists in both Russia (Soviet Union) and Red China stole land from their people and formed government run collectives that caused massive shortages of food. It’s true, that nowadays, there are private property rights, but they are very recent.

    The Poles, Jews and Czechs, under Nazi rule wouldn’t have been allowed to pursue a medical degree. Again, your ignorance of history may be to blame for your not understanding what being conquered means, or would have meant for your career. Many a brilliant Pole was forced to do manual labor for those who conquered his land and was unable to become a medical doctor, or a lawyer or even an Indian Chief.

    And yes, you should definitely pay your taxes, it’s the price we pay for so many of our fellow citizens voting democrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    I am a Distinguished Graduate of West Point.

    "The Poles, Jews and Czechs, under Nazi rule wouldn’t have been allowed to pursue a medical degree".

    This assertion is untrue. Please check your sources.

    Furthermore, check blacks ability to go to medical school prior to 1963 - severely impaired.This goes to show that societies evolve. Opportunities change and evolve in all countries.

    "It’s true, that nowadays, there are private property rights, but they are very recent."

    Only if you count many decades as "very recent."

    Furthermore, would you rather wait for your chance, though waiting is unjst, or simply be dead fighting as a soldier for the benefit of the super rich and powerful. Many US blacks who could not get into medical school prior to 1963 ended up MD's eventually. Other blacks who fought in Vietnam are dead. Who are the Vietnam KIA's helping? Who did they help?

    So the Soviet Union had an economic downturn due to poor economic policy and the fact that many millions of working age people were killed in WWII. All countries have economic downturns and suffer from poor economic policy decisions. Ever hear of the great depression? Is that a good reason to travel to another country and shoot another poor bastard? I guess you could say that would address a shortage of resources one KIA at a time.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Rich
    I suppose you are young and/or being in medicine, stayed away from the study of history and political science since you are ignorant of how the communists in both Russia (Soviet Union) and Red China stole land from their people and formed government run collectives that caused massive shortages of food. It's true, that nowadays, there are private property rights, but they are very recent.

    The Poles, Jews and Czechs, under Nazi rule wouldn't have been allowed to pursue a medical degree. Again, your ignorance of history may be to blame for your not understanding what being conquered means, or would have meant for your career. Many a brilliant Pole was forced to do manual labor for those who conquered his land and was unable to become a medical doctor, or a lawyer or even an Indian Chief.

    And yes, you should definitely pay your taxes, it's the price we pay for so many of our fellow citizens voting democrat.

    I am a Distinguished Graduate of West Point.

    “The Poles, Jews and Czechs, under Nazi rule wouldn’t have been allowed to pursue a medical degree”.

    This assertion is untrue. Please check your sources.

    Furthermore, check blacks ability to go to medical school prior to 1963 – severely impaired.This goes to show that societies evolve. Opportunities change and evolve in all countries.

    “It’s true, that nowadays, there are private property rights, but they are very recent.”

    Only if you count many decades as “very recent.”

    Furthermore, would you rather wait for your chance, though waiting is unjst, or simply be dead fighting as a soldier for the benefit of the super rich and powerful. Many US blacks who could not get into medical school prior to 1963 ended up MD’s eventually. Other blacks who fought in Vietnam are dead. Who are the Vietnam KIA’s helping? Who did they help?

    So the Soviet Union had an economic downturn due to poor economic policy and the fact that many millions of working age people were killed in WWII. All countries have economic downturns and suffer from poor economic policy decisions. Ever hear of the great depression? Is that a good reason to travel to another country and shoot another poor bastard? I guess you could say that would address a shortage of resources one KIA at a time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    You are not a "distinguished graduate of West Point." Sorry. And if you believe conquered peoples are allowed, except in a few small cases, to pursue graduate degrees, you are unfamiliar with history. But, obviously, you have your point of view, it seems to be set in stone, so I'd say we've reached an impasse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Rich
    "AQ and ISIS are creations of CIA." Some people say that, I wouldn't say it's been proven. It's more of an assertion by those with a conspiratorial inclination

    Russia has never been a threat, eh? I suggest you buy a book about the history of Russia so you learn how much of a threat it has been over the centuries and the potential it has to be a threat in the future. Your confidence that China will never be a threat is interesting, maybe you'll be proven right, if you're not, we're headed for a very dark future. Probably best to prevent the murderous Reds from becoming hegemonic in the East and elsewhere.

    You should probably quit falling for tales of peace and harmony and free Coca-Cola for everyone and realize the world can be a harsh place and it's always best to be prepared. And I agree the open Southern border is a very real threat.

    “AQ and ISIS are creations of CIA.” Some people say that, I wouldn’t say it’s been proven. It’s more of an assertion by those with a conspiratorial inclination – Rich

    Some of the people with a ‘conspiratorial inclination’:

    ”I mean, let’s remember here: The people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago, and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union.

    So there’s a very strong argument, which is: It wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let’s be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.”
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2009

    “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents [Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin] of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul

    . . .What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
    - Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998 interview

    “The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. . .The West [U.S.A. and its allies], Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.”
    - declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency 2012 memorandum,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Fred raises many interesting points.
    Naturally he is correct to name genetics as an important cause of human aggression, “tribalism” etc. Equally, naturally, it is not the only cause. Physical environment/geography, resources, cultural inheritance (family, religion, education etc) economics/productivity (inc class divisions & politics generally) all play a part in forming human attitudes & instincts. And the human body as it grows etc from/into this Complex of factors. Such are Individuals made. A human is neither infinitely plastic nor eternally fixed.
    And so, to Fred’s question: “Why wars ?”
    In the past many wars have been the result of a struggle for resources in an environment often bordering on only near zero sum outcomes: ie there’s enough cake for 100…unfortunately, there are 200 eaters, Even where zero sum did not exist, people’s fear of such was often enough to drive them to risk war.
    An evergreen historical question: was the First Punic war inevitable?
    Population density: animals will fight where they feel literally compressed by “neighbors”.
    Another clear historical “tendency” : the more real, effective power is concentrated into fewer & fewer hands, the more likely war will seem an appealing option. Because, simply, the costs of war — money, risk to life & limb can be transferred to the powerless majority whereas the potential rewards of war are more likely to accrue the the powerful minority.
    Interestingly, the US is possibly the first empire ever to arise in the absence of any real physical threat to the “homeland” (Surely we dont include the Indians or Mexicans as genuine threats ??)
    Why war for the US ? The US has had Imperial ambitions of one degree or another since its birth — even if those ambitions were in some ways unconscious.
    Now, of course, such ambitions are entirely conscious. The US is determined to be the single Hegemon, to accept no competitors, no equals & no contradiction. And why not ? All forms of power have been largely concentrated into the hands of a tiny Elite. Wars cost them nothing. And the rewards ? Well, it’s basically the world, isn’t it ?
    Who is The US’s chief competitor ? China. Too soon, too risky to take on China directly, so try to destroy or weaken China’s allies, friends, & economic chances. Surround them all with military bases, sanction them (Russia, Nth Korea, Iran), divide them (cut Europe off from Eurasian integration etc), invade the weakest (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Iraq).
    Some where in all that account must be taken of Israel, that bizarre, ugly historical anomaly….
    Of course, the question remains, was all this inevitable ? Could the US have chosen after ’91 to be the leader of a multipolar world, rather than dictator of a unipolar world ? Chosen to work through international law rather than use it as a fig leaf to cover its naked aggression ? Chosen to not exploit parasitically not only other nations but its own citizens ? Chosen production & income rather than debt & rents ?
    Probably Fred is right … Imperialism, bad faith & aggression seem to be part of the US’s genetic makeup…

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Very good post, IMHO.

    Found this particularly good:

    Another clear historical “tendency” : the more real, effective power is concentrated into fewer & fewer hands, the more likely war will seem an appealing option. Because, simply, the costs of war — money, risk to life & limb can be transferred to the powerless majority whereas the potential rewards of war are more likely to accrue the the powerful minority.
     

    Why war for the US ? The US has had Imperial ambitions of one degree or another since its birth — even if those ambitions were in some ways unconscious.
    Now, of course, such ambitions are entirely conscious. The US is determined to be the single Hegemon, to accept no competitors, no equals & no contradiction. And why not ? All forms of power have been largely concentrated into the hands of a tiny Elite. Wars cost them nothing. And the rewards ? Well, it’s basically the world, isn’t it ?
     

    Of course, the question remains, was all this inevitable ? Could the US have chosen after ’91 to be the leader of a multipolar world

     

    And the really thought provoking:

    Imperialism, bad faith & aggression seem to be part of the US’s genetic makeup…

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Rich says:
    @The Scalpel
    I am a Distinguished Graduate of West Point.

    "The Poles, Jews and Czechs, under Nazi rule wouldn’t have been allowed to pursue a medical degree".

    This assertion is untrue. Please check your sources.

    Furthermore, check blacks ability to go to medical school prior to 1963 - severely impaired.This goes to show that societies evolve. Opportunities change and evolve in all countries.

    "It’s true, that nowadays, there are private property rights, but they are very recent."

    Only if you count many decades as "very recent."

    Furthermore, would you rather wait for your chance, though waiting is unjst, or simply be dead fighting as a soldier for the benefit of the super rich and powerful. Many US blacks who could not get into medical school prior to 1963 ended up MD's eventually. Other blacks who fought in Vietnam are dead. Who are the Vietnam KIA's helping? Who did they help?

    So the Soviet Union had an economic downturn due to poor economic policy and the fact that many millions of working age people were killed in WWII. All countries have economic downturns and suffer from poor economic policy decisions. Ever hear of the great depression? Is that a good reason to travel to another country and shoot another poor bastard? I guess you could say that would address a shortage of resources one KIA at a time.

    You are not a “distinguished graduate of West Point.” Sorry. And if you believe conquered peoples are allowed, except in a few small cases, to pursue graduate degrees, you are unfamiliar with history. But, obviously, you have your point of view, it seems to be set in stone, so I’d say we’ve reached an impasse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    Your response is completely wrong. That is tough to do! Congratulations!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @dearieme
    I didn't know that Nietzsche had said something so perceptive. Did he also comment on how unintelligent people in groups can be?

    Nietzsche said quite a few perceptive things. You just have to look a long time to find them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. peterAUS says:
    @animalogic
    Fred raises many interesting points.
    Naturally he is correct to name genetics as an important cause of human aggression, "tribalism" etc. Equally, naturally, it is not the only cause. Physical environment/geography, resources, cultural inheritance (family, religion, education etc) economics/productivity (inc class divisions & politics generally) all play a part in forming human attitudes & instincts. And the human body as it grows etc from/into this Complex of factors. Such are Individuals made. A human is neither infinitely plastic nor eternally fixed.
    And so, to Fred's question: "Why wars ?"
    In the past many wars have been the result of a struggle for resources in an environment often bordering on only near zero sum outcomes: ie there's enough cake for 100...unfortunately, there are 200 eaters, Even where zero sum did not exist, people's fear of such was often enough to drive them to risk war.
    An evergreen historical question: was the First Punic war inevitable?
    Population density: animals will fight where they feel literally compressed by "neighbors".
    Another clear historical "tendency" : the more real, effective power is concentrated into fewer & fewer hands, the more likely war will seem an appealing option. Because, simply, the costs of war -- money, risk to life & limb can be transferred to the powerless majority whereas the potential rewards of war are more likely to accrue the the powerful minority.
    Interestingly, the US is possibly the first empire ever to arise in the absence of any real physical threat to the "homeland" (Surely we dont include the Indians or Mexicans as genuine threats ??)
    Why war for the US ? The US has had Imperial ambitions of one degree or another since its birth -- even if those ambitions were in some ways unconscious.
    Now, of course, such ambitions are entirely conscious. The US is determined to be the single Hegemon, to accept no competitors, no equals & no contradiction. And why not ? All forms of power have been largely concentrated into the hands of a tiny Elite. Wars cost them nothing. And the rewards ? Well, it's basically the world, isn't it ?
    Who is The US's chief competitor ? China. Too soon, too risky to take on China directly, so try to destroy or weaken China's allies, friends, & economic chances. Surround them all with military bases, sanction them (Russia, Nth Korea, Iran), divide them (cut Europe off from Eurasian integration etc), invade the weakest (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Iraq).
    Some where in all that account must be taken of Israel, that bizarre, ugly historical anomaly....
    Of course, the question remains, was all this inevitable ? Could the US have chosen after '91 to be the leader of a multipolar world, rather than dictator of a unipolar world ? Chosen to work through international law rather than use it as a fig leaf to cover its naked aggression ? Chosen to not exploit parasitically not only other nations but its own citizens ? Chosen production & income rather than debt & rents ?
    Probably Fred is right ... Imperialism, bad faith & aggression seem to be part of the US's genetic makeup...

    Very good post, IMHO.

    Found this particularly good:

    Another clear historical “tendency” : the more real, effective power is concentrated into fewer & fewer hands, the more likely war will seem an appealing option. Because, simply, the costs of war — money, risk to life & limb can be transferred to the powerless majority whereas the potential rewards of war are more likely to accrue the the powerful minority.

    Why war for the US ? The US has had Imperial ambitions of one degree or another since its birth — even if those ambitions were in some ways unconscious.
    Now, of course, such ambitions are entirely conscious. The US is determined to be the single Hegemon, to accept no competitors, no equals & no contradiction. And why not ? All forms of power have been largely concentrated into the hands of a tiny Elite. Wars cost them nothing. And the rewards ? Well, it’s basically the world, isn’t it ?

    Of course, the question remains, was all this inevitable ? Could the US have chosen after ’91 to be the leader of a multipolar world

    And the really thought provoking:

    Imperialism, bad faith & aggression seem to be part of the US’s genetic makeup…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @epnngg
    Despite my bleak comment on the violent state of mankind, I truly believe that man is not headed for extinction. Residing deep in the majority of mankind is a strong desire for peace and those good things that go along with peace: productive, meaningful work, good friends, a loving family, hopeful interactions within the communities in which we live. How do we flesh out these yearnings for a better more hopeful life? The heart of man is truly evil, and man has lost his way in this world. I believe there is only one answer to that, a return to the One that has made each one of us for Himself. I believe that God is in the business of reconciling all men unto Himself and He will not allow mankind to completely destroy themselves.

    Apparently you are a believer, and so am I. But I still maintain that mankind is headed for extinction at some future date as written in the Bible which indicates the world will be destroyed by fire. That fire will no doubt be ignited by a war in which WMDs are employed massively. When the first atomic explosion was set off at Alamorgordo in 1945, concern was expressed by some scientists that a chain reaction was possible, but these doubts never carried much weight. But I think it is possible that a world-wide chain reaction could result given the right combination of circumstances connected with hydrogen bombs or a still unknown form of energy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Apparently you are a believer, and so am I. But I still maintain that mankind is headed for extinction at some future date as written in the Bible which indicates the world will be destroyed by fire.
     
    Apparently you are a credulous, gullible and stupid Believer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Fred writes about as well as can be expected given his deep fear of criticizing Israel or Mexico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Rich
    You are not a "distinguished graduate of West Point." Sorry. And if you believe conquered peoples are allowed, except in a few small cases, to pursue graduate degrees, you are unfamiliar with history. But, obviously, you have your point of view, it seems to be set in stone, so I'd say we've reached an impasse.

    Your response is completely wrong. That is tough to do! Congratulations!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Completely wrong? Okay. Best of luck to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Rich says:
    @The Scalpel
    Your response is completely wrong. That is tough to do! Congratulations!

    Completely wrong? Okay. Best of luck to you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I suppose you are young and/or being in medicine, stayed away from the study of history and political science since you are ignorant of how the communists in both Russia (Soviet Union) and Red China stole land from their people and formed government run collectives that caused massive shortages of food.

    All of which amounts to your focus on selected elements of history to make a point that does not exist. “Communism” is a label preempted by the 1% (for whom you now act as agent) for use in painting a class or ethnicity as “evil”. Most forms of what doctrinarians such as yourself define as “communism” are variations on a theme of totalitarianism, oppression, corruption, perversion and abuse of power, etc. that has been, and remains, a hallmark of bad people and how they go about making themselves wealthy and powerful.

    In the USA, for almost two centuries, the expression and organization of totalitarian forms was limited, somewhat, by a political system that was capable, in some limited degree, of interceding in the evil, or limiting its effect to some degree.

    Those days are over. The government of the USA is corrupt throughout — local, state, Federal, Congress and the Judiciary are corrupt to the core. The age-old techniques of totalitarianism, laid upon us with soft gloves for the present, will soon manifest their full traditional malevolence. It’s just a modern form, a honed technique for raping and pillaging the economy of, and the possessions of, a class of productive people.

    And you think it’s Russians. You’re a dumbass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Simply Simon
    Apparently you are a believer, and so am I. But I still maintain that mankind is headed for extinction at some future date as written in the Bible which indicates the world will be destroyed by fire. That fire will no doubt be ignited by a war in which WMDs are employed massively. When the first atomic explosion was set off at Alamorgordo in 1945, concern was expressed by some scientists that a chain reaction was possible, but these doubts never carried much weight. But I think it is possible that a world-wide chain reaction could result given the right combination of circumstances connected with hydrogen bombs or a still unknown form of energy.

    Apparently you are a believer, and so am I. But I still maintain that mankind is headed for extinction at some future date as written in the Bible which indicates the world will be destroyed by fire.

    Apparently you are a credulous, gullible and stupid Believer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    The drawback of posting on sites such as this is that the poster will be subject to ridicule from low-class people such as you. However, my skin is thick enough that it can withstand any kind of barb that seeks to undermine my belief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Anonymous

    Apparently you are a believer, and so am I. But I still maintain that mankind is headed for extinction at some future date as written in the Bible which indicates the world will be destroyed by fire.
     
    Apparently you are a credulous, gullible and stupid Believer.

    The drawback of posting on sites such as this is that the poster will be subject to ridicule from low-class people such as you. However, my skin is thick enough that it can withstand any kind of barb that seeks to undermine my belief.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Truth says:
    @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand Fred's point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands while others (liberals) are willing to put their asses in the air for any invader that threatens them? If the US and its allies hadn't stood up to the Communist threat from both Russia and China after WWII you think they wouldn't have conquered most of the rest of the world? If certain Muslim groups are allowed to consolidate their power, you think they won't threaten American interests and eventually America itself? Pacifism doesn't work. Don't fight back in high school and the bully takes your lunch money, don't fight back in international affairs and the bully takes all of Eastern Europe for fifty years.

    I’m not sure I understand Fred’s point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands…

    Yeah, they’re called “Vietcong.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Ever heard of the massacre at Hue? Your VC heroes massacred up to 6,000 captured soldiers and civilians including women and children. The VC were murderous dogs who raped, murdered and pillaged their own people. But don't fret, the way things are going, maybe you'll get to meet similar people if the Red Brigades of Antifa ever get strong enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Rurik says:

    As Washington bombs Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, militarily threatens Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, and China, sanctions Cuba, North Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Iran..one may wonder: Why?

    Are wars about anything, or just wars?

    Well Fred, I’d posit that they are indeed ‘about’ something.

    The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were about the American people determined to free themselves from the iron death grip of debt slavery to the Bank of England.

    Most of the subsequent wars have been for the same reason. It’s called resistance to the ‘unilateral power’ of the Rothschild banking dynasty. That’s why the ZUS is saber-rattling at Putin, because he doesn’t bow his head to the London-based, banking dynasty. Duh.

    That’s why we destroyed and occupy Afghanistan and Libya and even why we destroyed and occupy Germany and why we sanction Cuba.

    In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:

    Afghanistan

    Iraq

    Sudan

    Libya

    Cuba

    North Korea

    Iran

    The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:

    Cuba

    North Korea

    Iran

    http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/banking_and_taxation_irs_and_insurance/social_security/news.php?q=1320062234

    I’m not suggesting that this is the cause of every war the ZUS has engaged in, but it’s the main and obvious (glaring, for anyone paying attention) cause of the wars since 9/11

    Ruritania is threatening us, or might, or does something wrong..

    what ever the whore msm reads from the propaganda script – written by the PTB

    Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

    Because wars are what we do.

    no, but rather because bloodthirsty Jewish supremacist Zionists, power-crazed and full of OT bloodlust have used financial treachery to insinuate themselves over our media, government and cultural institutions. [see Germany, Weimar]

    Not, because conservative, white farmers and truck drivers in Nebraska are sitting there telling their sons, ‘boy, you need to suit up and go kill some ragheads for God and country. It’s what we do’

    No. That’s not why.

    Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

    umm.. no

    they don’t lack empathy, they simply have more empathy for their own families and neighbors than they do for hostile immigrants who hate their guts and want to ethnically cleanse them.

    It’s called sanity, and I remember a certain writer who was better than most at pointing out the suicidal racial insanity of liberalism, the opposite of conservatism as they’ve come to mean. But he seems lost to us now.

    oppose taxation of themselves to give to the less fortunate.

    when exactly did Fred morph into Oprah?

    Yet liberals and conservatives arrive at sharply differing conclusions from identical evidence. This suggests an innate predisposition.

    I put most of it down to indoctrination. The most rigid conservatives- by way of the religious institutions / the liberals- by way of the universities.

    the indoctrinated don’t do nuance

    People in general seem designed to think about small groups, not countries of millions of people.

    we are

    We evolved over millions of year living as tribal hunter, gatherers in small groups from a dozen or so to a few dozen. Just because in the last couple of millennia we’ve been handed smart phones and space ships, if you check out the contents of most people’s smart phones, you’ll find pretty much the same number of social contact that humans have had for hundreds of thousands of years.

    The lack of empathy usual in conservatives,

    if these callous, barking dog white men you’re on about, didn’t have empathy for their families, I doubt they’d risk going off to kill the commies or terrorists or what ever bogey man du jour the (Very liberal) PTB exhorted them to kill on any given day.

    What’s going on is that liberals in government (from FDR to JFK to Obama and Hillary [there's your woman Fred, it's not always men]), have been telling lies to get these barking dog white American men [with no empathy] to go kill the threats to their families. That is what’s going on.

    They’re not going over there to kill just to kill. They’re going over there because they’ve been lied to. And deceived. But the good news is that increasingly it’s getting harder to do that.

    Yet order him to bomb a crowded city in a country that has done nothing to deserve it–Baghdad, for example–and he will do it and pride himself on having done it.

    military men are, as you point out, compelled to obey orders. Some of them are no doubt psychopaths, but most of them are simply doing a job they took because they believe it was honorable, and patriotic to do so. That they’re lied to, is the tragedy.

    Why excoriate the simple-minded dog faces, (many of whom you must have known in Vietnam), while giving a pass to the scumfucks that foist these evil wars?!

    Why blame the ‘empathy-lacking conservatives, (who don’t want massive immigration ; ), while giving a pass to the neocons and congressional whores, most of whom clamoring for wars in the Middle East are Democrats like Chucky Schumer.

    why rail at her husband

    as a barking dog who lacked empathy, and give the Nobel prize winner who sent him to kill and die, a pass?

    Militaries now know they are doing wrong, This is why soldiers become furious when persistently asked about atrocities. They would rather you not know.

    is that why the returning vets are committing suicide at epidemic levels?

    or could it possibly be that like Pat Tillman, (a true hero based on every possible metric from the Greeks to the Romantic period) these vets are realizing that all these wars are based on devil’s lies?

    And that they’ve been duped and forced to participate in serial atrocities in order to sate an insatiable bloodlust from our ultra-liberal elites and banksters and Zionists?

    Is that just possible Fred?

    Yet the bombing continues and from the less politically careful conservatives come cries of, “Untie the hands of our soldiers,”

    It was during the regime of the uber-liberal Obama that the ZUS destroyed Libya utterly. It was during his reign that our nation tried to send Syria also reeling into the stone age.
    By contrast, under the nominally conservative Trump administration the war in Syria is being won by the good guys. (yes Fred, occasionally there are reasons to fight a war, and the one the Syrian army is fighting in Syria, to wipe out the foreign head-slicer immigrants that the liberal Obama armed and funded, is a noble and just reason to fight a war ; )

    Much of what Fred says about human nature being like dogs is completely spot on. But the way it’s being spun as a demonization of the deplorables is rather transparent balderdash.

    There are times when a dog should bark, and when it should bite. Like when another rival dog(s) is/are trying to edge him out of his territory.

    It’s no different with humans, except that human are capable of creating things like International Banks, that are intended to enslave them all. And use Endless Wars towards that agenda.

    We should all be barking mad at that, and even when the time comes, be ready and willing to bite.

    ~ Rurik of Ruritania

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Rich says:
    @Truth

    I’m not sure I understand Fred’s point. Some humans are willing to fight to defend their homelands...
     
    Yeah, they're called "Vietcong."

    Ever heard of the massacre at Hue? Your VC heroes massacred up to 6,000 captured soldiers and civilians including women and children. The VC were murderous dogs who raped, murdered and pillaged their own people. But don’t fret, the way things are going, maybe you’ll get to meet similar people if the Red Brigades of Antifa ever get strong enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. sadness says:

    This is the same as saying, for example, that the State of Israel has a right to exist, having been formed by and existing thru terrorism against the former inhabitants (now unpeople) the Palestinians, which is alright because every nation has done it. Which is apparently their foremost intellectual Chomsky’s point of view.

    The fact is your theories are educated into each one of us from birth, forcibly if necessary. “You are a this, They are a that”. You have a “god” you’re imagined in your own mind, they have the same only a better/worse “god”. Can’t you see this? This article is a continuation of the same old same old – This is the past and as such we all live in the past.

    Please write an article pointing out that we are all the same, we all want the same lives in the present. That there was enough beautiful Earth for us all to share, including the plants & animals, even your rabid dogs. Nature is bountiful but will indeed destroy you if you ask too much.

    It’s our education that must change, Now, Not tomorrow. Ta.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @EliteCommInc.
    The Female of the Species

    WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
    He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
    But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
    He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
    But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
    They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
    'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
    For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
    But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
    The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

    Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
    Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
    Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
    To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

    Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
    To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
    Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
    Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

    But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
    Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
    And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
    The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

    She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
    May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
    These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
    She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

    She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
    As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
    And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
    Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

    She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
    Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
    He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
    Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

    Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
    Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
    Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
    And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

    So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
    With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
    Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
    To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

    And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
    Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
    And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
    That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

    Rudyard Kipling

    . . . Golda Meir, Elizabeth Dole, Marie Stopes, Winnie Mandela . . .

    . . . Golda Meir, Elizabeth Dole, Marie Stopes, Winnie Mandela . . .

    …Mrs. Kipling…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. helena says:
    @Ossettian
    "Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs."

    Not here in England.

    Are American dogs as strange as American humans?

    Actually the number of people keeping big dogs in urban areas, not training dogs and thinking they respond to being shouted at, is really depressing. Well trained/looked after dogs are a joy to be with because they are just as friendly and sociable as well trained/looked after humans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Maybe an evolutionary perspective makes sense. Maybe humans form different kind of social institutions with highly diverse characteristics. But only the expansive, belligerent institutions survive. Thus those are the only ones we can observe in history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Defining ourselves by the demons that engage our lower fearful nature is an error. We are spiritual beings. in fact we COMMAND spirit and we can choose to define ourselves by our ability to engage with the Divine rather than the familiar demons described by Mr Reed if we so choose.

    We should start by recognising this …. aggressive actions based our fear and anger CANNOT FIX ANYTHING.

    They always makes things worse. If we stop trying to fix things the problems we think we are addressing will fade away.

    If we stop being angry the Satanists who lead us will have nothing to work with.
    If you cut your hand that cut will heal provided you do NOT imagine you can fix it. Time and the processes embedded in reality by the Creator achieve this end. Like the AA 12-step program the first admission we must make if we want to turn reality around is that WE cannot solve our problem. Co-operation with the divine … the putting aside of demons by embracing the divine is the only path to genuine redemption.
    Whether we are talking about addiction or the diabolists who lead us … who only suceed because of the support we give them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Duke on Libs

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts..

    Iran on a map looks like a cat.

    The first thing I did after arriving at my hotel in Teheran was to walk to Laleh Park to see the feral cats.

    In “The Ayatollah Begs to Differ,” Hooman Majd devotes a chapter to cats in Iran — not fancy Persian cats but street cats, and those cats among them who beat up the other cats to maintain their authority; there’s one such cat — a laat — in every neighborhood–

    Laat . . . [is sometimes defined as] “hooligan,” although it is in fact wildly inaccurate. The laat holds a special place in Iranian culture: a place that at times can be compared to the popular position of a mafioso in American culture, albeit without the extreme violence associated with him, and at other times a place of respect and admiration for the working-class code he lives by. Hooligans are anarchic; laats fight only when necessary and to establish their authority.

    The West gets Iran wrong because Iran is intellectualized in Western terms — as canine packs, for instance, but Iran is different: At its Iranian core, Iran is NOT Abrahamic, it is Zoroastrian/Cyrus-ian, and it’s not canine, it’s feline — independent, insouciant, fighting only when necessary rather than “war because it’s what we do.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Logan says:
    @pyrrhus
    Hint to Fred--it's about the money for the elites, contracts for the military industrial complex,and promotion for the generals. You are confusing neocons with conservatives, which they are not..True conservatives oppose foreign wars, whereas every major war the US has been in was started by liberals, or lately, neocon liberals like Bush....Historical note: the Little England movement, which opposed England's expanding empire in the 19th century, was a conservative movement.

    Just curious.

    Were the warhawks of 1812 and James K. Polk liberals?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. anon says: • Disclaimer

    It would seem that wars are not about anything, but just what we do.

    Wars are about winning; achieving victory.

    “In terms of human emotion, victory is accompanied with strong feelings of elation, and in human behaviour is often accompanied with movements and poses paralleling threat display preceding the combat, associated with the excess endorphin built up preceding and during combat. Victory dances and victory cries similarly parallel war dances and war cries performed before the outbreak of physical violence.”

    War is a means of relieving boredom, the up-phase of the manic-depressive cycle in which “lethargy,” the down-phase, is the outcome of having no good options among all corrupt leaders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

    Senor Cabbagehead aka Cabbage-Cabeza, you ask WHY? Which group in the US has (1) elite control over institutions and (2) special animus against Russia, Iran, and any nation disliked by Israel?

    Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Hindu-Americans? Greek-Americans?

    The answer is simpler. It's Jewish Globalist power. If Jewish Power had never become supreme in the US, the US would not have invaded Iraq, would not freak out so much about Iran, wouldn't have pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and would not have pushed 'new cold war' with Russia.

    True, there is a male-warrior instinct, but if that's the case, why isn't US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe? Who gets to choose the targets? It's not this thing called 'male' or 'conservative' aggression. It is ethnic in nature.

    Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts.

    But dogs lack agency. They follow orders. If dogs are ordered to attack, they will. If they're ordered to love, they will. If you make a dog attack and kill a cat, it will. If you tell the dog that the cat is a 'friend' and should be treated nice, it will treat the cat nice.
    Yes, the US military is like a dog, and it lacks agency. It follows orders. And its masters are in organizations like AIPAC. It's like John McCain the militarist only hates nations hated by Jews.
    John McCaine is McCanine.

    Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

    Conservatives have more sympathy for people within the tribe. Liberals feel less sympathy for fellow folks. Also, 'empathy' isn't necessarily sympathy. It means the ability to read other people's thoughts and feelings. The reason why some conservatives lack sympathy for certain groups is because they are empathetic in reading the minds of others. For instance, a keen conservative can read the mind of a Negro and see through the BS about 'justice'. They look into the Negro male mind and hear, "Where da white women at?" and read the Negro female mind and hear, "My booty be da center of da universe." And keen conservatives are empathetic in reading the minds of Neocons and their dirty tricks.
    Liberals may seem more 'empathatic' cuz they seem to be more open-minded to OTHER peoples, but this has less to do with genuine empathetic understanding of others than a naive trust in the goodness of others. Most Libby-dibbers who open up to Muslims have NO IDEA what Muslims are really after. Most Libby-dibbers who get all mushy about homos have no idea how the homo mind really works. Homos are vain, narcissistic, self-centered, and bitchy. But libby-dibbers see them as new saints. True empathy requires the keenness to read the minds of others. It's like what Michael Corleone says.

    https://youtu.be/uPENNtXDKZw?t=2m45s

    Now, it's true that many conservatives are morons who are just into 'Muh country, God and guns, and etc'. But so many libby-dibs are into 'Muh self-righteous vanity, diversity and inclusion, and etc'.

    Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily.

    True, but the imperialist mindset is usually libby-dib. Most conzo-wonzos are content with what they got, what they are familiar with. It's the libby-dibs who want more and get tired what they already have. Also, libby-dibs believe they are intellectually and culturally superior, and such mindset make them want to remake the entire world to conform to their ideal.
    So, the US empire is a fusion of doglike conzo-wonzo soldier and birdlike libby-dibby imperialist. Isn't it funny that the US is now an empire that sends its soldiers to invade and transform other nations to... raise the Homo Flag?

    So, aggression has both a conzo-wonzo aspect and a libby-dibby aspect.

    Conzo warrior mentality is more defensive and preservative. Pre-Modern East Asia was very conservative, and its military was all about defending the realm from foreigners. This changed only in the 19th century as the the libby-dib West forced Asia to open. (The two times Japan went into imperialist mode had to do with Western influence. Hideoyoshi got guns and backing from the West. And modern Japan modeled itself on European and American empires.) KAGEMUSHA is about the wisdom of conservative caution in battle. Be like a mountain and preserve the domain. But the ambitious son wants to take it all and in the process gambles away his domain. (Ironically, the far-rightist Hitler was more of a libby-dib warrior in his ambitiousness, and far-leftist Stalin was more of a conzo-wonzo warrior in playing defense.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvYBENPcUFM

    Libby holy crusader mentality is more offensive and transformative. The West became the most progressive part of the world and decided to conquer the world and transform it with Christianity, free trade, 'human rights', and etc.

    Same goes for religion. The conzo spiritual mindset is more orthodox and more about preserving tradition and dogma. The libby spiritual mindset is more about spreading the gospel to all of mankind, even if it means killing the heathen or infidel. Communism was a secular version of the libby missionary mindset.

    Now, there is a good and bad side to both conzo and libby mentality.

    Conzos are less aggressive outwardly, and so they are less likely to conquer other peoples. But this ultra-defensive posture can lead to isolationism, stagnation, and fear of new ideas that might actually be good. This is why East Asian fell behind the West.

    As for Libbies, they are more aggressive and ambitious. More adventurous. So, unlike the conzo East Asia, the more libby Western Europe discovered the world and created new trade routes and made advances in every field. But it also meant conquest, imperialism, slave trade on massive scale, genocide, and etc.

    The best is a kind of balance of conzo and libby tendencies. But in the US, both the conzo and libby tendencies of gentiles are harnessed to serve the ethno-ambition of Jewish globalists who use gung-ho US conservative soldiers to hate other nations to ultimately spread homo-ness and Hollywood values. Instead of a meaningful balance of conzo-ness and libby-ness, both are perverted to serve ethno-supremacist ambitions and homo-negro degeneracy.

    Now, the US could be a good policemen of the world. It's like dogs left alone will often fight and bark. But if a responsible person comes along, he can make dogs get along and be friendly. US could play this role if it tried. But instead, the US is like a master that trains and encourages some dogs to attack other dogs. US has become the master of New World Disorder. It used Jihadis to tear Libya and Syria apart. It encourages Saudis to raise tension levels with Iran. It used neo-nazis in Ukraine. It provokes North Korea with crazy military exercises with SK. Also, even US allies come under US bullying. So, even if a nation wants to be peaceful and neutral and trade with US, Russia, and Iran, the US steps forth and says YOU CAN'T TRADE WITH THEM; IF YOU DO, WE WILL DESTROY YOUR ECONOMY.

    The amazing benevolence of Bnai Brith towards Nazi monuments in Canada. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-deny-the-ukrainian-nazi-connection
    “A monument in Oakville commemorates those who served with the 14th SS Galizien Division (aka 1st Galician/Galizien or the 1st Ukrainian Division). Another monument in Edmonton honors Roman Shukhevych, the leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.”
    Bnai Brith reaction? – Aidan Fishman, the interim director of B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights: “The Russian government sometimes uses the word ‘Nazi, ‘especially in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, with somewhat broader meaning than other groups would use it.”

    “Before going to to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Shukhevych was commander of the Ukrainian battalion called Nachtigall. The men of Nachtigall rounded up Jews in Lviv in June 1941, massacring men, women and children. The Simon Wiesenthal Center estimates that the Nachtigall Battalion, along with their German military counterparts, managed to murder around 4,000 Jews in Lviv. Other historians put the estimate at around 6,000.
    SS Galizien Division was used by the Nazis in a variety of operations, one of the most controversial being the 1944 destruction of the village of Huta Pieniacka. … The SS units surrounded the village. Men, women and children, who had taken refuge in the village church, were taken outside in groups and murdered. Kids were executed in front of their parents, their heads smashed against tree trunks, one witness testified. Others were burned alive in houses.”

    Case closed. Nuland-Kaga, the whole Kagans’ clan, and Bnai Brith know better when and how to cooperate with Nazis, the memory of WWII victims be damned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Art says:

    Perhaps the author has eaten one to many tamales – his reading of American conservatism and war making, has some blind spots.

    Pre-WWII the average American conservative was an isolationist. Guess who started our wars up to the nineties – Wilson WWI, Roosevelt WWII, Truman Korea, Kennedy Vietnam – all Democrats – not Republicans. True American conservatism, says mind your own business.

    In the 1960’s WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. invited neocon Jews into the American conservative movement. Without question they and their media turned American conservatism into a war party. All our wars post Vietnam have been fought in connection with Israel and its interests.

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. If the author truly wants peace – he must find the courage to say “Jew.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Sloopyjoe says:

    I don’t know what happened. Apparently, my post got deleted. Would someone care to explain?

    Here it is again.
    As an owner of a German Shepherd, I take offense to the picture. If you want an ACTUAL feral dog, why not use this one?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Fred is so very wrong on this. I bet it hurts to think that. Loser.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. Lisa says:

    Re your subtitle “The Human Race as Feral Dogs”

    Fred, it’s not human “race”; it’s human “species”. Just saying. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. denk says:
    @Priss Factor
    Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

    Senor Cabbagehead aka Cabbage-Cabeza, you ask WHY? Which group in the US has (1) elite control over institutions and (2) special animus against Russia, Iran, and any nation disliked by Israel?

    Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Hindu-Americans? Greek-Americans?

    The answer is simpler. It's Jewish Globalist power. If Jewish Power had never become supreme in the US, the US would not have invaded Iraq, would not freak out so much about Iran, wouldn't have pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and would not have pushed 'new cold war' with Russia.

    True, there is a male-warrior instinct, but if that's the case, why isn't US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe? Who gets to choose the targets? It's not this thing called 'male' or 'conservative' aggression. It is ethnic in nature.

    Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts.

    But dogs lack agency. They follow orders. If dogs are ordered to attack, they will. If they're ordered to love, they will. If you make a dog attack and kill a cat, it will. If you tell the dog that the cat is a 'friend' and should be treated nice, it will treat the cat nice.
    Yes, the US military is like a dog, and it lacks agency. It follows orders. And its masters are in organizations like AIPAC. It's like John McCain the militarist only hates nations hated by Jews.
    John McCaine is McCanine.

    Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

    Conservatives have more sympathy for people within the tribe. Liberals feel less sympathy for fellow folks. Also, 'empathy' isn't necessarily sympathy. It means the ability to read other people's thoughts and feelings. The reason why some conservatives lack sympathy for certain groups is because they are empathetic in reading the minds of others. For instance, a keen conservative can read the mind of a Negro and see through the BS about 'justice'. They look into the Negro male mind and hear, "Where da white women at?" and read the Negro female mind and hear, "My booty be da center of da universe." And keen conservatives are empathetic in reading the minds of Neocons and their dirty tricks.
    Liberals may seem more 'empathatic' cuz they seem to be more open-minded to OTHER peoples, but this has less to do with genuine empathetic understanding of others than a naive trust in the goodness of others. Most Libby-dibbers who open up to Muslims have NO IDEA what Muslims are really after. Most Libby-dibbers who get all mushy about homos have no idea how the homo mind really works. Homos are vain, narcissistic, self-centered, and bitchy. But libby-dibbers see them as new saints. True empathy requires the keenness to read the minds of others. It's like what Michael Corleone says.

    https://youtu.be/uPENNtXDKZw?t=2m45s

    Now, it's true that many conservatives are morons who are just into 'Muh country, God and guns, and etc'. But so many libby-dibs are into 'Muh self-righteous vanity, diversity and inclusion, and etc'.

    Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily.

    True, but the imperialist mindset is usually libby-dib. Most conzo-wonzos are content with what they got, what they are familiar with. It's the libby-dibs who want more and get tired what they already have. Also, libby-dibs believe they are intellectually and culturally superior, and such mindset make them want to remake the entire world to conform to their ideal.
    So, the US empire is a fusion of doglike conzo-wonzo soldier and birdlike libby-dibby imperialist. Isn't it funny that the US is now an empire that sends its soldiers to invade and transform other nations to... raise the Homo Flag?

    So, aggression has both a conzo-wonzo aspect and a libby-dibby aspect.

    Conzo warrior mentality is more defensive and preservative. Pre-Modern East Asia was very conservative, and its military was all about defending the realm from foreigners. This changed only in the 19th century as the the libby-dib West forced Asia to open. (The two times Japan went into imperialist mode had to do with Western influence. Hideoyoshi got guns and backing from the West. And modern Japan modeled itself on European and American empires.) KAGEMUSHA is about the wisdom of conservative caution in battle. Be like a mountain and preserve the domain. But the ambitious son wants to take it all and in the process gambles away his domain. (Ironically, the far-rightist Hitler was more of a libby-dib warrior in his ambitiousness, and far-leftist Stalin was more of a conzo-wonzo warrior in playing defense.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvYBENPcUFM

    Libby holy crusader mentality is more offensive and transformative. The West became the most progressive part of the world and decided to conquer the world and transform it with Christianity, free trade, 'human rights', and etc.

    Same goes for religion. The conzo spiritual mindset is more orthodox and more about preserving tradition and dogma. The libby spiritual mindset is more about spreading the gospel to all of mankind, even if it means killing the heathen or infidel. Communism was a secular version of the libby missionary mindset.

    Now, there is a good and bad side to both conzo and libby mentality.

    Conzos are less aggressive outwardly, and so they are less likely to conquer other peoples. But this ultra-defensive posture can lead to isolationism, stagnation, and fear of new ideas that might actually be good. This is why East Asian fell behind the West.

    As for Libbies, they are more aggressive and ambitious. More adventurous. So, unlike the conzo East Asia, the more libby Western Europe discovered the world and created new trade routes and made advances in every field. But it also meant conquest, imperialism, slave trade on massive scale, genocide, and etc.

    The best is a kind of balance of conzo and libby tendencies. But in the US, both the conzo and libby tendencies of gentiles are harnessed to serve the ethno-ambition of Jewish globalists who use gung-ho US conservative soldiers to hate other nations to ultimately spread homo-ness and Hollywood values. Instead of a meaningful balance of conzo-ness and libby-ness, both are perverted to serve ethno-supremacist ambitions and homo-negro degeneracy.

    Now, the US could be a good policemen of the world. It's like dogs left alone will often fight and bark. But if a responsible person comes along, he can make dogs get along and be friendly. US could play this role if it tried. But instead, the US is like a master that trains and encourages some dogs to attack other dogs. US has become the master of New World Disorder. It used Jihadis to tear Libya and Syria apart. It encourages Saudis to raise tension levels with Iran. It used neo-nazis in Ukraine. It provokes North Korea with crazy military exercises with SK. Also, even US allies come under US bullying. So, even if a nation wants to be peaceful and neutral and trade with US, Russia, and Iran, the US steps forth and says YOU CAN'T TRADE WITH THEM; IF YOU DO, WE WILL DESTROY YOUR ECONOMY.

    True, there is a male-warrior instinct,

    beating up the likes of Grenada, Panama etc doesnt look
    too ‘warrior like’ to me !
    More like vultures preying on road kills.
    murkkan flag is an insult to that majestic eagle !

    ‘ but if that’s the case, why isn’t US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe?’

    I think some prez called Saudi ‘our gas station in ME‘,

    Whereas Bush once quipped
    ”Jp is our ATM which requires no pin numb !

    Ergo,
    these two bitches are out of bound for USAF , babe. !

    ‘Why not Zim’ ?

    just give it some time .
    uncle sham’s hand is full messing up Myanmar,
    lighting up the NK tinderbox,
    poking the Russian bear,
    Stirring up shit in TW strait, SCS, ECS.
    Whats with that wot in Niger ?

    Not that uncle ‘the multi-taskster‘ hasnt been trying its damndest to whack Zim ? tho,

    ‘ Who gets to choose the targets? It’s not this thing called ‘male’ or ‘conservative’ aggression. It is ethnic in nature. ‘

    Yes its in fukus genes. [fukus = fuck uk + us]
    no argument frome me !

    hhhhh

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. AnalogMan says:
    @Ossettian
    "Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs."

    Not here in England.

    Are American dogs as strange as American humans?

    I spent a year in England, about 20 years ago. I learned that the English fancy themselves the world’s greatest dog lovers, but they aren’t, really. The dogs I saw there, in general, didn’t look very happy. Overly regulated, leashes, muzzles, no space to run free. Depressing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. An oft ignored feature of the North Korean tragedy is just how little time has past since the North/ South split, and that it has only been the latter half of that split where the South became one of the wealthiest nations on Earth (not just in $ but in art, film and scholarship – if you want to study the Western philosophical canon, any era, from some of the greatest “Western” philosophers alive today, Seoul is second only to Singapore) .

    One generation ago, North and South were both tinpot client states. Then the USSR collapsed and Kim Jong Il was left bluffing on a 2 pair with his pants around his ankles .

    And serious respect to his poker skills – he realised the golden rule for that situation : whatever you do, DON’T PULL YOUR PANTS UP FFS. Your only chance is to be “crazy like a fox”, so keep that schlong waiving about , and if any advisor is stupid enough to bring you new underwear or suggest you leave your seat before defecating , make damn sure half the fools are sentenced to death by public whipping with the ‘royal schlong’ and the other half to the hard labour of carrying out the sentence.

    “Fatty the 3rd” (as the Chinese call him) learnt his father’s strategy well, but also saw the terrible downside. In just ONE generation, the North starved, while watching the South overflow with luxury -no food , no luxuries, none of the films, music or the modern world he so obviously craved . HE wanted for nothing , but if his best plan was “I keep living in luxury, while everyone else gets poorer and the South even richer” he’d have been assassinated one week in.

    Nukes + crazy make sense. Once up (and they seem to be), then all he needs is to appear crazy enough to use them (despite the wind patterns guaranteeing massive radiation blowback even without a counterattack, despite a radiated south being worse than useless to him, and despite a total absence of conflicting military goals with the US – takes a LOT of public “how dare the imperialists ask me to wear underpants” crazy to make that work). Then for a miniscule fraction of his father’s defence budget, he gets the same security for the regime, he can cut the conventional army by 9/10…thereby making good on the other half of his public plan by using that money to feed his people (the Korean title for his policy states this as the express aim of the nuclear program).

    And it conveniently weakens any rivals the dynasty might have in the military. Which is noticed by the populace, as it’s the military, not the dynasty, that has motivation to oppose the eventual stage 3 once the people have food and schooling: opening up and modernising, with the Kim dynasty taking the credit and getting the same deal as the Windsor’s in England: a permanent free ride, guaranteed limitless luxury for their descendants no matter who is in government, and absolute freedom to choose whether to exercise political influence or just live as playboys (out of respect for parliament, of course).

    Nothing above should be unexpected – the Kim family all went to uni in England, and it was the Chinese-leaning half-brother and uncle who were executed. Not saying they’re pro – West : their entire strategy hinges on looking like a credible threat. And they are shameless kleptocrats, even when their people starved so badly that in one generation they became almost 6 inches shorter than their southern family members .

    The average North Korean knows nothing but the daily struggle to avoid starvation – they worry for their family in the South, but the US is just a bogeyman (though one that dropped more bombs on them during the Korean war than the US did the entire WW2). They want food and survival – these are not people who have ever dreamed of having any choice over their government, let alone foreign policy.

    Asking them what they think of war with the US is like asking a dying man to use his final words to his children to discuss what they think of the shape of Neptune’s orbit. It’s equally insane to harbour war-worthy resentment towards them.

    But even if they had the (to them) godlike wealth and power to justify thinking about geopolitics, and if they backed the regime’s strategy (but not the regime itself) , that’s hardly an “evil” goal. The regime are murderous thieves who plunged a nation into the stone-age, KNOWING their people’s blood relatives to the South were prospering.But their current plan is the best deal the average Northern peasant is ever going to get.

    The alternative is to repeat “Fatty the 2nd ‘s big army ” , with yet more starvation; and a certain coup from a strengthened military who lacks the Regime’s exit strategy, and is doomed to be actively hostile to modernisation or peace, instead of the Regime’s “any theft that pays” indifference.

    Maybe it WILL become necessary to destroy North Korea, civilians and all. But as an Aussie’, I can assure you that it that day comes , if there’s even the slightest hint that Americans see it as any thing other than an appalling gut-wrenching tragedy… if you guys don’t do everything possible to find some other way. . . if there’s a repeat of George F ‘g Bush standing proud as though he did something great instead of something lamentably necessary …….You guys will have lost any moral high ground your nation ever had. I’m also certain that will be a near universal view over here- even though We are in their nuke range and well aware that a terrible choice may become necessary.

    And yes, we’re not much of a loss in terms of army size. But we are the ONLY ally who has been there EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Even Vietnam and Iraq, which were almost universally opposed on all sides of our political spectrum. We told you those wars were mistakes, and then we joined you anyway, because we’re allies and that shit means something over here. If the US ever lose’s Australia’s alliance and goodwill, that will be the day you realise that you have no allies left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Enjoyed your post.

    Just one remark: maybe a fraction too rational. The top of the regime, and especially "the king", could be losing that rationality with more power they gain. Dictators tend to have that. Hubris etc.

    One option: as you say.
    Another option: he/they get ICBM capability and then start blackmailing.
    Then what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. peterAUS says:
    @Azrael the Cat
    An oft ignored feature of the North Korean tragedy is just how little time has past since the North/ South split, and that it has only been the latter half of that split where the South became one of the wealthiest nations on Earth (not just in $ but in art, film and scholarship - if you want to study the Western philosophical canon, any era, from some of the greatest "Western" philosophers alive today, Seoul is second only to Singapore) .

    One generation ago, North and South were both tinpot client states. Then the USSR collapsed and Kim Jong Il was left bluffing on a 2 pair with his pants around his ankles .

    And serious respect to his poker skills - he realised the golden rule for that situation : whatever you do, DON'T PULL YOUR PANTS UP FFS. Your only chance is to be "crazy like a fox", so keep that schlong waiving about , and if any advisor is stupid enough to bring you new underwear or suggest you leave your seat before defecating , make damn sure half the fools are sentenced to death by public whipping with the 'royal schlong' and the other half to the hard labour of carrying out the sentence.

    "Fatty the 3rd" (as the Chinese call him) learnt his father's strategy well, but also saw the terrible downside. In just ONE generation, the North starved, while watching the South overflow with luxury -no food , no luxuries, none of the films, music or the modern world he so obviously craved . HE wanted for nothing , but if his best plan was "I keep living in luxury, while everyone else gets poorer and the South even richer" he'd have been assassinated one week in.

    Nukes + crazy make sense. Once up (and they seem to be), then all he needs is to appear crazy enough to use them (despite the wind patterns guaranteeing massive radiation blowback even without a counterattack, despite a radiated south being worse than useless to him, and despite a total absence of conflicting military goals with the US - takes a LOT of public "how dare the imperialists ask me to wear underpants" crazy to make that work). Then for a miniscule fraction of his father's defence budget, he gets the same security for the regime, he can cut the conventional army by 9/10...thereby making good on the other half of his public plan by using that money to feed his people (the Korean title for his policy states this as the express aim of the nuclear program).

    And it conveniently weakens any rivals the dynasty might have in the military. Which is noticed by the populace, as it's the military, not the dynasty, that has motivation to oppose the eventual stage 3 once the people have food and schooling: opening up and modernising, with the Kim dynasty taking the credit and getting the same deal as the Windsor's in England: a permanent free ride, guaranteed limitless luxury for their descendants no matter who is in government, and absolute freedom to choose whether to exercise political influence or just live as playboys (out of respect for parliament, of course).

    Nothing above should be unexpected - the Kim family all went to uni in England, and it was the Chinese-leaning half-brother and uncle who were executed. Not saying they're pro - West : their entire strategy hinges on looking like a credible threat. And they are shameless kleptocrats, even when their people starved so badly that in one generation they became almost 6 inches shorter than their southern family members .

    The average North Korean knows nothing but the daily struggle to avoid starvation - they worry for their family in the South, but the US is just a bogeyman (though one that dropped more bombs on them during the Korean war than the US did the entire WW2). They want food and survival - these are not people who have ever dreamed of having any choice over their government, let alone foreign policy.

    Asking them what they think of war with the US is like asking a dying man to use his final words to his children to discuss what they think of the shape of Neptune's orbit. It's equally insane to harbour war-worthy resentment towards them.

    But even if they had the (to them) godlike wealth and power to justify thinking about geopolitics, and if they backed the regime's strategy (but not the regime itself) , that's hardly an "evil" goal. The regime are murderous thieves who plunged a nation into the stone-age, KNOWING their people's blood relatives to the South were prospering.But their current plan is the best deal the average Northern peasant is ever going to get.

    The alternative is to repeat "Fatty the 2nd 's big army " , with yet more starvation; and a certain coup from a strengthened military who lacks the Regime's exit strategy, and is doomed to be actively hostile to modernisation or peace, instead of the Regime's "any theft that pays" indifference.

    Maybe it WILL become necessary to destroy North Korea, civilians and all. But as an Aussie', I can assure you that it that day comes , if there's even the slightest hint that Americans see it as any thing other than an appalling gut-wrenching tragedy... if you guys don't do everything possible to find some other way. . . if there's a repeat of George F 'g Bush standing proud as though he did something great instead of something lamentably necessary .......You guys will have lost any moral high ground your nation ever had. I'm also certain that will be a near universal view over here- even though We are in their nuke range and well aware that a terrible choice may become necessary.

    And yes, we're not much of a loss in terms of army size. But we are the ONLY ally who has been there EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Even Vietnam and Iraq, which were almost universally opposed on all sides of our political spectrum. We told you those wars were mistakes, and then we joined you anyway, because we're allies and that shit means something over here. If the US ever lose's Australia's alliance and goodwill, that will be the day you realise that you have no allies left.

    Enjoyed your post.

    Just one remark: maybe a fraction too rational. The top of the regime, and especially “the king”, could be losing that rationality with more power they gain. Dictators tend to have that. Hubris etc.

    One option: as you say.
    Another option: he/they get ICBM capability and then start blackmailing.
    Then what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave