← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 5980 | Posts: 85 | Started: 2003-04-05
2003-04-05 01:51 | User Profile
A pal and I were talking via e-mail. He asked "I wonder: if it was 1941 all over again, how many paleocons would join/support the Axis [Germany, Japan, Italy]? Especially the famous paleos: Francis, Buchanan, etc?"
Interesting question!
I, for one, would join the Axis faster than I am typing this. But who else would, and who would not? What about the people at OD?
2003-04-05 02:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Apr 4 2003, 19:51 I, for one, would join the Axis faster than I am typing this. But who else would, and who would not? What about the people at OD?
Join it, Hell! Yours truly would be running it. B)
2003-04-05 03:00 | User Profile
**Don't be stupid, be a smarty Come and join the Nazi party. **
Hitler was the West's last, best defense...sure, I'd join.
2003-04-05 12:25 | User Profile
Remember, the Axis included the Japs.
No thanks.
2003-04-05 17:30 | User Profile
As an American, I would have advocated that the U.S. stay out of the war (and have never provoked the Japs into attacking on Dec. 7 the way FDR did).
But, since the U.S. entered the war against the Axis, I would have seen the U.S. as being on the wrong side. I would have therefore wished the Axis well. I don't know what opportunities I would have had to actually help the Axis in an active sense. FDR was tossing people in jail just for writing or saying the wrong things about the Axis (as happened to Lawrence Dennis), so who knows how far I would have gotten. I don't know if I could have made a difference as one man, but I would have tried.
On the other hand, if we're talking time-travel, then my range of options increases. :lol: Then I could simply have provided the Axis with information about battle plans, atomic-bomb schematics, and other technological and strategic goodies. Maybe things would have changed then. Or, with knowledge of the future, maybe as one man I could have done more that would have made a difference, like sabotage in the right place at the right time, or assassination of the right people, etc.
2003-04-05 17:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ed Toner@Apr 5 2003, 06:25 ** Remember, the Axis included the Japs.
No thanks. **
At least the Japs don't consciously seek to destroy their own people. And when encircled and poked with a stick by Rooseveltian Jews, in their own sphere of influence, they do what self respecting people do, fight back. Mercenary Amerikans otoh, have so little understanding of the principle of minding their own business that they have actually become Jewish.
The Japs had honour, and Amerikans can't allow that.
2003-04-05 17:58 | User Profile
Yeah, but they're still Japs.
2003-04-05 18:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ed Toner@Apr 5 2003, 11:58 ** Yeah, but they're still Japs. **
Yes, homogenous Japs. Not suicidal wanna-be Hebes.
"Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply contempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves... They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them." ~ Adolf Hitler
2003-04-05 19:26 | User Profile
One of the main reasons that Roosevelt goaded the Japs into attacking the U.S. was to keep the Japs from attacking Stalin in the east. This would have helped the Germans, preventing the use of the Siberian divisions that were so crucial to stopping the Germans at Moscow, and later at Stalingrad.
As to would I join the Axis? If I knew then what I know now, I would probably stay at home in the USA and work against the Jewish Bolshevik fifth column at home that had hijacked the mighty US war machine to fight their enemies against the best interests of this once free nation.
P.S. You don't suppose that history is repeating itself in Iraq these days?
2003-04-06 15:54 | User Profile
I can see why the Japs attacked us. FDR gave them no choice.
I've been all over the Pacific, and the Japs are the ugliest people.
The Formosan women were Gorgeous, but that was before Chiang invaded.
2003-04-06 18:48 | User Profile
As much as I respect the Japanese, I've never understood the attraction of Americans to Asian women. And I couldn't distinguish between the different national types, I don't think, in appearance anyway. In inherited culture, there's no comparison though. The Japs are to the rest of Asia what Germans are to the west. Except that they don't delude themselves into disintegration.
2003-04-06 20:15 | User Profile
If you think that, you have never been to Japan, or met authentic Japanese women. Pudgy white boys are considered Adoni to the women there.
As always, men are left to protect the integrity of the gene pool. Women simply can't be trusted in this respect.
2003-04-06 20:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Apr 6 2003, 14:15 ** If you think that, you have never been to Japan, or met authentic Japanese women. Pudgy white boys are considered Adoni to the women there.
**
Sorry, their attraction to me or the services they may provide don't make them any more appealing - to me. At least not as long as Swedish girls exist. :)
2003-04-06 20:29 | User Profile
I congratulate you. Most men tend to be rather weak when Women are overly friendly.
I make no comment on my own willpower in this regard.
2003-04-07 02:41 | User Profile
Axis inspired incident in Baghdad, June 1941?
Civil order breaks down in Baghdad. It became known as the Farhud: extensive pogrom against Jews (120-600 killed, 2100 injured) and looting of their property by soldiers. The Farhud took place on Sunday and Monday, June 1st and 2nd 1941, the two days of Shabuoth that year..
The British ambassador, Sir Kinahan Cornwallis, refused to allow British troops to enter the city until the pogrom was over. The British, who were on the outskirts of the city and were in a position to stop the massacre, stood by and did nothing. Official papers which might shed some light on the matter have been sealed by the British until 2017.
In 2003, Shabuoth--one of the principal Jewish feasts--begins on Friday, June 6th.
[url=http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm]http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimeline.htm[/url] [url=http://www.midrash.org/articles/farhud/]http://www.midrash.org/articles/farhud/[/url]
2003-04-17 19:30 | User Profile
You're forgetting one detail. If it were 1941 all over again, none of us would know what we know now. (Plenty of us had no idea in 1991!)
No Internet. Heck, no postwar literature or scholarship debunking the myths we'd be fed as gospel in '41. Dish Night at the Bijou would be more like it. We'd be three years removed from a radio show about Martians causing mass public hysteria.
Let's face it. We'd all of us be fighting the Axis. Neo-Nietzsche included!
2003-04-18 01:01 | User Profile
Remember: the Allies included the Bolsheviks, Limeys (greatest nation of race traitors in history), Roosevelt, and the jews. No thanks! :thd:
2003-04-18 02:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 13:30 You're forgetting one detail. If it were 1941 all over again, none of us would know what we know now. (Plenty of us had no idea in 199**1!)
No Internet. Heck, no postwar literature or scholarship debunking the myths we'd be fed as gospel in '41. Dish Night at the Bijou would be more like it. We'd be three years removed from a radio show about Martians causing mass public hysteria.
Let's face it. We'd all of us be fighting the Axis. Neo-Nietzsche included!**
Not so fast there, Mr. Spider. If we're sticking to reality not many of us here could've had any idea there was a war on. One supposition allows another, I'd say. At least as a preference.
But seriously, you never heard about that little boy from the deep South who escaped to the Fatherland and held that microphone for his Uncle Haw Haw? Not exactly active combat but under penalty of execution nonetheless.
<--- :D
2003-04-18 09:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ed Toner@Apr 6 2003, 15:54 ** I can see why the Japs attacked us. FDR gave them no choice.
I've been all over the Pacific, and the Japs are the ugliest people.
The Formosan women were Gorgeous, but that was before Chiang invaded. **
My father (requistat in pacem) was in Army Air Corps in the Pacific Theater. He said one of the running jokes in the Phillipines was "you know, Mack, for once I'd like to see a white girl on a brown sheet."
Walter
2003-04-18 22:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ed Toner@Apr 5 2003, 11:58 ** Yeah, but they're still Japs. **
There is nothing wrong with "Japs". They are a noble, high culture. Much can be learned from them, and their commitment to cultural purity.
About the Axis: I personally would have supported the Axis in any way that I could. However, Hitler's crude nationalism is something that I would have a hard time reconciling. The "ideology" of the Waffen SS was something that could have endured...unfortunately, it came too late in the game. Pan-Aryanism is what would have saved the West...not rabid German nationalism.
2003-04-19 01:31 | User Profile
**(Ed Toner @ Apr 5 2003, 11:58) Yeah, but they're still Japs.
(Walter E. Kurtz @ Apr 18 2003, 16:54)
There is nothing wrong with "Japs". They are a noble, high culture. Much can be learned from them, and their commitment to cultural purity.**
[img]http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Images/Beheaded.jpg[/img] (From the Fall of Japan by Craig) NOTE: Actually, the photo shows a captured Australian flier being executed in New Guinea.
...For months, the Imperial Japanese Army at Osaka had been killing downed American airmen, poisoning them, shooting them, chopping their heads off. After the emperor spoke (ending World War II), the last five were taken to a military cemetery. Three were shot, two beheaded. **The same day, hours into the peace, Japanese officers at Fukuoka on Kyushu took their samurai swords and chopped sixteen airmen to death, with the squad commander's girlfriend along to watch. ** Gavan - Prisoners of the Japanese [url=http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page06.htm#Beheading]http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page06.htm#Beheading[/url]
Vivisections
The Western Japan military command gave some medical professors at Kyushu Imperial University eight B-29 crewmen. The professors cut them up alive, in a dirty room with a tin table where students dissected corpses. They drained blood and replaced it with sea water. They cut out lungs, livers, and stomachs. They stopped blood flow in an artery near the heart, to see how long death took. They dug holes in a skull and stuck a knife into the living brain to see what would happen.
[url=http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page05.htm#Vivisections]http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page05.h...tm#Vivisections[/url]
2003-04-19 03:00 | User Profile
You'd think the world would hate Japan instead of the United States, wouldn't you? Personally, I don't believe the Jewish sounding they-drained-their-blood-and-ate-their-livers stories, even though atrocities have been committed by just about all during wartime (except by the CSA :th: ). Beheading soldiers? Sure. It doesn't compare with the mass slaughter of civilians though, and the United States holds the record for it (I think). I believe they refer to their doctrine as "total war".
Just a couple:
[img]http://www.unverse.com/images/Nagasaki.jpg[/img] Nagasaki
[img]http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/vietnamgenocide/mylai/MyLaiVictims.gif[/img] My Lai
2003-04-19 03:56 | User Profile
[img]http://www.missouri.edu/~jschool/nanking/Confession/asset_confession/murase_main.jpg[/img] Bodies left unburied along the Yangtze River. Photo taken by a Japanese soldier, Murase Moriyasu, of the 17th Motorized Company of the Meguro Supply and Transport Regiment.
The commander of the 16th Division, Lieutenant General Nakajima Kesago, for instance, wrote in his diary on Dec. 13:
To begin with, it is our policy not to take prisoners, so we decided to get them out of the way. But when it became a group of one thousand, five thousand, and finally ten thousand, we couldn't even disarm them all. We were safe simply because they had absolutely no will to fight back and followed us slovenly.... I have never imagined that we would have to deal with this large-scale disposition. The staff officers were extremely busy.
I later learned the Sasaki Detachment alone disposed of about fifteen thousand; the one company commander assigned to guard Taiping Gate disposed of about thirteen hundred; seven or eight thousand gathered near Xianhao Gate and many others are still coming to surrender one after another. In order to dispose of these seven or eight thousand people, we needed quite a large trench but were unable to find one. My plan is to divide them into groups of one or two hundred, lure them to proper places and dispose of them there.
[url=http://www.missouri.edu/~jschool/nanking/Confession/confession_01.htm]http://www.missouri.edu/~jschool/nanking/C...nfession_01.htm[/url]
*Their excuse for the mass atrocities they committed against their fellow Asians? ââ¬ÅWe donââ¬â¢t take prisoners. Had they had WOMD they would have used them to kill the Chinese even more massively and efficiently.
Unfortunately, their vivisection of live prisoners is not a fairy tale. Don't confuse it with the possibly fraudulent cannibal stories. They used Chinese, Russians, Americans, British--just about anyone that fell into their bloody, sadistic hands.
And if they had been clever enough to build an atomic bomb they would have dropped it on us without hesitation. Hundreds of thousands of American and British servicemen survived the war thanks to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thatââ¬â¢s justification enough for me.*
2003-04-19 04:45 | User Profile
**Their excuse for the mass atrocities they committed against their fellow Asians? ââ¬ÅWe donââ¬â¢t take prisoners. **
And their fellow Asians have killed how many since adopting communism? The reason I don't care about that is because it's not our business. If the US government had minded its business instead of provoking Japan, I'd be more concerned about how Americans were treated in Asia. That doesn't mean I'm glad they were killed, O.K.?
Had they had WOMD they would have used them to kill the Chinese even more massively and efficiently.
But they didn't.
Unfortunately, their vivisection of live prisoners is not a fairy tale. Don't confuse it with the possibly fraudulent cannibal stories. They used Chinese, Russians, Americans, British--just about anyone that fell into their bloody, sadistic hands.
As I said, I don't believe it. But I can't disprove it. American susceptibility to war prop aside, I don't think the Japanese tend toward savagery. I know that plenty of Americans do. They'll kill anybody they're told to instead of holding their own leaders accountable for the enemies they've piled up.
** Hundreds of thousands of American and British servicemen survived the war thanks to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thatââ¬â¢s justification enough for me.**
By August, 1945 Germany had already been defeated and Japan was beaten back to the home islands, militarily exhausted. Invasion wasn't even required for an end to that war. IOW, you can thank American politicians for starting it, ending it as savagely as possible, and for the intermediate deaths of all of those American and British servicemen, including those who died at Pearl Harbor.
2003-04-19 05:25 | User Profile
Ghastly, isn't it?
No, not the photos above (although they're certainly horrific). Rather, the idea that there might be any race or nationality whose atrocities can be forgiven because of extenuating circumstances. Sorry, but there's no 'context' that forgives skinning men alive. And there's even less for the 'clean-hands' atrocity of incinerating hundreds of thousands of people from wayyyy way up in the sky where you can't hear any screams and no blood splashes back on you. Of all the unmitigated horrors we hairless apes are capable of, steeling oneself to ignore (and even laugh off) the sound of people begging for their lives in another language just before you execute them anyway .....may be the very bottom.
It almost explains how people can continue to cling to the irrationality of religion. Surely there has to be something more...something better...than mushroom clouds and the headless torsos of GIs lying in gullies.
Of course, cruelty and barbarism are nothing new. But, Lord, how the glorious 20th century turbocharged man's inhumanity to man!
Anybody here see that Clint Eastwood flick UNFORGIVEN? The kid who fancied himself a 'born killer' has bagged his first body, shooting an unarmed man in a privy. Safely away from the scene but tormented by what he'd done, the kid tries to buoy himself up with liquor and tough talk: "Boy, we killed him, huh? He went right down!, etc".
Eastwood is scanning the horizon for riders approaching. He's more composed on the surface, but equally troubled: he was a born killer - bonafide - who'd gotten a chance at redemption and taken it, but has now returned to his old ways and certain damnatiion. He says - half to the kid, half to himself - "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
The kid,who's trying not to think of this, reaches out for that tried-and-true justification every killer clings to: "Yeah, well, I guess he had it comin'."
There is a pause, the film image becomingalmost a still-life, before Eastwood replies, "We've all got it comin', kid."
Amen.
2003-04-19 06:40 | User Profile
I've been looking at that photo of the beheading and I question its authenticity on several counts. The angle the photo is taken from seems an unlikely one even for a proud savage. The focus is on the blindfolded prisoner rather than on the proud executing comrade of the photographer, as if to empathize with the prisoner. The range, unless GI Jap had a zoom lens with him, is too close. The prisoner is barely leaning forward while the Jap looks like he's poised to come straight down. The sunlight that the prisoner has his back to is lighting up faces in the crowd that are turned away from it. And lastly, the photo is invaluable, but not for the Japs.
2003-04-19 06:52 | User Profile
**I've been looking at that photo of the beheading and I question its authenticity **
Fortunately, it's not the only photo of japs beheading prisoners of war extant. But I'll be damned if I'll stay
up all night searching.
2003-04-19 07:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by seq@Apr 18 2003, 19:31 ** > **(Ed Toner @ Apr 5 2003, 11:58) Yeah, but they're still Japs.
(Walter E. Kurtz @ Apr 18 2003, 16:54)
There is nothing wrong with "Japs". They are a noble, high culture. Much can be learned from them, and their commitment to cultural purity.**
[img]http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Images/Beheaded.jpg[/img] (From the Fall of Japan by Craig) NOTE: Actually, the photo shows a captured Australian flier being executed in New Guinea.
...For months, the Imperial Japanese Army at Osaka had been killing downed American airmen, poisoning them, shooting them, chopping their heads off. After the emperor spoke (ending World War II), the last five were taken to a military cemetery. Three were shot, two beheaded. **The same day, hours into the peace, Japanese officers at Fukuoka on Kyushu took their samurai swords and chopped sixteen airmen to death, with the squad commander's girlfriend along to watch. ** Gavan - Prisoners of the Japanese [url=http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page06.htm#Beheading]http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page06.htm#Beheading[/url]
Vivisections
The Western Japan military command gave some medical professors at Kyushu Imperial University eight B-29 crewmen. The professors cut them up alive, in a dirty room with a tin table where students dissected corpses. They drained blood and replaced it with sea water. They cut out lungs, livers, and stomachs. They stopped blood flow in an artery near the heart, to see how long death took. They dug holes in a skull and stuck a knife into the living brain to see what would happen.
[url=http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page05.htm#Vivisections]http://www2.gol.com/users/winjerd/Page05.h...tm#Vivisections[/url] **
How are these indignities more offensive than the American bombing of Dresden?
2003-04-19 07:15 | User Profile
**Their excuse for the mass atrocities they committed against their fellow Asians? ââ¬ÅWe donââ¬â¢t take prisoners.ââ¬Å
And their fellow Asians have killed how many since adopting communism? The reason I don't care about that is because it's not our business. If the US government had minded its business instead of provoking Japan, I'd be more concerned about how Americans were treated in Asia. That doesn't mean I'm glad they were killed, O.K.?**
Killing is something you donââ¬â¢t care about when itââ¬â¢s not your business. The morality of that position escapes me but please donââ¬â¢t extrapolate. And, no, itââ¬â¢s not O.K. to be so cavalier about the loss of American lives because some fat cats in Washington sent them into harmââ¬â¢s way, while simultaneously bemoaning the loss of enemy lives.
**Had they had WOMD they would have used them to kill the Chinese even more massively and efficiently.
But they didn't.**
The point is the only reason they didnââ¬â¢t, was because they couldnââ¬â¢t. Lack of means does not place the barbarous bastards on higher moral ground.
**Unfortunately, their vivisection of live prisoners is not a fairy tale. Don't confuse it with the possibly fraudulent cannibal stories. They used Chinese, Russians, Americans, British--just about anyone that fell into their bloody, sadistic hands.
As I said, I don't believe it. But I can't disprove it. American susceptibility to war prop aside, I don't think the Japanese tend toward savagery. I know that plenty of Americans do. They'll kill anybody they're told to instead of holding their own leaders accountable for the enemies they've piled up. **
Word of the experiments eventually leaked out.
Thirty people were brought to trial by an Allied war crimes tribunal in Yokohama, Japan, on March 11, 1948. Charges included vivisection, wrongful removal of body parts and cannibalism - based on reports that the experimenters had eaten the livers of the Americans.
Of the 30 defendants, 23 were found guilty of various charges. (For lack of proof, the charges of cannibalism had been dismissed.) Five of the guilty were sentenced to death, four to life imprisonment.* The other 14 were sentenced to shorter terms.
MacArther let the murderers go free
In September 1950, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as supreme commander for Allied Forces, reduced most of the sentences. By 1958, all those convicted were free. None of the death sentences was carried out.
*THEY WERE CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE.
**Hundreds of thousands of American and British servicemen survived the war thanks to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thatââ¬â¢s justification enough for me.
By August, 1945 Germany had already been defeated and Japan was beaten back to the home islands, militarily exhausted. Invasion wasn't even required for an end to that war. IOW, you can thank American politicians for starting it, ending it as savagely as possible, and for the intermediate deaths of all of those American and British servicemen, including those who died at Pearl Harbor.**
Thatââ¬â¢s absolutely not true. It would have been a long, gruesome campaign. They would have had to take each and every one of the home islands, all of which were defended by the sort of fanatics who were found still armed and prepared to kill or be killed on Pacific islands more than fifteen years after the end of WWII.
2003-04-19 07:45 | User Profile
**How are these indignities more offensive than the American bombing of Dresden? **
Your question is rhetorical, I presume. Of course all atrocities are offensive. But what is truly offensive is referring dismissively to public beheadings and live vivisections of prisoners of war as mere "indignities."
FYI, it was the British bombing of Dresden.
2003-04-19 07:54 | User Profile
**Unfortunately, their vivisection of live prisoners is not a fairy tale. **
Indeed it wasn't. There were many such revelations uncovered in the 80s and 90s. Do a little research on Manchurian Camp 731, to name only one. But don't eat lunch first.
Still, it bothers me that there are people who believe that a man who pushes a button and mass-murders thousands of people -in most cases entirely civilian populations - is somehow on a higher moral plane. Not being able to see the results of your button-pushing (beyond a thrilling sudden-fireworks show a mile below you) cuts you no ice with me. Dropping bombs on masses of human beings is every bit as heinous as vivisecting a pow alive, slowly and horribly. They are both depraved acts of murder.
2003-04-19 13:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by seq@Apr 19 2003, 01:45 ** > **How are these indignities more offensive than the American bombing of Dresden? **
FYI, it was the British bombing of Dresden. **
Bombing of Dresden in World War II From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Bombing of Dresden in World War II by the Allies remains controversial after more than 50 years. Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, was fire-bombed by Allied air forces (the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) over three days (February 13-15, 1945) near the end of World War II. Air Marshall Arthur Harris, inventor of area bombing, ordered the action. He was never held accountable for breaches of Geneva convention or war crimes.
85% of Dresden was destroyed
Dresden was widely considered a city of little war-related industrial or strategic importance. Dresden itself was most noted as a cultural centre, with noted architecture in the Zwinger Palace, the Dresden State Opera House and its historic churches. It has been claimed that the bombing was at the request of Russia, to attack a German armoured division in transit through the city. However, RAF briefing notes indicate that one of the motives was to show "the Russians when they arrive, what Bomber Command can do" (that is, to intimidate the Russians).
At the time, town was full of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army. Bomber Command was ordered to attack Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig and other east German cities to "cause confusion in the evacuation from the east" and "hamper the movements of troops from the west". This directive led to the raid on Dresden and marked the erosion of one last moral restriction in the bombing war: the term "evacuation from the east" did not refer to retreating troops but to the civilian refugees fleeing from the advancing Russians. Although these refugees clearly did not contribute to the German war effort, they were considered legitimate targets simply because the chaos caused by attacks on them might obstruct German troop reinforcements to the Eastern Front. There are reports that even civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by British and American aircraft.
The fire-bombing consisted of dropping large amounts of high-explosive to expose the timbers within buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire-sticks) to ignite them and then more high-explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. This eventually created a self-sustaining 'fire storm' with temperatures peaking at over 1500 degrees C. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.
3,900 tonnes of bombs were dropped. Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, and 62 administration buildings.
The precise number of dead is difficult to ascertain and is not known. Numbers vary from 35,000 to 135,000 dead. There have been larger estimates for the number of dead, ranging as high as a quarter of a million, but they are from disputed sources, primarily the Nazi Propaganda Ministry and holocaust denier David Irving. The Nazis made use of Dresden in their propaganda and promised swift retaliation.
The Dresden bombing is a strongly debated decision, and the action is still widely perceived as lacking military justification, even within the context of the controversial area bombing policy pursued against Germany by Britain's Bomber Command in 1942-1945. The city has never regained its pre-war population of 630,000.
There are anecdotes of the pilots and crew having problems years later. Some had nightmares, some thought they would go to hell as war criminals, some had unshakable visions of the fires and the burning cities.
Author Kurt Vonnegut had been captured during the Battle of the Bulge and was a prisoner of war near Dresden during the bombing. He later wrote about his experiences and feelings in his novel Slaughterhouse Five.
2003-04-19 14:38 | User Profile
The "Moronic" universalist moralization of the issue has no resolution, boys and girls.
The Japanese were not engaged in intra-cultural warfare where the noble rules of warfare apply. They slaughtered their way through captive alien enemies, as many a noble people have done. Think of the Romans in Carthage and Richard in the Holy Land.
If the Back Door to War had not been opened by the Joodo-Communist FDR regime, no American outside the Greater E-A Prosperity Sphere need have suffered so much as a hangnail. Japan would have continued its interdiction of the global class war, then and now pursued in China against the perpetually deluded West.
2003-04-21 05:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 19 2003, 05:25 ** Sorry, but there's no 'context' that forgives skinning men alive. And there's even less for the 'clean-hands' atrocity of incinerating hundreds of thousands of people from wayyyy way up in the sky where you can't hear any screams and no blood splashes back on you. Of all the unmitigated horrors we hairless apes are capable of, steeling oneself to ignore (and even laugh off) the sound of people begging for their lives in another language just before you execute them anyway .....may be the very bottom.
**
Il Ragno:
Allow me to gently point out that your position is internally inconsistent.
You first decry the fact that humans are capable of astonishing cruelty per above, and then in the next breath you scoff at religion as "irrational" for asserting that there might be something better:
It almost explains how people can continue to cling to the irrationality of religion. Surely there has to be something more...something better...than mushroom clouds and the headless torsos of GIs lying in gullies.
Your mistake lies in failing to appreciate just how thoroughly evangelized the Western conscience is, including especially your own. I assure you that the Romans (who cheered as wild animals tore their innocent fellow citizens to pieces) or the Carthaginians (who sang hymns to Baal as they fried their own children alive on red-hot metal in the hopes for luck at business) would share your concern for defeated enemies pleading for their lives. You're taking Christian ethics as a given, and then turning around and attacking Christianity with them - the very thing that gave you these odd notions about justice and kindness in the first place. You thus unwittingly kick out from under yourself the very moral legs you purport to stand upon.
This is a mistake common among liberals (not that you're a liberal!). They assume the overweening ethical demeanor of a busybody Church Lady, and then attack Christianity itself - the very thing that formed their moral consciences in the first place.
It's disconcerting enough when I get this sort of thing from liberals. Conservatives should know better. We are "conserving" something, after all; i.e. the West, it's people and values.
The Faith is Christendom, Christendom is the Faith.
One can't simultaneously reject the Gospel as irrational and then assume the attitude of an outraged altar boy, for rejecting the Gospel is to reject the very standard by which you would presume to judge the world.
Regards,
Walter
2003-04-21 06:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 20 2003, 23:57 **Allow me to gently point out that your position is internally inconsistent.
One can't simultaneously reject the Gospel as irrational and then assume the attitude of an outraged altar boy, for rejecting the Gospel is to reject the very standard by which you would presume to judge the world.**
:taz:
[Taz's impression of an outraged altar boy afflicted by internal inconsistency.]
2003-04-21 09:53 | User Profile
Allow me to gently point out that your position is internally inconsistent
....and religion isn't? Walter....would your religion let you eat a nice juicy steak on a Friday in 1950? Uh huh. But now it's ok.
Not that this means a flying fig, but my official take on Christianity is that it's the best of a bad lot. Wildly overrated by its adherents, of course, but you'd expect that; still, it has many positive features.
The training wheels of Western Civilization and best utilized as such; a rich mythology which, when taught to children, instills many humane good-citizenship qualities. Ideally, Christianity should be the sort of thing whose literal truth is immaterial, and secondary to the importance of the values it inculcates in people.
But it's also a dangerous thing. Indulged in past a certain age (and beyond a certain level of fervor), it promotes sheepism, to say nothing of self-righteous petty provincialism. And history graphically illustrates that - given enough sheep - the Church will exercise as much oppressive power over the populace as any of those Modern States that Joe Sobran is so perturbed by.
Training wheels are a wonderful thing. They help smooth the path between the total vulnerability and helplessness of infancy, and the growing self-reliance and resilience of a child headed towards maturity. But there is something grotesque, and even corrupt, in the sight of grown men and women, their huge frames obscuring tiny bicycle seats, riding up and down the sidewalk on training wheels!
2003-04-21 13:12 | User Profile
....and religion isn't? Walter....would your religion let you eat a nice juicy steak on a Friday in 1950? Uh huh. But now it's ok.
Catholic theology is internally consistent. It is a marvelously consistent construct - perhaps the greatest such construct ever devised by man. Whether it's right or not is a different story. As to the question of steaks on Friday, there is no contradiction here. This was a matter of discipline, never a matter of doctrine - and the Church is thus free to change it to fit the times (as an aside, I think changing it was a mistake). I'll tell you about it if you'd like, but I take your "steak" comment as comic flippancy and not meant as a serious argument.
The training wheels of Western Civilization and best utilized as such
Are you seriously saying that Jerome, Augustine, Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquainas, Blaise Pascal, Soren Kirkegaard, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky (to name but a few) are "training wheels?!" These thinkers are the very stuff of our Western Civilization, not some passing stage. These are among the greatest thinkers and artists that humanity has ever produced. Their Christian Faith was not some ancillary appendage to their work, it was rather the very matrix that formed it.
I ask you to consider, if you will (and I offer this in all humility) the arrogance of your statement. Your blithe dismissal of Christianity as some sort of juvenile stage in our cultural development allows you to feel somehow superior to all of those great thinkers without having to do a lot of intellectual heavy lifting, doesn't it? "The faith of Aquinas? Pah! Oh, that was just a youthful dalliance, a passing fad when our culture was young and foolish. We look back on it with a winsome smile and blush a little, sure, but we've moved on to better things! I, Il Ragno, and others among the enlightened stand head and shoulders above such obscurities." That, and again I say this with all respect, envinces a thoroughly adolescent mindset. I suggest that you recognize that fact and dump the idea of scoffing at the Faith of our greatest minds at your earliest opportunity.
Please answer these questions, Il Ragno:
If Aquinas and Dostoevsky are for the kiddies, then whom do you recommend for the grown-ups?
Are you serious about the "training wheels" comment, or are you again being flippant?
**But it's also a dangerous thing. Indulged in past a certain age (and beyond a certain level of fervor), it promotes sheepism, to say nothing of self-righteous petty provincialism. **
I'll agree that the Gospel is a dangerous thing, but not for the reasons you assert.
Sheepism?! Kindly tell that to the soldiers of Charles Martel, El Cid, and Jan Sobieski (not to mention Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson). A man who purports to defend the same things as these great military leaders of our past should show a bit more respect for the Faith that inspired them to greatness. Or was El Cid just in training wheels? Was your bicycle bigger than his?
Do you not see that Christianity is precisely the thing that kept Europe from being overrun both by the Afro-Semitic Muslims and the Asian Tatars? Il Ragno, it is precisely the fall of Christianity from the regnant heights it held for 1500 years that lies at the root of our inability to resist racial bastardization.
Do you not undersand that there is a dialectical relationship between genes and culture: genes establish the limits and general contours of culture, while culture in turn establishes a social wall for the gene pool? The demise of Christianity entailed the fall of Christendom, just as the fall of Christendom ensures the ultimate loss of the gene pool that sheltered behind its once-mighty ramparts. You cheered the fall of those ramparts, yet you're surprised and dismayed that the invaders have poured in.
The Faith is Christendom, Christendom is the Faith.
**And history graphically illustrates that - given enough sheep - the Church will exercise as much oppressive power over the populace as any of those Modern States that Joe Sobran is so perturbed by. **
Again, you're falling into the same mistake I dissected above. You reject the Gospels because many have failed to live up to the Gospel's standards, all the while you implicitly presume the Gospel standard in passing your judgement. With all respect to you, this is the purest sophistry. Please acknowledge that you grasp this point.
**Training wheels are a wonderful thing. They help smooth the path between the total vulnerability and helplessness of infancy, and the growing self-reliance and resilience of a child headed towards maturity. But there is something grotesque, and even corrupt, in the sight of grown men and women, their huge frames obscuring tiny bicycle seats, riding up and down the sidewalk on training wheels! **
I repeat my question, if the Gospels are the short pants of our collective childhood and youth, what do you propose that Western Civilization don as its manly gown? And as you formulate your answer, kindly keep in mind that you are estopped from assuming a common set Christian values.
I'm sure that won't be easy, but if anybody's up to the task (they aren't) it's you.
I look forward to hearing your reasoned response.
Walter
2003-04-21 17:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 21 2003, 07:12 it is precisely the fall **of Christianity from the regnant heights it held for 1500 years that lies at the root of our inability to resist racial bastardization. **
Ahem....(clearing throat)....Hear, hear!
This is the proverbial nail on the head. Excellent post, Walter. Standing on the shoulders of giants, indeed.
2003-04-21 18:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 17 2003, 13:30 ** You're forgetting one detail. If it were 1941 all over again, none of us would know what we know now. (Plenty of us had no idea in 1991!)
No Internet. Heck, no postwar literature or scholarship debunking the myths we'd be fed as gospel in '41. Dish Night at the Bijou would be more like it. We'd be three years removed from a radio show about Martians causing mass public hysteria.
Let's face it. We'd all of us be fighting the Axis. Neo-Nietzsche included! **
Gore Vidal gave much the same explanation when asked why he joined. It was a younger country then. It was the thing patriotic young men did. No one asked any questions unless they wanted the Lindbergh treatment.
2003-04-21 18:24 | User Profile
Killing is something you donââ¬â¢t care about when itââ¬â¢s not your business. The morality of that position escapes me but please donââ¬â¢t extrapolate. And, no, itââ¬â¢s not O.K. to be so cavalier about the loss of American lives because some fat cats in Washington sent them into harmââ¬â¢s way, while simultaneously bemoaning the loss of enemy lives.
That's right. Asians killing Asians was no business of the United States. Even if it was, do you think Roosevelt's interference in Asian wars was humanitarian? Were Americans obliged to stick their big foot, and their sons, into it, and then to squeal in righteous indignation when the Japs fought back? The Japs may or may not have behaved like brutes. It's the kind of thing a people should consider before they open that door. Unfortunately, they don't even ask questions after the fact, as we've seen recently.
**Word of the experiments eventually leaked out.
Thirty people were brought to trial by an Allied war crimes tribunal in Yokohama, Japan, on March 11, 1948. Charges included vivisection, wrongful removal of body parts and cannibalism - based on reports that the experimenters had eaten the livers of the Americans.
Of the 30 defendants, 23 were found guilty of various charges. (For lack of proof, the charges of cannibalism had been dismissed.) Five of the guilty were sentenced to death, four to life imprisonment.* The other 14 were sentenced to shorter terms.
MacArther let the murderers go free
In September 1950, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as supreme commander for Allied Forces, reduced most of the sentences. By 1958, all those convicted were free. None of the death sentences was carried out.
THEY WERE CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE.*
Only Americans swallow the ridiculous idea that "war crimes" are only committed by the other, defeated, guy, or that they're anything other than vengeance perpetrated by people for whom victory isn't enough. When some American leaders are tried and hung I might start taking American charges and "evidence" seriously.
As a couple of famous generals have opined, "war is hell" and "the whole idea of war crimes is semitic".
Where is the Cannabalistic-Jap-Holocaust-of-Americans Museum btw?
Thatââ¬â¢s absolutely not true. It would have been a long, gruesome campaign. They would have had to take each and every one of the home islands, all of which were defended by the sort of fanatics who were found still armed and prepared to kill or be killed on Pacific islands more than fifteen years after the end of WWII.
Japan was militarily whipped, or else the US wouldn't have been able to get to the home islands. Thus Japan was no longer a realistic threat to the US. Why occupy it then, unless the goal was aggressive domination instead of the threat it supposedly presented? Was aggressive domination instead of defense worth all those American boys, not to mention those "fanatics" who had the gall to defend their own turf?
No, if you're going to lay blame for savagery in wartime you'd best start with men like Roosevelt who initiate it in your name.
2003-04-21 22:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 21 2003, 07:12 **I repeat my question, if the Gospels are the short pants of our collective childhood and youth, what do you propose that Western Civilization don as its manly gown?ÃÂ And as you formulate your answer, kindly keep in mind that you are estopped from assuming a common set Christian values.
I'm sure that won't be easy, but if anybody's up to the task (they aren't) it's you.
I look forward to hearing your reasoned response.
Walter**
Yes, IR, with what shall the bovine and the ovine be adorned?
A textile woven from Bushi-do?
A well-tailored Master Morality?
Or would cloth from the Code of Manu do?
[3) What is the definition of murder?]
2003-04-21 23:01 | User Profile
Ruffin has written:> **You'd think the world would hate Japan instead of the United States, wouldn't you? Personally, I don't believe the Jewish sounding they-drained-their-blood-and-ate-their-livers stories, even though atrocities have been committed by just about all during wartime (except by the CSA). Beheading soldiers? Sure. It doesn't compare with the mass slaughter of civilians though, and the United States holds the record for it (I think). I believe they refer to their doctrine as "total war".
Just a couple: Nagasaki My Lai"**
The Russians killed far more Japanese when they invaded Manchuria at the end of World War II than we did at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese merely claimed they held Japan responsible for the deaths of 35 million Chinese. This number dwarfs any number that could be cited by Ruffin.
I am curious why Ruffin brought up the massacre at My Lai when the North Vietnamese butchery at Hue during Tet in 1968 was 10 times as great.
Previously I have written many times on why the United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb, most definitely to save American lives. Likewise I have many times before compared the great massacre at Hue to My Lai. With Ruffin I must have wasted my time.
** > ** Unfortunately, their vivisection of live prisoners is not a fairy tale. Don't confuse it with the possibly fraudulent cannibal stories. They used Chinese, Russians, Americans, British--just about anyone that fell into their bloody, sadistic hands.**
Ruffin writes and believes Americans are bad guys:> As I said, I don't believe it. But I can't disprove it. American susceptibility to war prop aside, I don't think the Japanese tend toward savagery. I know that plenty of Americans do. They'll kill anybody they're told to instead of holding their own leaders accountable for the enemies they've piled up. **
From my book on the Russo-Japanese War:> **One of the more striking photographs of that war was one that appeared in the March 12, 1904 issue of Harper's Weekly. A condemned Oriental prisoner was shown kneeling above a freshly dug grave awaiting his beheading by the military executioner shown swinging his sword just prior to impact at the back of the neck. The caption on the photograph succinctly explained this procedure as the Japanese method of executing prisoners of war. No explanation was given for this punishment. These same brutal beheadings were repeated at the start of the Second World War on American prisoners in the Philippines and occasioned far different responses by the American public.
The civilized world was getting a lesson in Asiatic warfare, and it was far more savage than they were accustomed to. The beheading of Chinese deserters and the slaughter of non-combatants by Japanese were as natural to Asiatic warfare as marches. When Hideyoshi's warriors invaded Korea some three hundred years earlier, they created as proof of their military prowess a huge pile of human ears which they had sliced off the heads of both prisoners and the dead. Some 38,000 pairs of ears were suitably pickled and stored in the Mimizuka in Kyoto as proof of their ferocity and their valor. Only in recent times has this exhibit of Japanese gallantry been closed to the public. Generations of Japanese students had been inspired by verification of martial prowess of their ancestors.**
Hundreds of thousands of American and British servicemen survived the war thanks to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thatââ¬â¢s justification enough for me.
Ruffin replies:> **By August, 1945 Germany had already been defeated and Japan was beaten back to the home islands, militarily exhausted. Invasion wasn't even required for an end to that war. IOW, you can thank American politicians for starting it, ending it as savagely as possible, and for the intermediate deaths of all of those American and British servicemen, including those who died at Pearl Harbor. **
I write in my book:> **After Iwo Jima the next step for the American military was the invasion of Okinawa prior to landing on the home islands of Japan. American military force historically has relied on firepower superiority to gain battlefield objectives with little consideration to maneuver and other soldiering skills. In May and June of 1945 during the battle of Okinawa American forces had an advantage which may never have had an equal. Early in the fighting the entire island of Okinawa with a length of sixty miles and most land within two miles of the ocean was bombarded by six battleships, six cruisers, and eight destroyers. Afterwards American forces on the ground had the fire support of twenty-seven artillery battalions. Against these 342 pieces the Japanese had virtually no retaliatory power. Yet the Japanese had dug so deeply and so well, they were able to repel initial American attacks. When the inevitable occurred, the Japanese had lost about 100,000 men, and American forces had suffered almost 45,000 casualties. The Okinawans who survived have referred to this onslaught as the typhoon of steel. Among the dead the Marines lost over 3,000, and the Navy suffered its worst losses of the war with close to 5,000 dead and more than 5,000 wounded. Navy losses could almost all be attributed to the use of kamikaze aircraft by the Japanese. Almost forgotten in recounting the invasion was that 4 out of 5 British fast carriers supporting American troops invading Okinawa had taken hits by kamikazes. Unlike American carriers with wooden decks, the British had steel decks which a text described as "kamikaze proof". One sensed the British did not care to press their luck. The history of World War II used at West Point concluded that few veterans of Okinawa would have wanted to attack the Japanese on their home islands after experiencing kamikazes attacks and using huge flamethrowers on Japanese holed up in caves. More of the same "might have been too much".
Such has been the character of the American media of today that attempts to explain the battle conditions which would have resulted in an attempted invasion of Japan bring jeers, smirks, and snide remarks about American integrity. Boys and girls of the American media have patterned themselves on the local television news format of inane laughing and talk as if they were the proud custodians of American heritage. They are Sam Donaldsons in waiting.
Over fifty years later in 1991 in Tokyo Doctor Hakudo Nagatomi was recalling his first day in China in 1937. Doctor Nagatomi rode in a truck carrying Chinese prisoners along a path through the mass of many thousands of dead bodies with wild dogs gnawing on the flesh. After stopping the truck and unloading the prisoners, an officer proposed a test of courage and unsheathed his sword. After spitting on the sword the honorable servant of the Emperor with a mighty swing severed the head of a boy cowering beside them. The good doctor remembered the body slumping forward with blood spurting in two streams from the neck. So inspired the doctor took the proffered sword from his compatriot and proved his courage by executing twenty Chinese civilians. The doctor confessed to feeling proud for Japan and his being Japanese. In addition to beheading people Doctor Nagatomi starved people to death, burned them, and buried them alive, over 200 in all. In a Buddhist inspired effort to redeem and cleanse his soul Doctor Nagatomi made a video to document the atrocities in China. A quaint practice of Japanese soldiers in Nanking of bayoneting babies and while still alive tossing them into pots of boiling water received some mention. How the killing of infants showed courage was not explained.
In 1994 almost a half-century after the war ended, Shigeto Nagano, then Japanese Justice Minister, pronounced the massacre of Chinese at Nanking a fabrication. Mr. Nagano stated he had been in Nanking in 1941 and had seen no evidence of the massacre. After outraged protest by Asians Mr. Nagano recanted and admitted the slaughter as an "undeniable fact". Mr. Nagano in his previous career had retired in 1980 as Chief of Staff of the Japanese Army. This disregard for Asian sensitivities and historical facts has long been characteristic of the Japanese ruling class. They have long maintained the main thrust of Japanese expansion into Asia was to free Asia from Western imperialism. They have long forgotten their atrocities.
Interestingly, in this era cannibalism did resurge during the massive internal upheavals in China. During World War II captured American airmen were cut up and eaten by the Japanese. One Japanese Admiral had reserved the liver of a captured American airman.**
I would like to ask Ruffin about the last time he was in a fight, and if he ever felt such danger that he may not live. Many on this forum seem to have an idea that they and their ideas will triumph solely by their virtue.
2003-04-22 00:30 | User Profile
Edward, thanks for helping me out so magnificently here. In light of your definitive post this following effort of mine isnââ¬â¢t at all necessary, but I need to vent.
They werenââ¬â¢t defending ââ¬Åtheir turfââ¬Â in China, [in Nanking alone they slaughtered between two and three hundred thousand Chinese civilians], the Philippines, Burma, New Guinea, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They were ignoble imperialist aggressors out to enslave native populations and steal land, resources, whatever they could.
But despite their consistently ignoble behavior, the Allies generously offered them the opportunity to surrender. They replied, in essence, ââ¬Åfck off.ââ¬Â Only then were two of their cities atomized into docility in order to spare everyone [both them* and us] a protracted invasion of their home islands. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, they lost fewer lives than they took in Nanking alone.
Approximately one million allied and Japanese lives were saved by their surrender.*
*http://www.cavalcadeofwhimsy.com/swarming/my_writing/second_guessing_the_bomb.htm
[url=http://www.warships1.com/US_olympic.htm]http://www.warships1.com/US_olympic.htm[/url]
[url=http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/a-bomb.html]http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/a-bomb.html[/url]
2003-04-22 02:27 | User Profile
edward gibbon - > The Russians killed far more Japanese when they invaded Manchuria at the end of World War II than we did at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese merely claimed they held Japan responsible for the deaths of 35 million Chinese. This number dwarfs any number that could be cited by Ruffin.
This paragraph has nothing to do with the comparison of brutalities committed by the US and Japan, and we weren't trying to determine where or when the biggest massacres have occurred on planet Earth. I've attempted to explain why instances of Japanese brutality against American combatants and prisoners don't compare to American A-bombing of entire Japanese cities, and why it is unbecoming for a nation to provoke another into firing the first shot and then whine about "war crimes". I don't have that quote by Judge Jackson at Nuremburg handy. Do you by any chance?
**I am curious why Ruffin brought up the massacre at My Lai when the North Vietnamese butchery at Hue during Tet in 1968 was 10 times as great. **
It was easier to find a picture of My Lai because it is more well known, and I wished to offer a picture of American brutality that even a TV watcher might grasp, even though it's still probably not as dramatic as a beheading.
Previously I have written many times on why the United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb, most definitely to save American lives. Likewise I have many times before compared the great massacre at Hue to My Lai. With Ruffin I must have wasted my time.
I've understood your reasoning about it, but I think it is faulty. I realize that it's considered unAmerican to criticize US war policies, but I think it's acceptable to differ with you about things, however many times you've written about them.
Ruffin writes and believes Americans are bad guys
In many instances American leaders have been, yes. And according to the form of government most Americans are so proud of, they are responsible for the actions of their leaders. What adult would see only good or bad, period, much less attribute their simplicity to me?
From my book on the Russo-Japanese War:
I write in my book:
Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but you do admit that by May, 1945 Japan, while "well dug in" in parts of the Pacific, was no longer an imperial threat to the US, right? It's the safe recapture of American prisoners held by the Japs that you're insisting necessitated a bombing of Japanese cities in August?
I would like to ask Ruffin about the last time he was in a fight, and if he ever felt such danger that he may not live. Many on this forum seem to have an idea that they and their ideas will triumph solely by their virtue.
Again, this has nothing to do with the war. I don't wear my bravery on my sleeve and my opinion of who was most savage in WWII isn't influenced by femininely imagining I was there.
2003-04-22 12:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by seq@Apr 21 2003, 18:30 They werenââ¬â¢t defending ââ¬Åtheir turfââ¬Â in China, [in Nanking alone they slaughtered between two and three hundred thousand Chinese civilians], the Philippines, Burma, New Guinea, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They were ignoble imperialist aggressors out to enslave native populations and steal land, resources, whatever they could.
Our history lesson for the day, boys and girls [BTW, is "seq" a girl, as seems to be the case?]:
Those who are noble in the authentic sense are universally the heirs and perpetuators of "aggress[ion] out to enslave native populations and steal land, resources, whatever they could."
Please conform your terminology to the reality, boys and girls.
And, for the bone-ed of head, I penetratingly repeat: saving American/Greater Judean lives was simply a matter of not provoking and attacking the Japanese, period.
People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing. The Jew will forever be your mental master, leading you to the abattoir.
Grow up, please!
[5) When did the Jews start lying?]
2003-04-22 13:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 21 2003, 17:24 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 21 2003, 07:12 it is precisely the fall **of Christianity from the regnant heights it held for 1500 years that lies at the root of our inability to resist racial bastardization.ÃÂ **
Ahem....(clearing throat)....Hear, hear!
This is the proverbial nail on the head. Excellent post, Walter. Standing on the shoulders of giants, indeed. **
Thanks TD.
Now kindly coerce IR to respond to my last post!
Walter
2003-04-22 20:04 | User Profile
Now kindly coerce IR to respond to my last post!
Oy vey ist mir! Keep your shirt on, Walter, I'se comin'!
I dunno here; as far as religion goes, "best of a bad lot", "many positive features" and "training wheels of Civilization" is about as much praise as I dole out, ever. Yet here I am; awake and fully dressed at sunrise, freezing my ass off waiting for my second to hand me a dueling pistol!
I think - considering that which we are exposed to in childhood will leave indelible imprints that shape us over the rest of our lives, its hold only growing firmer with the years - "training wheels" are all any belief-system need aspire to be to assure its own propagation. What was that business again about "Give me your children and they are mine forever?"
See, that's the thing about superstition. Kids- so susceptible to fantasy and flights of imagination - being the most tabula of rasas, all you need do is arrange for them to wear the Short Pants - and the Manly Gown knits itself!
A while back on OD we had a similar thread where I got into this with Knowquest. I'm not crazy enough to go look for a year-old thread, but I remember saying something like 'although religion is the soil that Civilization grew in, the great works of Civilization come from the friction between the unattainable Sacred we cannot know in this life, and the everyday Profane we have no choice but to dwell in'. What finally was the spark that combusted into the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or Beethoven's symphonies? Was it the fear of, and faith in, God that demands we bow our heads - or the arrogance of the individual Man to look up and seek his inspiration from what he has seen and experienced and dreamed for himself? For any deliberate act of creation, to the logic of the religious mind, is audacious mimickry of God - the assertion (and primacy) of the Self.
One other point. You front-loaded your argument by listing people whose influence and importance no one could refute. But every religion with millions of adherents over so long a stretch of time can point to similar Trophy Believers. These are anomalies, not a representative sampling, in that one could similarly cull a listing of sex murderers or drug addicts fromthe faithful if you devoted enough time to isolating them,and it wouldn't be any more truthful - or representative - a list than yours. Did religion imprint the spark of greatness in a Dostoevsky or did it merely fan the spark that was already there - long before Fyodor was old enough to crack open the Good Book, let alone read it?
The "steak" comment was, I think, only surface-flippant. To use Catholicism as an example (NOT my original intention, as I denoted "The Church" to mean Christendom in general), there are something like 600 million Catholics in the world, and the great majority of them are not Aquinases and Tolstoys but everyday people who DIDN'T eat the Friday steak when they were instructed not to, and who DID when given the all-clear. (Accusing ME of inconsistency when you can safely mask your own as "differences in discipline, not doctrine" is a neat trick. How do us Godless Heathens get ahold of them semantic get-out-of-jail-free cards, by the way?)
I don't mean to rag on this endlessly because I feel impatient irritation at religion, not the sort of bone-deep, inverted-crucifix hatred that is fashionable among attention-seeking boho types. But being told what to eat and what not to eat, and when - and then doing as one is told, as I witnessed time and time again growing up - IS 'sheepism', even if everyone involved believes the ordering and the obeying embody some arcane higher purpose.
And one other thing. You're in deep doo-doo if your hole card in every religious argument is citing long-dead Europeans. I realize you're trying to counter the popular image of Religion Today as a not-too-bright Bush voter sending Benny Hinn money to heal his sciatica,but the troubling fact of the matter is that Religion Today IS a helluva lot more Benny Hinn than it is St Thomas Aquinas. (And don't blow a gasket over the Hinn reference...I could as easily have referenced Cardinal Law, but I'm tryin' to play nice here.) You cant just dismiss such scenarios, which reflect the era we are living in (like it or not) as immaterial, in favor of invoking the shades of great thinkers whose timeless erudition can flatter us into thinking that the faith is still valid; it's just the faith's current practitioners who have to go. If you do believe that, then there is something fatally flawed in the faith right now, regardless of how healthy it may have been in centuries past.
Over to you......
2003-04-22 20:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 22 2003, 14:04 You cant just dismiss such scenarios, which reflect the era we are living in (like it or not) as immaterial, in favor of invoking the shades of great thinkers whose timeless erudition can flatter us into thinking that the faith is still valid; it's just the faith's current practitioners who have to go. If you do believe that, then there is something fatally flawed in the faith right now**, regardless of how healthy it may have been in centuries past.
**
IR, always a pleasure.
Not to jump in the middle of you and Walt, but a note on the above.
It's not that the Faith's current practitioners have to go, rather that they need reformation and revival.
2003-04-22 20:31 | User Profile
Considering the two concurrent arguments goin' on in this thread, we might want to rename it "Samurai Sermonette". Actually, "Nazi Samurai Sermonette" if you include Page 1's discussion.
2003-04-22 20:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 22 2003, 14:31 ** Considering the two concurrent arguments goin' on in this thread, we might want to rename it "Samurai Sermonette". Actually, "Nazi Samurai Sermonette" if you include Page 1's discussion. **
Ha! Yes, these topics have a way of darting to and fro.
Maybe we need Frederick "The Topic Split Kaiser" Wilhelm to do a little grooming.
2003-04-22 22:46 | User Profile
[BTW, is "seq" a girl, as seems to be the case?]:
BTW, is "NeoNietzsche" a boy, as seems to be the case?
**People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing. **
Sez who? You, however, have got to get over yourself.
**Grow up, please! **
Heed your own advice, please!
2003-04-22 23:46 | User Profile
**NeoNietzsche wrote:
People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing.
**
Nietzsche gave us the correct definition of morality- The expression of the conditions for the life and growth of a people. The universalist slop was never morality, but its repudiation. Real morality is a good thing, a Darwinian thing.
:rock:
2003-04-22 23:53 | User Profile
Ruffin You wrote:> This paragraph has nothing to do with the comparison of brutalities committed by the US and Japan, and we weren't trying to determine where or when the biggest massacres have occurred on planet Earth. I've attempted to explain why instances of Japanese brutality against American combatants and prisoners don't compare to American A-bombing of entire Japanese cities, and why it is unbecoming for a nation to provoke another into firing the first shot and then whine about "war crimes". It does compare, but not in the way you perceive. They butchered men of my tribe. Their punishment (reward?) was to die. You further wrote:> ** QUOTE I am curious why Ruffin brought up the massacre at My Lai when the North Vietnamese butchery at Hue during Tet in 1968 was 10 times as great. [color=blue] It was easier to find a picture of My Lai because it is more well known, and I wished to offer a picture of American brutality that even a TV watcher might grasp, even though it's still probably not as dramatic as a beheading[/color].**
I ask that you please not get your sense of history from television. You will become an utter moron. You most certainly should be aware of what I write. You will not insult people with your lack of knowledge.
You wrote:> **Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but you do admit that by May, 1945 Japan, while "well dug in" in parts of the Pacific, was no longer an imperial threat to the US, right? [color=blue]It's the safe recapture of American prisoners held by the Japs that you're insisting necessitated a bombing of Japanese cities in August[/color]?
**
George Catlett Marshall and others had something to say:> **General George Marshall in an internal memorandum agonized over the fate of the Allied prisoners and wanted to warn the Japanese, not only as a nation, but as a race, that their fate would depend on their ability "to progress beyond their original barbaric instincts". When the Japanese did torture and execute captured Allied airmen, Representative Sikes of Florida spoke of the cold horror gripping American hearts. Mr. Sikes wanted to defeat the "criminal Jap nation" by bringing them to their knees. Then he wanted to throw them out of the family of nations. In May and June of 1945 after the surrender of the Germans eight captured B-29 crewmen were used in vivisection experiments in Japan by Professor Ishiyama, director of external medicine at Kyushu Imperial University. In one experiment Ishiyama extracted a prisoner's lungs and placed them in a surgical pan. Then he made an incision in the lung artery allowing blood to flow into the thorax killing the victim. In another Ishiyama removed ribs from a prisoner and stopped blood flow by holding a large artery by the heart so the resulting death could be timed. In a third incisions were made into the skull of a prisoner, and a knife was inserted to cause death. These ghastly operations were hardly unique and were repeated many, many times over on Chinese.
A comparison between the German and Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners showed some marked differences. Of 235,473 United States and United Kingdom soldiers captured by Germany and Italy only 9,348, some 4 percent, died in captivity. Among the 132,134 Anglo-American prisoners of war held by the Japanese some 35,756 did not survive. This death rate was 27 percent. For the 25,697 men of the American Army captured in May 1942 some 10,957, or over 40 percent, died. After the war had ended, and the Americans had started to occupy Japan, an American who had been a prisoner of the Japanese complained Americans were too soft in their occupation policy, and the Japanese deserved to be occupied by the Chinese and the Russians.**
You seem overly sensitive to concerns for other people. Please do yourself a favor - start taking boxing or karate lessons?
2003-04-23 00:00 | User Profile
NeoNietzsche> And, for the bone-ed of head, I penetratingly repeat: saving American/Greater Judean lives was simply a matter of not provoking and attacking the Japanese, period. People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing. The Jew will forever be your mental master, leading you to the abbatoir.
I must assume you are referring to me. You are aware that Nietzsche was philo-Semitic and had some crazed ideas. From my book:> Even more emphatic about the importance of Russia to Germany was philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche much preferred the feelings and intuitions of the Russian Nihilists to the English Utilitarians. The intergrowth of Slav and German races guided by the world's cleverest financiers, [color=red]the Jews[/color], was necessary for Germany to become master of the world. He wanted to jettison the right of people to representation. He demanded the representation of great interests. Germany required unconditional union with Russia with a mutual plan to exclude English schemes to gain mastery of Russia. Nietzsche, who thought Bismarck a Slav, was appalled by what he saw in the new world: "No American future!". Writing some 25 years before World War I started, Nietzsche had a vision which would have forestalled the catastrophic European Civil Wars of the twentieth century. His empire would not have met the demanding criteria of Woodrow Wilson, who engaged in pressing American national lunacies on older wiser nations in Europe after World War I. Though the resulting Teuton-Slav Empire would not have been democratic, the great slaughters of Europe would have been averted, and his empire surely would have been the strongest in the world. After World War II Stalin remarked to his daughter "Well, together with the Germans we would have been invincible". This sentiment must still exist in both countries.
Perhaps he had visions of the great criminals of Russia in mind. In the meantime I assume you are preparing for the day when mankind will recognize your virtue. I suggest that you start working out with Ruffin.
2003-04-23 02:41 | User Profile
Knowing what I know now, I'd sign up for the SS.
2003-04-23 02:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by seq@Apr 22 2003, 16:46 > [BTW, is "seq" a girl, as seems to be the case?]:**
BTW, is "NeoNietzsche" a boy, as seems to be the case?
**People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing. **
Sez who? You, however, have got to get over yourself.
**Grow up, please! **
Heed your own advice, please!**
Yup, you're definitely a girl - your sentiments so delightfully feminine in form and content.
2003-04-23 03:09 | User Profile
"Knowing what I know now, I'd sign up for the SS."
Yes, but dat would be "hate," not like da IDF in Israel.....
2003-04-23 03:15 | User Profile
"Yes, but dat would be "hate," not like da IDF in Israel..."
As I observed on another thread, we should give the Jews what they have given us: NO QUARTER.
The sooner we raise a WNDF (White National Defense Force), the better.
2003-04-23 03:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Apr 22 2003, 18:00 *NeoNietzsche*> And, for the bone-ed of head, I penetratingly repeat: saving American/Greater Judean lives was simply a matter of not provoking and attacking the Japanese, period.ÃÂ People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing. The Jew will forever be your mental master, leading you to the abattoir.**
I must assume you are referring to me. **
In fact, Edward, I was not taking names - merely noting the content of the discussion. I assume, then, that you recognized yourself purely on the merits. Do I correctly suspect that your rejoinder is to the effect that Nietzsche was nuts, so who is NN to cast aspersions? Otherwise, the following is curiously irrelevant:
You are aware that Nietzsche was philo-Semitic and had some crazed ideas.
As was indicated by a lengthy quote from BGE I posted some weeks ago making precisely that point.
Perhaps he had visions of the great criminals of Russia in mind. In the meantime I assume you are preparing for the day when mankind will recognize your virtue. I suggest that you start working out with Ruffin.
Your assumption betrays a lack of insight and is merely self-servingly dismissive otherwise. There is no preparation/mankind/recognition/virtue involved in my endeavors. I am conducting an investigation and exploration. Thank you for your suggestion regarding Ruffin.
2003-04-23 03:40 | User Profile
edward gibbon -
It does compare, but not in the way you perceive. They butchered men of my tribe. Their punishment (reward?) was to die.
It's cause and effect, sir, and the men of your tribe will continue to be butchered, along with their enemies, until they get over the unrealistic notion that the rest of the world should roll over and become their servants without a fight. Surely the American need to pretend that all attacks on them are unprovoked surprises embarrasses them into (in some case, endless) postwar substantiation, called "justice", rather than acknowledging any nobility on the part of their conquered foes.
George Washington wrote -
**"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim."
.............
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."**
edward gibbon -
I ask that you please not get your sense of history from television. You will become an utter moron. You most certainly should be aware of what I write. You will not insult people with your lack of knowledge.
My comment on television-style history was directed toward the average American reader, not at myself. <_< The rest of this remark is emotional bilge that could have been replaced with an answer to my two consecutive questions to you.
George Catlett Marshall and others had something to say:
An Americanly indisputable account, no doubt.
You seem overly sensitive to concerns for other people. Please do yourself a favor - start taking boxing or karate lessons?
Love it or leave it, right? Seriously edward gibbon, for a historian you're easily upset by disagreement, as are many Americans nowadays, and IMO this has a lot to do with their paranoia. It wasn't always so. 19th century General Sherman may have been a brute, but he wasn't ashamed of his brutality and felt no need to diminish it or pretend that his opponents were even bigger brutes.
Likewise WWII General Patton.
"The attitude of the American people as evinced by the press and the radio is such that I am inclined to think that I made a great mistake in serving them for nearly forty years."
2003-04-23 03:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Javelin@Apr 22 2003, 17:46 > NeoNietzsche wrote:
People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing.ÃÂ
**
Nietzsche gave us the correct definition of morality- The expression of the conditions for the life and growth of a people. The universalist slop was never morality, but its repudiation. Real morality is a good thing, a Darwinian thing.
:rock:**
:rock:
2003-04-23 03:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 23 2003, 03:41 > Originally posted by Javelin@Apr 22 2003, 17:46 > **NeoNietzsche wrote:
People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing.ÃÂ
**
Nietzsche gave us the correct definition of morality- The expression of the conditions for the life and growth of a people. **
:rock:**
Hate to burst you guys bubble, but do you really have anything from Nietzsche that supports this nationalist interpretation of him? I don't think you do, not at least w/o misusing it.
2003-04-23 05:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Javelin@Apr 22 2003, 23:46 ** > **NeoNietzsche wrote:
People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing.ÃÂ
**
Nietzsche gave us the correct definition of morality- The expression of the conditions for the life and growth of a people. The universalist slop was never morality, but its repudiation. Real morality is a good thing, a Darwinian thing.
:rock: **
Please give me a cite on that quote, I'd like to look it up (it's been a while).
Walter
2003-04-23 06:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 22 2003, 20:04 ** Over to you...... **
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Don't like religion? Find it infantile?
How about racial survival? Do you like that?
Because the simple fact is that you can't have one without the other.
IR, the hour is far to late to indulge in an agnostic, "above-it-all" irritation with religion in general. This sort of childish self-indlugence simply will not do. We're talking about the survival of our people, after all, and all of our petty wants will have to take a back seat to the needs of the group.
And the group needs a religion as a matter of survival.
A group's religion, after all, is a necessary pre-condition to its long-term survival. Culture is indeed "group identity moving through time" (what a great line, can't remember who said it), but we must understand first that religion forms the pre-rational matrix within which culture itself subsists. No white religion, no white culture. No white culture, no white group identity. No white group identity, whites dissolve in brown.
Thus, if we are to survive as a people we must have a group religion.
I repeat again and again, without a group religion we can have no distinct culture, and with no distinct culture then we have lost the very group identity that forms the wall of genetic separation.
You must fully dig this fact of human nature as a logical precondition to any further conversation on the subject.
Thus, the failure of the religion that sustained and protected the European peoples for 1500 years is precisely the thing that lead to the decay of our culture and that threatens our genetic absorbtion into other gene pools with intact group identities. This is the fundamental point that I tried to convey above but apparently failed to communicate to you.
Once one accepts vital necessity of group religion, then two ideas immediately follow:
Don't like being told what to do, huh? Don't like religion, is it? Tell that to the collectivist Persians who soon will be more numerous than the Germans, or the religiously fanatic Yemenis who soon will be more numerous than the Italians, or the Mohammedan Indonesians, who soon will exceed in population Russia itself. They all get told exactly what to do by socially imposed religious norms. One of the things they're told quite clearly is "your fist duty is to marry and have children for the group, your individual wants and desires take the backseat to that." Thus those groups thrive in a Darwinian sense (the only that ultimately counts, at least in this world), while our atomized group languishes. Don't like religion? Find it "childish" and "irritating?" Then find our survival as a distinct race "childish" and "irritating" as well!
You can't have it both ways, IR. You can't simultaneously decry our decline as a race and then undermine the very group cohesion that makes our collective survival possible. For example, not eating meat on Fridays was a sign of group membership. It reminded Catholics in America (I'm old enough to remember it) every week that they were members of a special group with a special mission and that there was a price to pay for membership in it. It maintained standards, defined an identity, discouraged out-group mating. Loss of a seemingly small thing like the Friday Fast was part and parcel of the decline of the Catholic identity in America.
The main point is that no racialist movement could possibly accept the sort of individualism that you assert and hope to succeed. And baby, success is what I'm all about.
The answer is clearly Christianity. It was our religion for 1500 years, the Christian habits of mind are still very much with us, the institutions still exist with their wealth and resources, our people remain open to the message, there are great historical and ideological precedents to build upon, and the list goes on and on and on. No alternative religion enjoys anything like the advantages Christianity does for our WN purposes. Institution of a Christian group religion (preferably not via the State as in Iran but rather via a broad social movement more like in Indonesia, but I'll do anything necessary to survive) and the surest and most cost-effective entry point. Odinism? Oh, puh-LEEZE. NN's nihilism? Asking Joe Sixpack to embrace the Abyss in a fit of self immolation doesn't exactly do the trick.
Clearly then, no alternative enjoys anything like the advantages Christianity does.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a believing Christian, and when I discuss these matters with other believers like with my right honorable friend TD the conversation naturally takes a different turn. But my appeal here is made to non-believer WN's on purely practical grounds.
NN asks above what the religion of the sheeple shall be, and the answer is for purely practical reason "the Faith of their Fathers" because that is the thing with the best chance of success. NN also asks "who is the god of the WN's" which can be answered with a simple question: who was the God of El Cid and his army?
So, simply on these practical grounds if for no others our best bet is obviously to re-build the Church rather than re-inventing the wheel with some new religion. That's the program, man.
Hey, be an atheist, but get with the program. Stop being part of the problem with this arrogant pubescent pose that you are somehow above the Faith that carried our fathers to victory; or even more arrogantly you're somehow above religion itself, the thing that is even as I write this carrying our enemies to victory over us. Quit placing youself above the needs of the group that desparately needs a collective faith for its very survival just so that you can indulge in some sort of intellectual preening. We're not talking about impressing the chicks, here. We're talking about surviving into the next generation. And for Pete's sake stop encouraging others to do the same. in short, reject the nihilistic, PeeCee individualism - your own "Marxitis" - and join the rest of us wallowing around in our humanity as we do our little part for our people.
Recognize that only a revival of religion (and for us that can only mean Christianity, practically speaking) can hope to reverse our slide into non-existence, as TD says above.
Return serve!
Walter
2003-04-23 10:01 | User Profile
Sometimes I think the trouble here is I'm talking while you're evangelizing, Walter. And every time we shake hands and part company, I keep finding this damn hymn book you slipped in my coat pocket!
If you promise not to post demands for my reply ("IR! Show yourself, damn you!") I give you my word to fully digest what you've written, above, and respond as thoughtfully as I can.
But right now all I wanna do's get a tub o' buttered popcorn and a large Sprite, and score a front-row seat for the upcoming Edward Gibbon/Ruffin/Neo Nietzsche Texas Death Match. (Where's Captain Lou Albano when you really need him?)
2003-04-23 11:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 23 2003, 10:01 ** Sometimes I think the trouble here is I'm talking while you're evangelizing, Walter. And every time we shake hands and part company, I keep finding this damn hymn book you slipped in my coat pocket!
If you promise not to post demands for my reply ("IR! Show yourself, damn you!") I give you my word to fully digest what you've written, above, and respond as thoughtfully as I can.
But right now all I wanna do's get a tub o' buttered popcorn and a large Sprite, and score a front-row seat for the upcoming Edward Gibbon/Ruffin/Neo Nietzsche Texas Death Match. (Where's Captain Lou Albano when you really need him?) **
Fair enough, IR.
Save a some Raisinettes for me.
Walter
2003-04-23 11:27 | User Profile
Save a some Raisinettes for me.
Now you lampoon my ethnic background as well? Why, if I didn't have to get my monkey's fez blocked, I'd give you what for -!
Ice-a cream! Gedda you tootsie-frootsie ice-a cream!
2003-04-23 11:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 23 2003, 05:49 > Originally posted by Javelin@Apr 22 2003, 23:46 ** > NeoNietzsche wrote:
People, you have got to get over this moronic morality thing.ÃÂ
**
Nietzsche gave us the correct definition of morality- The expression of the conditions for the life and growth of a people. The universalist slop was never morality, but its repudiation. Real morality is a good thing, a Darwinian thing.
:rock: **
Please give me a cite on that quote, I'd like to look it up (it's been a while).
Walter**
The Antichrist, chapter 25, Kaufmann translation.
2003-04-23 13:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Javelin@Apr 23 2003, 11:51 ** Walter[/QUOTE] The Antichrist, chapter 25, Kaufmann translation. **
Thanks
Walter
2003-04-23 15:11 | User Profile
25.
The history of Israel is invaluable as a typical history of an attempt to denaturize all natural values: I point to five facts which bear this out. Originally, and above all in the time of the monarchy, Israel maintained the right attitude of things, which is to say, the natural attitude. Its Jahveh was an expression of its consciousness of power, its joy in itself, its hopes for itself: to him the Jews looked for victory and salvation and through him they expected nature to give them whatever was necessary to their existence--above all, rain. Jahveh is the god of Israel, and consequently the god of justice: this is the logic of every race that has power in its hands and a good conscience in the use of it. In the religious ceremonial of the Jews both aspects of this self-approval stand revealed. The nation is grateful for the high destiny that has enabled it to obtain dominion; it is grateful for the benign procession of the seasons, and for the good fortune attending its herds and its crops.--This view of things remained an ideal for a long while, even after it had been robbed of validity by tragic blows: anarchy within and the Assyrian without. But the people still retained, as a projection of their highest yearnings, that vision of a king who was at once a gallant warrior and an upright judge--a vision best visualized in the typical prophet (i.e., critic and satirist of the moment), Isaiah. --But every hope remained unfulfilled. The old god no longer could do what he used to do. He ought to have been abandoned. But what actually happened? simply this: the conception of him was changed--the conception of him was denaturized; this was the price that had to be paid for keeping him.--Jahveh, the god of "justice"--he is in accord with Israel no more, he no longer visualizes the national egoism; he is now a god only conditionally. . . The public notion of this god now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators, who interpret all happiness as a reward and all unhappiness as a punishment for obedience or disobedience to him, for "sin": that most fraudulent of all imaginable interpretations, whereby a "moral order of the world" is set up, and the fundamental concepts, "cause" and "effect," are stood on their heads. Once natural causation has been swept out of the world by doctrines of reward and punishment some sort of unnatural causation becomes necessary: and all other varieties of the denial of nature follow it. A god who demands--in place of a god who helps, who gives counsel, who is at bottom merely a name for every happy inspiration of courage and self-reliance. . . Morality is no longer a reflection of the conditions which make for the sound life and development of the people; it is no longer the primary life-instinct; instead it has become abstract and in opposition to life--a fundamental perversion of the fancy, an "evil eye" on all things. What is Jewish, what is Christian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness polluted with the idea of "sin"; well-being represented as a danger, as a "temptation"; a physiological disorder produced by the canker worm of conscience...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1) What is the name of the God of War of the Kristians?]
[1) What is the name of the God of War of the WN's?]
2003-04-23 15:47 | User Profile
Walter Yannis - How do you put a religion back together again? I don't think it can be done, but I do know that only immense hardship and suffering can bring a people back together again. And we seem to be far beyond the warning stage.
???
2003-04-23 16:32 | User Profile
I just got back from a little service held in a funeral home for a Catholic.
The priest actually opened his eulogy by saying that after the death of Christ the disciples were "hiding in fear of the .........jews". He hesitated and looked around the room before uttering the final word and I figured he wouldn't say it. But damned if he didn't. I knew we had a live one at this point.
Then he went on to say how they had just witnessed a great deal of cruelty inflicted on Christ - the floggings, the crown of thorns, the public humilation. Not to mention the crucifiction itself and the coup de grace with the spear in the side. They had every good reason to be fearful, he said.
He then segued into the Christian holocaust-although he did not use that particular term- in Poland/Ukraine/Russia et al. This he attributed to communists but ole Eric knew who he was really referring to as surely as if I had done a Vulcan mind meld.
Afterwards I complimented him and had the honor of shaking his hand and receiving his blessing. I found that he was a Polish American who was educated in a conservative seminary in Belgium. He admitted proudly to being a conservative who felt that the old ways were coming back albeit ever so slowly. Having served in Louisiana for many years where, according to him, the faithful are many, he expressed shock and dismay at the "unitarian" attitude of Baltimore Catholics. He was approximately 55 YO and exhibited a world weariness spiked with optimism for a bright resurgence of faith among Catholics. However, it was obvious by observing his melancholy manner that he felt we were too far gone into materialism and pleasure to ever again embrace the old time religion.
I left there feeling that I had been in the presence of a great spirit and a priest of the kind that the church once produced in multitudes.
2003-04-23 18:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 23 2003, 15:11 ** Morality is no longer a reflection of the conditions which make for the sound life and development of the people; it **
Thank you for posting that - it saved me a trip to the dusty back shelves of my library.
Nietszche is such a powerful writer - it comes through even in translation. It would be worth learning German just to read him.
Does this mean that Nietszche accepted that there was a natural morality? This passage would seem to so indicate.
If so, how does this differ from the Tao or the Natural Law.
If not, how does one reconcile his rejection of an objective moral standard inferable from observation of Nature with the clear moral stance implied in his rhetorical invective?
Walter
2003-04-23 18:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Apr 23 2003, 16:32 ** I just got back from a little service held in a funeral home for a Catholic.
The priest actually opened his eulogy by saying that after the death of Christ the disciples were "hiding in fear of the .........jews". He hesitated and looked around the room before uttering the final word and I figured he wouldn't say it. But damned if he didn't. I knew we had a live one at this point.
. . .
I left there feeling that I had been in the presence of a great spirit and a priest of the kind that the church once produced in multitudes. **
Thanks for that. It brings it back for me.
I'm barely old enough to remember the lions of the Church, before the bureacracy was infiltrated by the foxes. They were a sight to behold. The ones I knew were Irish mostly. Catholics, man. This Polish fellow sounds like the real McCoy.
There are a few left.
But there is hope. This present fag crisis in the American Church has forced the foxes to start looking for lions to run the place again. The Fraternity of St. Peter is one order (Latin Tridentine Mass, strict observance, filial devotion to the Pope) that is growing by leaps and bounds as the others languish.
People join churches for a reason, after all. I've spent my career in the business world, and I can tell you that any B-school graduate could have foreseen the marketing disaster attendant upon the post-Vatican II relaxation of standards. The hierarchy was thinking that if they lowered the standards, then more people would join, lke a merchant lowering the price of bananas to move them before they go bad. But that's not the way social groups work. People join groups precisely because the entry barriers are high - in economic terms high entry barriers eliminate the free-rider problem. You had to perform up to standard (no divorce, no adultery, have kids, go to church regularly, keep the fasts, pray as indicated) or you lost standing. Any significant failure kept you from the communion rail, big offenses resulted in ostracization and social penalties for your family, really big offenses resulted in official censure and excommunication. And the benefits were manifest - you created a community for yourself and your family, you had business contacts, and on and on. So they lowered the standards and instead of a mob appearing like at a K-Mart blue light special, the faithful got bored and distracted and looked for other things.
Ruffin asks how you reconstruct a religion, and the answer is you do it one at a time starting with yourself. But the good news is that it's already underway. The Church cannot be killed, for the very gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Over the past 2,000 years the Church lived through a constant ebb and flow, and just when things looked darkest the sons of the unfaithful generation exploded in a new-found faith and carried the cross forward still. It will happen again, it is happening now.
Walter
2003-04-23 18:40 | User Profile
Every religion must reject something to remain spiritual and compelling. Jews reject the rest of humanity and elevate themselves to the status of a tribe favored by God. Christianity rejects the humanity-hating essense of the Pharisees. Once Christianity loses that, it becomes impotent idolatory and empty Judeo-Christianity, essentially a paganism only with own tribe replaced by outsiders as the object of worship and call for protection.
2003-04-24 01:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 23 2003, 12:04 **Does this mean that Nietszche accepted that there was a natural morality? This passage would seem to so indicate.
If so, how does this differ from the Tao or the Natural Law.
If not, how does one reconcile his rejection of an objective moral standard inferable from observation of Nature with the clear moral stance implied in his rhetorical invective?
Walter**
Nietzsche recognized that there was a natural master morality.
It differs from Natural Law in being the product of circumstance and apparent instinct within the aftermath of the forceful stratification of society by conquest, rather than being the product of philosophical speculation.
The fact that this is instinctive and circumstantially adaptive reconciles his holding to this, a morality, with "his rejection of an objective moral standard inferable from an observation of nature". It would be more correct to say that he finds the latter non-existent rather than extant for "rejection".
2003-04-24 02:16 | User Profile
17.
Inherent in this hypothesis about the origin of bad conscience is, firstly, the assumption that this change was not gradual or voluntary and did not manifest an organic growth into new conditions, but was a break, a leap, something forced, an irrefutable disaster, against which there was no struggle nor any resentment. Secondly, it assumes that the adaptation of a populace which had hitherto been unchecked and shapeless into a fixed form was initiated by an act of violence and was carried to its conclusion by nothing but sheer acts of violence, that consequently the very oldest "State" emerged as a terrible tyranny, as an oppressive and inconsiderate machinery and continued working until such a raw materials of people and half-animals finally was not only thoroughly kneaded and submissive but also given a shape.
I used the word "State"ââ¬âit is self-evident who is meant by that termââ¬âsome pack of blond predatory animals, a race of conquerors and masters, which, organized for war and with the power to organize, without thinking about it sets its terrifying paws on a subordinate population which may perhaps be vast in numbers but is still without any shape, is still wandering about. That's surely the way the "State" begins on earth. I believe that that fantasy has been done away with which sees the beginning of the state in some "contract." The man who can command, who is naturally a "master," who comes forward with violence in his actions and gesturesââ¬âwhat has a man like that to do with making contracts! We cannot negotiate with such beings. They come like fate, without cause, reason, consideration, or pretext. They are present as lightning is present, too fearsome, too sudden, too convincing, too "different" even to become hated. Their work is the instinctive creation of forms, the imposition of forms. They are the most involuntary and unconscious artists in existence. Where they appear something new is soon present, a living power structure, something in which the parts and functions are demarcated and coordinated, in which there is, in general, no place for anything which does not first derive its "meaning" from its relationship to the totality .
2003-04-24 02:52 | User Profile
Odinism? Oh, puh-LEEZE. NN's nihilism? Asking Joe Sixpack to embrace the Abyss in a fit of self immolation doesn't exactly do the trick.
NN was suggesting that Walter acknowledge the reality of the Abyss rather than that J.S. be confronted with it. Joe gets regular doses of the Nordic Myth to wean him off the Joodo-derived narcotics.
NN asks above what the religion of the sheeple shall be, and the answer is for purely practical reason "the Faith of their Fathers" because that is the thing with the best chance of success.
Still no explanation as to how the Triple Cross ranch became the Circle K.
NN also asks "who is the god of the WN's" which can be answered with a simple question: who was the God of El Cid and his army?
The question was "What is the name of the God of War of the WN's". The God of old Rodrigo was supposed to have been the Prince of Peace. There seems to have been some confusion on the point. :blink:
2003-04-24 04:15 | User Profile
Those who are noble in the authentic sense are universally the heirs and perpetuators of "aggress[ion]
That definition renders the Israelis--heirs and perpetuators of aggression--exemplars of the authentically noble.
Nietzsche gave us the correct definition of morality- The expression of the conditions for the life and growth of a people. The universalist slop was never morality, but its repudiation. Real morality is a good thing, a Darwinian thing.
And that definition means they never have to say their sorry. When they aggress against Palestinians, Rachel Corrie, anyone, it is merely the legitimate expression of the life and growth of a people. Itââ¬â¢s the Real morality, which is a *good thing, a Darwinian thing. *
Moral: Beware of Prussians bearing tertiary syphilis.
2003-04-24 05:24 | User Profile
> Those who are noble in the authentic sense are universally the heirs and perpetuators of "aggress[ion]**
That definition renders the Israelis--heirs and perpetuators of aggression--exemplars of the authentically noble.**
Marbles are spheres - Beach balls are spheres - Beach balls are Marbles.
Some remedial schooling in logic is indicated, with particular attention to the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.
And that definition means they never have to say the[y're] sorry. When they aggress against Palestinians, Rachel Corrie, anyone, it is merely the legitimate expression of the life and growth of a people.àItââ¬â¢s the Real morality, which is a *good thing, a Darwinian thing.à*
Moral: Beware of Prussians bearing tertiary syphilis.**
"--But every hope remained unfulfilled. The old god no longer could do what he used to do. He ought to have been abandoned. But what actually happened? simply this: the conception of him was changed--the conception of him was denaturized; this was the price that had to be paid for keeping him.--Jahveh, the god of "justice"--he is in accord with Israel no more, he no longer visualizes the national egoism; he is now a god only conditionally. . . The public notion of this god now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators,...Morality is no longer a reflection of the conditions which make for the sound life and development of the people;"
Moral: Read ye the quotation in full, lest ye twice of yourself make a fool.
2003-04-24 21:31 | User Profile
Ruffin initially wrote:> t was easier to find a picture of My Lai because it is more well known, [color=blue]and I wished to offer a picture of American brutality that even a TV watcher might grasp, even though it's still probably not as dramatic as a beheading.[/color]
I replied:> I ask that you please not get your sense of history from television. You will become an utter moron. You most certainly should be aware of what I write. You will not insult people with your lack of knowledge.
The readers of this forum watch very little TV I suspect, and what they do watch is of elevated content. Televised images distort reality and offer little insight into the past. Good books and thought are required to elevate the mind for the most part. For your information Japan had been planning an attack on the United States since we seized Hawaii. At the end of World War II the function of the Japanese in uniform was to surrender or die. This may make you uncomfortable or deprive you of feeling morally superior, but such is life.
From my book:> **This was possible because the Congress and much of the public had come to think of this intervention as necessary.ÃÂ Images of Somalia in the American media, especially television had caused an emotional reaction, not a thoughtful deliberate one.ÃÂ Ruefully Mr. Kennan concluded that if future American military interventions were to be controlled by popular emotional impulses, there would be no place for people like himself in making responsible deliberate decisions.
This essay provoked a response by an individual who gave his credentials as Anchor and Managing Editor of CBS News, Mr. Dan Rather.ÃÂ Mr. Rather started his retort by stating the advantage of hindsight in assessing situations.ÃÂ He accused Mr. Kennan of dusting off his diaries to show how smart he was while keeping other entries hidden.ÃÂ Mr. Rather accused Mr. Kennan and his hindsight of having blinders.ÃÂ Mr. Rather justified American intervention in Somalia because the United States had helped create the mess.ÃÂ No facts were given.ÃÂ What truly angered Mr. Rather was blaming of television.ÃÂ With all his customary sanctimony Mr. Rather said the duty of television was to give the American people the facts so they could make up their own minds.ÃÂ So defiant was Mr. Rather that he unequivocally stated that American television must not pull punches or play favorites.ÃÂ The American people would not let him or his brethren do this.
This witless, immature reply typical of Mr. Rather provoked a reasoned retort by Mr. Kennan who did note that his journal entry on the day when American military landed in Somalia could hardly be called "hindsight".ÃÂ Nor did he really mean to "blame" television as it was only doing what had come to be expected.ÃÂ What clearly irked Mr. Kennan was the statement by Mr. Rather that the job of television was giving facts to the American people.ÃÂ Fleeting disjointed visual images on a small screen which could not be recalled the day after had never been the "information" on which policy decisions concerning complicated international problems should be based.ÃÂ Television could not consult the rich voices of prior experience, nor could it outline the possible consequences and responses of decisions lightly taken.ÃÂ Mr. Kennan infinitely preferred the resources of the magnificent English language so polished and enriched over the centuries, but so grievously neglected under current American educational practices.ÃÂ Mr. Rather with the sum of his life experiences in American television would quarrel with the last judgment of Mr. Kennan.
Mr. Rather was not without other critics.ÃÂ When the Jerusalem Foundation sponsored a benefit priced at $250 a ticket to celebrate the anniversary of the Six Day War, Mr. Rather moderated a panel at the symposium.ÃÂ One of the speakers, Mr. Henry Kissinger, attested that "You really cannot believe anything an Arab says".ÃÂ A beneficiary of the money from this charity would be those who wished to settle in Jerusalem.ÃÂ The American government did not support such policy, but Dan Rather did.ÃÂ Mr. Rather did say "that many of us celebrate 25 years after the city was unified under Israeli rule" and later added "We celebrate Jerusalem here tonight.ÃÂ We pray for Jerusalem's survival".ÃÂ The inflamed Arab lobby in Washington accused Mr. Rather of pro-Israel bias.**
While taking your boxing and karate lessons I strongly suggest that you start reading some good history. My book would be an ideal start for you. Please avoid becoming another Polichinello.
2003-04-24 21:52 | User Profile
NeoNietzsche
The history of Israel is invaluable as a typical history of an attempt to denaturize all natural values: I point to five facts which bear this out. Originally, and above all in the time of the monarchy, Israel maintained the right attitude of things, which is to say, the natural attitude. Its Jahveh was an expression of its consciousness of power, its joy in itself, its hopes for itself: to him the Jews looked for victory and salvation and through him they expected nature to give them whatever was necessary to their existence--above all, rain. Jahveh is the god of Israel, and [color=red]consequently the god of justice: [/color]this is the logic of every race that has power in its hands and a good conscience in the use of it.
This is absolute nonsense. One of my great inspirations wrote as below:> Writing shortly after the birth of George Washington, a grand ornament of the English Enlightenment, Lord Bolingbroke, commented on the claim of Jews to the Holy Land. [color=red]The Lord thought the prophecies and curses of the Bible to be the ranting of lunatics or drunks. These dreadful utterances contradicted his notion of order and justice. No man in his senses would be capable of such oaths. No writer but a Jew could impute to divine Providence the fulfillment of such predictions nor make a Supreme Being the executor of such a curse. Bolingbrokee over 250 years previous observed Jews never had full possession of the land they claimed as their own, and never was the land peaceful. [/color] While cosmopolitans may despise Falwell, they must respect Bolingbroke, an anti-Zionist of the 18th century.
Much, if not all, of the great fables of the old Testament originated in Sumer. Ever since Jews have claimed them as their own, and the Falwells have believed them. Further:> **[color=red]The nation is grateful for the high destiny that has enabled it to obtain dominion; it is grateful for the benign procession of the seasons, and for the good fortune attending its herds and its crops.--This view of things remained an ideal for a long while, even after it had been robbed of validity by tragic blows: anarchy within and the Assyrian without. But the people still retained, as a projection of their highest yearnings, that vision of a king who was at once a gallant warrior and an upright judge-[/color]-a vision best visualized in the typical prophet (i.e., critic and satirist of the moment), Isaiah. **
Jews never had full possession of Palestine. They barely mentioned the powerful Assyrian Empire in the Bible. What good crops and agricultural practices they had they learned from the Egyptians.
Does Ariel Sharon fulfill the conditions for being a gallant warrior and an upright judge? If so, all the Gods must start worrying. Nietsche as a philosopher had some merit, but great limitations. You would be much better off reading some Teutonic historians and philosophers such as Hegel and Spengler. Please confine your free time to practicing boxing and karate with Ruffin. Remember when Nietzsche was called to defend himself, he had to pull his hands out of his shorts. Be not like Polichinello, who always has his hands in his shorts.
2003-04-25 01:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Apr 24 2003, 15:31 For your information Japan had been planning an attack on the United States since we seized Hawaii.
New heights of bone-headedness - if this is meant to refer to occupation of any of the territory of the continental United States.
In the period prior to the decision to attack Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Supreme Command was agonizing over how best to survive an American attack on Japan. The vile despot, Roosevelt, had made his intention to attack evident to the Japanese through various channels, and, as indicated in the deliberations of the Supreme Command (which I have read in translation), the Japanese reckoned their chances of survival as not good, even given the success of a preemptive strike.
Left alone to pursue their interests in Asia and in their own reasonable sphere of influence, the Japanese wished only for the continuation of their substantial trade with the United States, and had no interest in, or capability of, denying America any of its own territory or its own comparable pursuit of local interests.
2003-04-25 01:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Apr 24 2003, 15:52 Does Ariel Sharon fulfill the conditions for being a gallant warrior and an upright judge? If so, all the Gods must start worrying. Nietsche as a philosopher had some merit, but great limitations. You would be much better off reading some Teutonic historians and philosophers such as Hegel and Spengler. Please confine your free time to practicing boxing and karate with Ruffin. Remember when Nietzsche was called to defend himself, he had to pull his hands out of his shorts. Be not like Polichinello, who always has his hands in his shorts.
Edward,
Words fail me.
2003-04-27 20:34 | User Profile
If there were no jews there would be no WWI or WWII. Clearly the U.S. government was misled and wrong in both WWs. And particularly wrong in WWII being on the side of a bolshevist judaism communist controlled Russia. Allan