Tony Blair today took a little time off from serving the world’s despots in order to exploit the 10th anniversary of the July 7 London train bombing. He did so by casting blame on “radical Islam” for the world’s violence while exempting himself, pronouncing:
This is a global problem … we’re not going to allow anyone to excuse themselves by saying that the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government.
The proposition Blair just decreed invalid — “the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government” — is exactly the rationale that he himself repeatedly invoked, and to this day still invokes, to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, as in this example from December 2009:
Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public. . . . “If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?” Blair was asked. He replied: “I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]”. . . . He explained it was “the notion of him as a threat to the region” because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people.
“Excusing the slaughter of totally innocent people” — whether in Fallujah or Gaza or Yemen — is a staple of Western elite discourse to justify the militarism of the U.S., the U.K. and their most special allies. It only suddenly becomes inexcusable when carried out by Muslims against the West. It is a stunning testament to Western self-delusion that one of the prime architects and salesmen of the most destructive political crime of this generation — the invasion of Iraq — can stand up with a straight face and to applause and declare: “we’re not going to allow anyone to excuse themselves by saying that the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government.”
There will undoubtedly be all sorts of self-loving jingoists in the West, along with those whose overriding political priority is the demonization of Islam, who will find this comparison invalid and even obscene. After all, their own governments’ violence, aggression and slaughter of innocents is kind-hearted, civilized and justified, whereas the violence, aggression and slaughter of innocents by Muslims is savage and barbaric. But that’s precisely the point.
While the leading lights of the West love to celebrate themselves as beacons of civilized, progressive rationality, their overriding mentality is just the crassest and most primitive form of tribalism: when Our Side does it, it is right, and when Their Side does it, it is wrong. No matter the esoteric finery in which it drapes itself, that is the primitive, banal formulation that lies at the heart of the vast, vast majority of foreign policy discourse in the West. So often, those who fancy themselves brave warriors for rationality and advancement by demonizing Islam are just rank tribalists whose own national, religious and cultural loyalties are served by doing so.
One last point while we’re on this topic: the notion that radical Muslims commit violence in response to violence by the West is often characterized as an attempt to deny that they possess agency or autonomy. That claim is just bizarre, the opposite of the truth. Those who deny that Muslims act with agency are, in fact, those who try to claim that they are manipulated by religious dogma into committing violence without any rationale or purpose. To point out that there’s an actual, rational causal relationship between their violence and the West’s — to acknowledge that they choose violence as a calculated course of action they believe to be justified just as the West does — is not a denial of their agency, but rather an affirmation of it.
This causal relationship is the point that Tony Blair and his like-minded comrades are, above all else, most desperate to deny. Blair thus expressly denies that the July 7 bombing in London was largely motivated by his war in Iraq even though his own government’s secret report reached exactly that conclusion; a Pentagon-commissioned report years ago acknowledged the same causal motive for “terrorism” generally. They’re desperate to deny this causation because to recognize it is necessarily to acknowledge that their professed moral superiority is the ultimate delusion, that they in fact are the embodiment of what they love to hear themselves condemning.
It’s always comforting to believe that one’s own tribe is morally superior yet perpetually victimized, so it’s an easy sell. But as Blair’s remarkably self-unaware comments today illustrate, this mentality centrally depends upon a steadfast commitment to blinding oneself to one’s own actions and failings. Nobody is more resolute in that commitment than Tony Blair.
Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP
What a wonderfully false analogy to begin the article. As if the invasion of Iraq targeted civilians. As if there is some moral equivalence. As if Western societies were no better than Islamist ones.
As if.
This is not to say the invasion of Iraq was not retarded. It certainly was. But it was a military invasion. It was militarily victorious within a couple weeks. Only thereafter did the doubly bone-headed, ignorant Western coalition begin their efforts at regime change, at nation rebuilding, at bringing democracy to a mid-Eastern millieu where it could make no coherent sense whatever.
The million and more dead? The further millions dying in what used to be Iraq and Syria? You have only pan-Islamist culture to thank for that. And if only Western forces had left after Saddam was ousted, nothing would have been more obvious. But America thought it possible to impose better cultural values in Afghanistan and Iraq — the way it had in Germany. As if it were just a matter of military victory, rebuilding infrastructure and spouting democratic verbiage.
America went beyond ignorance in believing there could be better culture imposed on the mid-East. Beyond ignorance — but nowhere near evil. Evil, my friends, is the pan-Islamism America sought to depose. Because by this 21st century day and age, ALL and ONLY Islamist societies routinely assault every other culture there is, proudly boast their genocidal ambitions, gleefully slaughter their own and most righteously enslave women.
There are no occasions when I believe capital punishment is appropriate.
Bush, Blair, Brown, Cheney, make me violate my beliefs.
“Excusing the slaughter of totally innocent people” — whether in Fallujah or Gaza or Yemen — is a staple of Western elite discourse to justify the militarism of the U.S., the U.K. and their most special allies. It only suddenly becomes inexcusable when carried out by Muslims against the West. It is a stunning testament to Western self-delusion that one of the prime architects and salesmen of the most destructive political crime of this generation — the invasion of Iraq — can stand up with a straight face and to applause and declare: “we’re not going to allow anyone to excuse themselves by saying that the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government.”
I f**king love Glenn Greenwald
This subject never fails to both frustrate and anger me. The arrogance of power seems to know no limit, nor be bothered by any degree of hypocrisy. “It is our right to do these things that so disturb us,” if I may so egregiously take liberties with quotation marks. I do not know how many times historically the same insights and warnings have been offered, but it is almost exactly 50 years (49, in fact) since Senator William Fulbright said:
“The attitude above all others which I feel sure is no longer valid is the arrogance of power, the tendency of great nations to equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission. The dilemmas involved are preeminently American dilemmas, not because America has weaknesses that others do not have but because America is powerful as no nation has ever been before and the discrepancy between its power and the power of others appears to be increasing….”
…and, as he points out, this will destroy America as well, in time. To repeat a quote of a Chinese proverb Fulbright referred to:
“In shallow waters dragons become the sport of shrimps.”
In the case of Blair, it was not for nothing that Norman Finkelstein, in one interview at least, kept referring to Blair as “Vampire Blair”.
Biggest terrorist act of this generation is invasion of Iraq.
Bush and Blair both should be declared global terrorist.
Greenwald at his best!!!!!! This a-hole Blair is a carbuncle on the world’s arse. Thanks for giving use an excellent journalistic piece to circulate to the lie weary.
The enemy is to never end
The simplest question is–Do you want your enemy to get better or get worse?
As election season unfolds, watch as partisans dream that the other party selects the most extreme and insane candidate. Watch as partisans cross party lines to vote in primaries, not to moderate the other party’s choice, but to push it to the extreme–the idea being that their candidate will then have a better chance to win.
Do you want a better world or do you want a better enemy?
Enemies are cultivated. Grown and nurtured. Encouraged and educated. Our desire to make the perfect monster–and it is always a sales pitch. Always. The enemy is to never end.
Do you want more good, or more evil?
People encourage evil so terrible arguments will sound less terrible. There are arguments that are better with more good in the world, and arguments that are better with more evil in the world.
Does your philosophy need more good or more evil?
The war on terror is really only standard partisan politics–but with a lot more guns.
What we do to the other we have perfected on ourselves.
And so the English said to the Scottish:
ENGLISH: Right. So now we have a truce
SCOTTISH: Right.
ENGLISH: But you have to do certain things to maintain the truce.
SCOTTISH: Right.
ENGLISH: We’re going to put a bunch of you on ships and send you to Ireland.
SCOTTISH: Right
ENGLISH: We’re going to take away the land from the local Catholic bastards, and give them to you, and make you their Protestant overlords.
SCOTTISH: Right
ENGLISH: Once we give you the land, you guys can fight with and kill the locals at your pleasure. One day you’ll even get to call the indigenous Catholic population terrorists.
SCOTTISH: Right
ENGLISH: Oh, and by the way, change your fucking names to White, Brown and Green. And make sure not to mate with the locals.
SCOTTISH: THE BILLY BOYS.
ENGLISH: We will continue this method of divide and conquer everywhere else in the world. And teach the French to do it in Africa. Long live the King.
– “A former Bill Cosby supporter, American singer and actress Jill Scott, is now backing away from her former mentor after the comedian’s court admissions were made public.
Bill Cosby admitted getting Quaaludes to give to women he intended to have sex with: court documents “
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/bill-cosby-defender-singer-jill-scott-says-she-was-wrong-to-back-comedian-1.3141439
One thing I don’t understand, In an America where police can stop you on the street, turn out your pockets, put you in prison for long periods for having trace amounts of drugs. Where non-violent offenders can get life sentences,
How can Cosby, ten years ago, admit to drugging and raping girls, in court, under oath, in front of a judge, and instead of being arrested and charged, have the transcript sealed, and buried for ten years until the clock ran out on the statute of limitations?
Goldberg thinks “innocent until proven guilty” means the public can’t use facts to form opinions. And apparently what Cosby did wasn’t “rape-rape”
– “This isn’t the first time Goldberg has publicly doubted rape survivors. She famously defended Roman Polanski after he was jailed for drugging and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl. (Polanski gave her a Quaalude).
“I know it wasn’t rape-rape,” Goldberg said. “It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left.””
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/07/07/whoopi-goldberg-on-bill-cosby-hes-innocent-until-proven-guilty/
I’m reluctant to engage in a conversation so far afield from anything Glenn writes about, but this bothers me:
The reports I’ve seen say Cosby admitted to obtaining Quaaludes for sex and that the women involved in that particular case said they took them knowingly. Apparently, Quaaludes were big at the Playboy Mansion that Cosby frequented in the 70s, and the drug was known as a “thigh spreader.” It would, of course, still be quite possible to rape a woman who knowingly took Quaaludes but we don’t know that merely from what Cosby admitted about procuring them and why. People procure coke after all to enhance the pleasure of sex.
Comments I have read are concerned about the past, which cannot be altered. It’s the future I’m concerned with. Not ignoring the validity of Glen’s article I am concerned about what to do to bring about a lasting peace, globally, not to waste time re-hashing history. It’s too late to chant that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to re-live it, and all the other simple minded pablum. There is a genuine threat to many people in many countries, right now and it is not theoretical, and we are un-able to avoid the nesessary actions to stop this threat from engulfing all of us.
Yes, and the information from this site and others like it inspires activists to do what is possible to rein in the imperial U.S. and it’s lackey allies such as the UK. But the threat has been going long and has become very strong. It’s close to having already “engulfed” the globe, or much of it.
Mr.Myopic,yes,the people of Yemen,Syria,Gaza,the West Bank,Iraq,Afghanistan,Iran,Pakistan,Somalia,Ukraine and a few others are targets of American and Israeli hubris and attacks,by proxies or direct action.
Thirteen years after that bloodied invasion with hundreds of thousand of Iraq civilians death he’s still walking free with no accountability. What a shame to the world. Their own ‘International Community’ owns the current narrative in the world and they can do anything; well it cannot be for long.
To Oye and anyone else who is holding their breath about Blair et. al, being prosecuted for their evil deeds, I ask: have you heard of Henry Kissinger? The ba$t@rd is a walking war criminal and he will die one without ever setting foot in a jail cell. As long as the current power structure is in place, and believe me, I had such hopes that Obama might do right by the countless dead Iraqis and the 4,000 plus US soldiers, there will never be a trial for these evil snakes. I love Glenn’s, “in your face” and acurate reporting and I hope that someday these men will be held to account, in this life, because ole Christian Bush and Blair, think they are in their god’s good graces and that they will be met by the bearded man, with a cup of tea and a non-alcoholic beer.
Once again, thank you, Glenn Greenwald.
Blair is singularly detestable in his continuing efforts to whitewash himself and other leaders who oppress, kill, maim and torture. I watched his term as ‘the Quartet’s envoy on the ground’ during the last eight years with utter despair and wrote reguarly to call for his dismissal. Now that he has stepped down, their statement saying “Mr. Blair demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace and made lasting contributions to the effort to promote economic growth and improve daily life in the West Bank and Gaza” can only be regarded as a nasty joke.
The West was not threatened by Saddam Hussein. He was a dead cock in the pit. The West, having gerrymandered the Middle East, creating faux polities and supported dictators should have been mindful that they had created and fostered a “House of Cards”. Having destroyed what the West had fostered and supported the policy makers created a power vacuum that could not be filled by the imposition of Western democracy. The lesson and the proof was post WWI Germany. The segments of Iraqi society that chaffed under Saddam wanted no more of Baghdad and chaos has ensued in the region. The politicians knew that there were no WMD and, as Blair makes it plain, didn’t care and didn’t scruple about lying. He and George Bush and Dick Cheney fomented an aggressive war and should be tried as the Germans were tried at Nuremburg, not pensioned off in comfort.
There is an easy way to test Glen’s theory. Glen can move to Syria or ISIS held Iraq and compare life there to life in the US or the UK.
Assuming his head and body are still connected I look forward to hearing his unbiased report.
You twits are pitiful.Watch out for meteorites!
Tony Blair is right and Mr. Greenwald should move to Iraq.
Greenwald should move to Iraq? Whatever happened to the freedoms of speech and the press? Oh, silly me, I forgot. You authoritarian militarists don’t believe in them.
Well, Tony Blair and George Bush have left Iraq in a bit of a bad state, you see. It’s plenty bad for those who live there, and I’m not sure it’s presently much of a tourist attraction. But Blair and Bush should definitely be sentenced to live there, in the midst of an ISIS compound.
Right!!!!!
“Tony Blair is right and Mr. Greenwald should move to Iraq.”
Blair is a murderous piece of filth, who, in any reasonable system of justice, or even for example that of Nuremberg, would have been hanged,
The Blair’s Bush’s , Brown’s and Obama’s should be swinging from alternate lamppost’ separated by the rotting corpses of the Paulsons and Blankfiens Diemenss and the rest of their tribe.
I went to anti-war protests opposing the possibility of invading Iraq, before that war began. I opposed it when many Democrats and the majority of the people supported it. I’m no fan of Bush, and lost a lot of respect for Blair because of that war.
Given that, he’s completely right here. He’s responding to those who address any discussion on the matter of these atrocities being committed by Islamists, by pointing the blame at America or England. Nothing justifies the 7/7 attack. And nothing the US did explains Muslims selling Yazidi girls in markets to be made into sex-slaves, to be raped by the very men who slaughtered their families.
Islamism is a problem, and has been so since long before man with the last name “Bush” became President of the United States. And Muslims are responsible for addressing that aspect of Islam that lends support to the hatred that has brought about such atrocities. The faults of the West have been discussed, and plenty of Westerners recognize those flaws. It’s time for the Muslim world to recognize the problems within Islam and also engage in some desperately needed self-analysis.
Very well said. Thank you
So Ibrahim, you entirely failed to address the central point of the above piece, to wit:
And this sort of thing from you is a complete non sequitur:
And about this inanity:
1. barely, if any, at all in most quarters have discussed this, and 2. not recognized by most Westerners, and certainly not by those who most need to recognize them.
Finally, this:
Yes, well, if and when we in the West stop doing murderous and other things that justifiably piss them off, maybe then they’ll think we have the slightest fucking right to lecture them on “self-analysis.”
Oh so on target!!
Indeed, if you examine the data, there was an Islamist terrror attack pretty much every day before the Iraq War in 2003. Oh wait.
Tho much too good; Give the Poodle & Chip Jr the same those Heroic Cowards gave others: i.e.. Waterboarding everyday w/meals served up the arse for at least a month, then throw the sob’s naked in the streets.. A message thereby 2 all other so-called ‘Leaders’..
It is rather ironic that in Syria, the ridiculousness of the ‘if we do it, it’s justified, if they do it, it cannot be justified’ shows most starkly. Because the theater of conflict is the same, the targets of ‘us’ and ‘them’ are practically the same, and yet an aerial bombing by one side that kills the same mix of people is seen as being reprehensibly indiscriminate when ‘they’ do it, and surgically precise when ‘we’ do it. In one action, only the ‘bad guy’ is personified, the definition of who is a civilian is incredibly restricted, and the reasons for taking the action treated as justifying the act. In the other action, the ‘innocent victims’ are personified, the definition of who is a legitimate target is incredibly restricted, and the reasons for taking the action treated as not worthy.
Hypocrisy within hypocrisy.
Primitive culture was civil.
Civilized culture is violent.
These terms further obfuscate the reality we face.
Mass extinction at the hands of so-called civilization. Destruction of the Natural World in the name of Profit, Power and Freedom. War on the Earth, air, and waters. War on its peoples, animals, and plants. War to own, control, and suppress natural life and rights.
A culture which places more value on technology than ecology, is backwards.
Down with Blair!
A quote from the ‘youngest survivor';
I wonder how many young girls in Baghdad or Falluja managed such a thought?
A powerful post, that needed to be said.
Thank you, nuf said
And let’s not forget the deliberate targeting of hospitals.
http://www.thenation.com/article/fallujas-health-damage/
Thank you for that link.
The denial of the essentials of life, food and water is as shocking as a drone strike or bombing on a hospital. Even Ondy has raised the economic massacre of civillians through blockades and sanctions as something abhorrent.
Economic war is as dispicable as hot weapons of war.
I am over the western human race and believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE shows the mindset of America.
….and the Universities:
http://thebulletin.org/education-occupation
Your post reminded me of the movie ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’ for some reason.
It’s clear why they’re tearing apart Universities though (I say this believing it’s foul): Most successful movements and resistance derive from and/or are supported by these horrible academic thugs who think and support youth, and the youths who learn from them. If an opponent to a belief system cannot organise, then they cannot resist in a meaningful way. They’re shutting down resistance, basically. Chaos is great for this in general (tried and true tactic), but it is especially effective when you manage to cockblock a country’s thinkers by forcing them to focus their energies on internal crises.
Another view of blame and 7/7.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/07/7-july-london-bombings-muslim-victims
Worth a ponder.
The evidence before the court is
Incontrovertible, there’s no need for
The jury to retire.
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite (prick and little fucker)
Fills me with the urge to defecate!
I can’t help thinking of these lines from The Trial – Pink Floyd, whenever I hear Tony’s name. I changed ‘wife and mother.’ Hope Roger Waters can forgive me.
The difference between causality and justification lies at the heart of the matter. That 9/11/01 was caused by the strangulation of Iraq under sanctions is a fact. The leader of the bombing squad said as much in his testament. That does not justify – make just, or fair, or moral – either action. Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq resulted in 7/7/05, and that is a fact. The bombers said do in their testaments. I doubt Mr. Blair didn’t foresee the results of his actions on his tribesmen in the UK, but as Madeleine Albright had said some years before, the elimination of innocent Iraqi and British lives – lopsidedly more Iraqis – was worth the price of control over oil in the Middle East.
Yes, and it is surpassingly common that when a people is oppressed by a power with far greater military strength, that that people resorts to “asymmetrical” warfare. It can be outrageous, as in the case of the African National Congress with it’s barbaric “necklacing,” or the Irish Republican Army blowing up department stores.
Of course, apartheid in South Africa was also barbaric. As was the way the British have historically treated Irish-Catholics.
As a former director of Israel’s Shin Bet reminds us in the documentary, The Gatekeepers: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Is this a rationale? Or simply how a sociopath works? Bush and Blair wanted that war and were willing to make up any excuse, before or after, to explain it. His 7/7 remark may simply have been the latest mendacity by someone amoral enough to kill thousands but self-protective enough to generate excuses for the subsequent events, if he were a proximate cause of the latter.
-”The tyrant can always find an excuse for his tyranny.”
Naturally wolves don’t like that fable, so they create another one: “Wolves, Sheep and Sheepdogs”
– “After leaving his service as a Navy SEAL and publishing his memoir, Chris Kyle started mentoring other veterans with PTSD. As the movie mentions in its conclusion, Chris Kyle was killed by another veteran, a Marine. Are Marines not sheepdogs? Or did Kyle’s killer turn into a wolf? Most importantly, as the analogy goes, why couldn’t Kyle tell the difference?
Because the analogy is simplistic, and in its simplicity, dangerous. It divides the world into black and white, into a good-versus-evil struggle that the real world doesn’t match. We aren’t divided into sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. We are all humans.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/01/21/american_sniper_s_wolves_sheep_and_sheepdogs_speech_has_a_surprising_history.html
And what’s back of this black-and-white rationale is an amorality in which acts of state are whatever leaders like Blair want, and the simple good soldiers who carry them out have to be programmed to think there’s a purpose to it, a rationale after the fact. Blair’s 7/7 excuse is but the latest re-rationale.
For a perfect example of the delusions of the war-mongers, check out this place
http://americandigest.org/
What do all “wolves” have in common? They call themselves sheepdogs.
That’s funny, they don’t look sheepish.
What would be nice would be for someone like Obama to let us in on his understanding of how democracy survives when the newspapers, lawyers, NGOs, politicians are being recorded and the resulting information being used to influence future policy.
– “Merkel under pressure to act as it’s revealed that America spied on German magazine as well as government “
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149325/Merkel-pressure-act-s-revealed-America-spied-German-magazine-government.html
-”The UK intelligence agency GCHQ has developed sophisticated tools to manipulate online polls, spam targets with SMS messages, track people by impersonating spammers and monitor social media postings, according to newly-published documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/14/gchq-tools-manipulate-online-information-leak
With politicians monitoring opinion polls, minute by minute, in order to see which way they should blow with the wind, imagine the power this gives the spies to manipulate public policy.
Given that the NSA has all of the filth on all of the political filth, there’s not much need for such subtlety but I’m sure it goes on
A classic example of the “how dare you fuck with us?” was the 24 hour 180 degree turnaround in Merkel’s alleged outrage that the NSA was spying on her. Someone had a little chat with her.
Tony may very well be self-aware but may be repeating this mendacious line because he can. In terms of cynicism this mind-set is somewhere between “Casablanca” and “Chinatown.”
WHISTLEBLOWER TELLS GOV OF FRAUD IN EU, WORK WITH INTELIGENCE, NOW IN DANGER http://t.co/Wxfnks0VIV https://t.co/S1vt3tnWYF http://t.co/abXodlgiN7
True causation at work? Tony Abbott, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Mark Carney, Bill Clinton, William Hague, Therese May, Louise Mensch (here aka Louise Cypher < Cyphre), Rupert Murdoch, and Margaret Thatcher all attended the University of Oxford. There, in England, a hotbed of depravity, and a whole load worse? — Mind, to be fair, there were also a few decent folk — e.g. Tony Benn — who graduated from the University of Oxford over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship
The Rhodes Scholarship, named after Cecil John Rhodes, is an international postgraduate award for selected foreign students to study at the University of Oxford.[1] It is widely regarded as “the most prestigious scholarship” in the world.[2] Established in 1902, it was the first large-scale programme of international scholarships,[3] inspiring the creation of other programs such as the Harkness Fellowship and Kennedy Scholarship for British nationals, the Marshall Scholarship for Americans, and more recently the Newton Fellowship arranged by the British National Academies.
snip
I know it’s not meant that way but your comment sounds a bit like Trump, “They’re rapists [Mexicans]. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Seriously though, perhaps the English version of a Skull and Bones society, eh?
And see, I always knew Rachel Maddow was “decent folk” – or not…
“perhaps the English version of a Skull and Bones society, eh?”
From the Wikipedia link
snip
History
The Rhodes Scholarships are administered and awarded by the Rhodes Trust, which was established in 1902 under the terms and conditions of the will of Cecil John Rhodes, and funded by his estate under the administration of Nathan Rothschild.[8] Scholarships have been awarded to applicants annually since 1902 on the basis of academic achievement and strength of character. Rhodes, who attended the University of Oxford (as a member of Oriel College), chose his alma mater as the site of his great experiment because he believed its residential colleges provided the ideal environment for intellectual contemplation and personal development.
There have been more than 7,000 Rhodes Scholars since the inception of the trust. More than 4,000 are still living.[9] The Rhodes Trust provides the Rhodes Scholarships in partnership with the Second Century Founder, John McCall MacBain and other benefactors.
snip
Blair, Abbott Clinton, have a look at who’s who in the list of recipricants.
Jimmy, I’m having as much trouble reading between your lines as Mr. Geoffrey’s and mean no offense to either. Since your last sentence here seems in agreement with his original comment could one of you please suggest whatever it is more clearly so this dummy doesn’t misinterpret?
I simply wanted to draw attention to the sheer & utter intellectual-cum-moral depravity that routinely enough, albeit not inexorably, emanates from the University of Oxford — and this in the hope that this curious phenomenon might provoke and inspire a little further consideration & discussion (as indeed it has done, thanks to TomBrown). As myself a British citizen (aka subject), I have by now for all of a half century been deeply concerned with the whole matter, given the alarming influence & impact of Oxonians @ UK (< = BBC). The vanity, complacency & arrogance of this quasi-tribe — traits that I fear are pretty much invisible to most Brits, locked as they are day-by-day in their own cultural trance-state — I find (as Louise Mensch = Cypher might say:) 'utterly utterly' revolting by comparison to the truly transcendent intellects and principled standpoints of US folks like Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Snowden, Appelbaum, Schwarz, and Max Keiser, plus a few aliens like Assange and Kim Dotcom, all of whom I consider the true savants & luminaries of our age.
You statrted this with your link to 322.
Yes the following link is from one of those sites but it is a fine article, none the less.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Tombs_and_Taps.htm
Scull and Bones, Scroll and Key and Wolf’s Head are all SECRET Societies at Yale who’s member serve their brothers first.
Cause and effect.
Many fine people have been Rhodes Scholars and or Rhodes Scholarship receprients.
Some have had the Rothschild overseeing and backing and remain moral upright caring and compassionate human beings.
Many others have lead their countries to War which was against the principle Rhodes sort to establish by his will and his Will. He sort to bring peace to the minds of Leaders but we get Abbott, Blair and Clintons.
I responded to Geoffrey with a bit of information I thought added to his comment. I read his comment as it stands and did not read into it.
Hope this helps to explain.
Groucho Marx’s letter of resignation to the Friars’ Club: “I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.”
Ha! The only club I’ve ever joined is an archeological society. Just figured any normal type with “decent folk” wouldn’t want me.
80% of illegal female immigrants report being sexually assaulted as they enter the US.
It’s not some white guy from Utah.
I have tried to understand your point but I must admit I am none the wiser.
Please elaborate.
You may not be wiser but you are certanly better informed,
I well maybe an informed idiot, but an idiot none the less.
Mormons dont rape Mexicans is all I have gleened.
Who is raping the Immigrants, non inquiring minds want to know.
Throw me a bone, Bile.
bile, l do you have a citation for that statistic? And who is assaulting them? The men paid to shepherd them over the border, or their fellow immigrants?
GG – “It’s one thing to invoke war principles for a finite, aberrational war. The US is on permanent war footing – constantly and endlessly killing people in multiple places – rendering these war justifications sociopathic.”
There’s a new film “Testament of Youth”, quite good. Based on the memoirs of someone, who unlike Blair, knew something about war:
Vera Brittain – “I wish those people who write so glibly about this being a holy War, and the orators who talk so much about going on no matter how long the War lasts and what it may mean, could see a case–to say nothing of 10 cases–of mustard gas in its early stages–could see the poor things burnt and blistered all over with great mustard-coloured suppurating blisters, with blind eyes–sometimes temporally, sometimes permanently–all sticky and stuck together, and always fighting for breath, with voices a mere whisper, saying that their throats are closing and they know they will choke.”
Tribalism fractures our reality into divergent perceptions. But surely everyone can agree that Tony Blair deserves to be consigned to his own private hell – being ignored. However, it seems too tempting to mock his inane pronouncements and to marvel at his capacity for self delusion. So perhaps he is useful as a modern day court jester, a way for the West to laugh at its own foibles and weaknesses. This ability to laugh at itself, of course, proves the superiority of Western civilization.
Or he could be a sociopath, and repeating this line of rhetoric, and getting away with it, simply shows that the West shares it. If he was kidding, he’s very good at masking it.
Sir Nobis, while one could hardly sit down and do a full-on interview to run down the Hare Psychopathy Scale, so many interviews exist of certain politicians that one actually can more or less score people roughly accurately on the continuum. It doesn’t help that the gross majority of politicians fall moderately heavily on the right side of the sociopathy continuum, aka ‘the successful sociopath’. Obama actually falls further right than Blair on the scale (again, as I said, it’s an informal assessment; the real tests take hours and actual presence) but Blair isn’t out of place at the table — more narcissistic tendencies than many, which doesn’t help either. The problem with ‘successful sociopaths’ is that they often have a certain cap but that cap is stretchy — the more power they get, the more impervious they feel. In ways it’s far worse than the full-on ‘disorganised’ type. The ‘organised’ type tends to buy its own bullshit far more often instead of just seeing it as a means to an end (comorbidity on the 2nd Axis/personality disorders, if you want to get all DSM, but I’m more comfortable making fuzzier lines by combining the Hare results with Myers-Briggs; for one thing it acknowledges style and pathology intermingle in strange and often dangerous ways without pathologising personality style (no matter how grating) itself).
Not sure if you were looking for a professional opinion or not, but figured I’d toss my two cents in.
FWIW, book suggestions: “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work” (by Paul Babiak & Robert D. Hare); for a more technical read, ‘The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment’ (by Reid J. Meloy).
Human beings are diverse; this is evolution’s insurance policy. Traits that may be maladaptive are retained in the general population, because environments are ever changing and those traits may, in time, prove valuable.
Psychopaths get bad press. But we are slowly forging a society where those traits are increasingly rewarded. As psychopathy becomes the norm, future generations will look back and wonder how the DSM could have ever have classified it as a disorder. But they probably won’t have a lot of time to investigate, since they will be busy battling (the term ‘treatment’ will have fallen into disfavor) the scourge of Altruistic Personality Disorder.
Indeed some of the world’s greatest surgeons and humanitarians have scored somewhat on the right end on the psychopathy scale too. I actually don’t consider sociopathic traits, in and of themselves, to be the ‘enemy’, nor are all who possess them ‘monsters’. Like all humans, there is an ability to ingest whatever is fed to the ego (and the id). The problems generally result when you have people who score high on the ‘checklist’ who also have other concommitant disorders, no strong ethical bearings (note I don’t say ‘moral’ nor do I believe that religion has anything to do with ethics), and are fed extraordinary amounts of power without having to be occasionally humbled by mistakes like most people are. It’s easier for such people to slide down a slope and do bigger badder things to more people. But not all do. In fact, some people flip this in the other direction. Usually that happens when those traits are put to the task of helping other people instead of helping themselves.
I believe the term ‘enablement’ is important. Cognitive empathy combined with selfishness, manipulativeness and self-righteousness when one is in a leadership position always protects the leader, and always punishes the followers (and those who just happen to be there when the fallout hits, too). The larger the structure, and the more intertwined it is with everybody else on a global scale, the more the fallout, and the more people wind up getting hurt.
Altruism never scales as ‘well’.
What’s funny is that John Nash later regretted a lot of what he stated about game theory — yet his models of game theory almost perfectly portray game theory when only psychopaths are playing the games.
Or, say, the tragedy of the commons: what is the correct behaviour when somebody else overruns the field with their own cattle to feed, leaving nothing for everyone else? Do you counter by trying to do the same thing? Do you hang back and starve to death? Is there any correct answer when selfishness tips the balance inexorably in a direction that harms everyone? Do you kill the guy’s cattle? The guy himself? What if he just has other people bring more cattle? Etc.
Society only works when people are willing to practice restraint. When they’re not, this is what we get. You don’t have to care about other people to respect them… but if that person doesn’t need or care about other people, seeming like you do may just be something done to humour people you rule over, or used to keep them sedated, and those people exist as a luxury to serve you, or as an amusement. Or something.
Or maybe I’m overthinking this and it’s really about the money and the power, and when I say the money and the power, I mean The Game. I can’t really think of anything the current military and political structures would be good for right now, though, other than, say, a full-on alien invasion. There’s no ‘them’ big enough for our ‘Them’ to fight.
So.. How does it work with these types? Are they approached when in college (Oxford in Blair’s case) by the USA’s dark hand and then, after a deal is made, guided silently into positions of power? Rinse and repeat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship
The Rhodes Scholarship, named after Cecil John Rhodes, is an international postgraduate award for selected foreign students to study at the University of Oxford.[1] It is widely regarded as “the most prestigious scholarship” in the world.[2] Established in 1902, it was the first large-scale programme of international scholarships,[3] inspiring the creation of other programs such as the Harkness Fellowship and Kennedy Scholarship for British nationals, the Marshall Scholarship for Americans, and more recently the Newton Fellowship arranged by the British National Academies.
snip
Tony Abbott and Tony Blair Rhodes scholars
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/world/rhodes-scholars-are-split-on-a-new-foundation-for-south-african-awards.html
It’s the end of history! Get with the times!
No, if the causation is recognized, it doesn’t follow that the West’s moral superiority is depreciated; to recognize that “radical Muslims” are acting on their judgment of the West’s behavior is not to agree with that judgment. This is your causation / justification distinction. We can recognize the causation without granting the justification, and while believing ourselves to be justified. We can also recognize the causation while arguing that it’s based on Muslims’ faulty perception or understanding of our actions and intentions. This is what was done in the Rumsfeld report (referenced in the column):
If the causation is recognized, we still have to argue about reality and morality. The causation is denied because it’s simpler and safer not to have that debate.
You’re not really saying anything different than what I said, even though you want to be. You’re right that to accept “causation” isn’t to prove “justification.” But that doesn’t get you to where you want to do.
It does somewhat elevate Muslim violence against the west if it’s viewed as being in response to the west’s violence rather than due to some primitive, barbaric religion that drives them to commit senseless violence. Believing the latter explanation is what lets westerners believe we’re superior and that Muslims are barely human: just savages. To view their violence as a rational, causal response to our own violence (even if not justified) is to elevate it above what the demonizers want it to be.
I agree with that (the key word is “rational”), but it doesn’t nearly get you to this:
The reason for the denial is simply to avoid the debate.
Ok, that’s a factor. But if it’s removed, we still don’t lose our sense of moral superiority without the debate.
Yeah, we do. Which is why the government work to maintain the illusion of irrational, savage Muslims. The minute it’s acknowledged that **WE** have done things to harm Muslims we lose our moral superiority, and that loss won’t be tolerated.
@Mona – What is being removed is only the belief that “radical Muslims” are acting irrationally. That’s not the same as acknowledging that “**WE** have done things to harm Muslims”. And we all know that we have done things to harm Muslims. That information isn’t hidden. But we say it’s justified because we’re fighting a war on terror. If we acknowledge that “radical Muslims” are acting rationally, all it does is expand the debate on the WOT. It’s only in that debate that our moral status can be determined.
It most certainly does. Once it is conceded that both sides are rationally responding to the violence of the other, then one side’s claimed moral superiority is in doubt, or is at least irrelevant to resolving the vicious circle. Now, the factors rationally driving both are open to analysis and debate.
You’re agreeing with me! What I’m saying is that opening the debate is as far as the concession goes. (The concession is denied to keep the debate closed.) Greenwald is saying that to recognize that “radical Muslims” are acting rationally “is necessarily to acknowledge that [our] professed moral superiority is the ultimate delusion”. That’s going way too far.
In his reply to me, he argues that “what lets westerners believe we’re superior” is believing that “Muslim violence against the west … [is] due to some primitive, barbaric religion that drives them to commit senseless violence.” But, obviously, the belief in our moral superiority is based on much more than that (rightly or not). We don’t believe we’re morally superior simply because we’re not “barely human: just savages”.
Nope. And I doubt I’m agreeing with you, but at this point your spewing is so convoluted it’s hard to say. Find another nit to pick– you’re favorite pastime is finding or manufacturing them at this site, so I imagine you’ve got the skill honed.
When you’ve got nothing, out come the insults. You’re a joke.
Your failure to grasp the point has been explained to you be several people. That you can’t or won’t grasp it is your standard MO. You will simply move on to the next nit, real or manufactured.
It’s what you do. Always.
Ah, Mona, have you learned nothing?
Don’t argue with, agree with or discuss with the BarfBag.
Hi bile.
Ok. I’ll stop now.
“this mentality centrally depends upon a steadfast commitment to blinding oneself to one’s own actions and failings”
Do you seriously believe that we are so weak in our tribal loyalties that we will abandon them by simply shining the light on our hypocrisies and the pleasant little lies that we tell ourselves? Loyalty to your tribe (whether it be the one you were born into or one you adopted later) is a universal condition of the human experience. Acknowledging the lack of moral superiority of my people does not free me from caring instinctively about violence against me and mine more than about violence against others. If you think you have personally transcended this part of humanity you are either unique in history or are engaging in some self delusion yourself.
It’s not the simplistic dichotomy you depict: either be a blind, mindless tribalist or free yourself completely from it. Like all aspects of human nature or instincts, we can recognize them for what they are and try as best as we can not to let them drive us. To advocate for that is not to suggest that we can complete transcend it any more than we can completely transcend other aspects of human nature. But we can certainly minimize the extent to which they shape our worldview and dictate our choices.
You may be completely unable to do that but you shouldn’t assume everyone is plagued by that same disability.
“You may be completely unable to do that but you shouldn’t assume everyone is plagued by that same disability.”
Have you minimized the impact of that part of your humanity like some St. Anthony in the desert fighting against the temptations of the flesh? Or have you just divorced yourself from the tribe that you were born into and adopted a new tribe to defend? When you read a story about violence by the West against Muslims, does it not make your blood boil? Does it not fill you with righteous fury that causes you to engage with random nobodies like me? Like it or not, we all answer to the call in our bones that makes us think that some humans are more kin to us than others.
Your so called questions are just as simplistic and black and whiteish as your original comment, which Glenn already addressed. Looks like a temper tantrum.
You shouldn’t think of yourself as special, just because Glenn engaged you. He does it on a regular basis. It’s part of the Greenwald charm. It’s something we readers very much appreciate. No journalist makes as much effort to engage his audience as Glenn. You might even call him the Bruce Springsteen of journalists.
There are enough out there who view all people as kin. I’m sure you go to bed telling yourself you’re a pragmatist/realist/etc. and that war is a necessary evil. But you’re deluding yourself. There’s nothing pragmatic about your worldview. It’s an ancient world view. I’m afraid you’re a relic.
And what is that supposed to mean exactly? You trying to imply something? Why don’t you just say what you want to say? Let’s hear it.
Superb riposte!
I am going to completely disagree with this. Nothing universal requires this much upkeep, reminders and constant reinforcement. If we needed this much cajoling to fuck, we would have been doomed long ago.
What I find most interesting is how much energy constant division requires. This is neither the default state, nor sustainable.
We are pulling many dead things from the ground to keep these fires burning.
I could not agree more. I’ve come to realize that many of the things that have shaped my life, like being born in a rich country (USA), white, to relatively well educated parents, and so forth, were mere accidents of birth, something to be acknowledged but certainly not cause for pride. Most people, I think, tend to claim pride of membership, whether it be of a nationality, religion or race. All of that is superficial, unless you are someone who has made the conscious decision to change nationality or religion, or to overcome the limitations that you were born with.
The older I get, the more I regard myself as an accidental American. Had I been born in the UK, analogously.
Tribalism and One’s Tribe. I am becoming unmoored. The more clearly the effects of tribalism are made clear… on politics, on foreign policy, on domestic policy, on economic policy… the more unmoored I become. Or, I suppose, I could say, the more generalized I become. I am a member of the human race on planet Earth, and while my citizenship from birth is affiliated with the USA, I am finding my “allegiance” becoming more aligned with The World of People (and sentient animals), as opposed to the United States and Stars and Stripes. My US citizenship has afforded me many advantages, which I acknowledge and mostly appreciate, but any love I have for my country (my species) is highly conditional, and becoming more so. I am beginning to regard the Tony Blairs of this world as grotesque and twisted specimens of the human race. I am not sure if that character is a product of nature or nurture (inherent or shaped). If shaped by the environment in which he finds himself, whole systems of governance and provisioning are called into question. I am beginning to understand the appeal of the circle-A.
Hi TallyHoGazehound
You said “I suppose, I could say, the more generalized I become” I agree with this.
I don’t like to tell people what to do but I would guess Buddhism is better than anarchism though, take care
>”I am beginning to understand the appeal of the circle-A.”
‘The anarchy inherent in State sovereignty is moving to a climax’ … and the way I see Tally, the ‘Bush & Blair’ boys Is the Anarchy! *So, I’m agin’ it.
>” I am a member of the human race on planet Earth, and while my citizenship from birth is affiliated with the USA, I am finding my “allegiance” becoming more aligned with The World of People (and sentient animals), as opposed to the United States and Stars and Stripes.”
And, I’m madder than a wet hen on the fouth of JUly those two (2) things (the best interests of the U.S. and the …rest of the world!) have regrettably been made mutually exclusive! The entire mid-east is approaching near total chaos in my view … *and, again, I think the ‘Bush,Blair & sons of Anarchy’ hold the lions share of responsibility. h/t Glenn.
>”Or, I suppose, I could say, the more generalized I become. I am a member of the human race on planet Earth, and while my citizenship from birth is affiliated with the USA, I am finding my “allegiance” becoming more aligned with The World of People (and sentient animals),…”
Or, as I like to call it, The Social Imperative! … after all, we all have something ‘different’ (h/t Mona) in common. :)
xo,
bah.
@bobby d and @bahhummingbug
Yes, to you both. Understand DNE Align. My antagonism is only giving away to a more arm’s-length “awareness.”
Hi TallyHoGazehound
Thank you for the reply, it sounds like it’s good that your antagonism is being replaced with ‘awareness’, however I do not understand the DNE Align reference so I can’t understand your full reply.
Peace
I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that global relationships are complicated and don’t boil down to a “One side is all good, one side is all bad” narrative. There are always some who see things in black and white terms but most people intuitively understand shades of grey. History, foreign policy, religion, local economies, culture, and a host of other factors no doubt play into the end result of radical Islam that we see today, but it’s dull to say “Well, this factor had perhaps 20% influence, but could only have been mitigated by 50% under any circumstances anyways, and this factor…”.
I think where we struggle in such conversations is in juggling the idea of causality vs. blame. I don’t think we live in a world that is compassionate enough to openly discuss interdependent causality in the starkest terms without the ghost of blame and agendas rearing its ugly head and shaping the conversation. The ideas are too intermingled in our minds. As an extreme example, look at the different ways people talk about rape. In some places a woman is blamed if she’s showing any skin or out by herself without a male guardian – those factors may well be causal in the situation, but we all (I hope) agree they shouldn’t mean assigning blame, any more than you’d blame someone for getting shot because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or, as another example, Richard Dawkins got into hot water last year when he talked about alcohol and rape. The idea of causality and blame are deeply wrapped up in our minds, I think, to the point where talking about one seems to imply the other – and we realize that with blame comes agenda, more often than not.
I think talking about the causality of emotionally heart wrenching topics like the death of innocent people is incredibly difficult, but something that all sides should work on, even if the end goal is still very far off for all parties.
You perpetually miss two basic points with what your regard as your clever and sophisticated point that all wars kill civilians:
1) Prevailing discourse in the west doesn’t recognize that the two sides both do it. The whole narrative is that there are Bad People who kill civilians (called the “Terrorists”) and the Good People who are their victims (the west).
2) It’s one thing to invoke war principles for a finite, aberrational war. The US is on permanent war footing – constantly and endlessly killing people in multiple places – rendering these war justifications sociopathic.
Nothing I write is about demanding that wars stop killing civilians. Every time you argue against that point – by explaining that all wars kill innocents and this is unavoidable – you’re arguing against something that doesn’t exist.
If you have a difference of opinion, fine, it’s a free country. But spare me the armchair psychoanalysis. The last thing I need is a man who knows nothing about me telling me I’m putting on airs because I’ve gotten it into my pretty little head that I’m ‘sophisticated’ and smurt. You’re one step away from telling me I’m acting above my station. Don’t pretend like you know anything about me, because you don’t.
As to the rest, sounds like a straw man to me (“prevailing discourse doesn’t recognize…”), but maybe I have too much faith in people. If you want to talk about specific statistics, ok, otherwise to me it sounds like you’re painting a picture of American citizens as drooling idiots and then arguing with said drooling idiots. I’d say the West isn’t perfect but it has more narrative variety when it comes to criticizing one’s home team than many parts of the world.
Jeez sorry about the blockquote snafu. And the statement I was disagreeing with was the second not first blockquote.
Would you accept such criticism from a woman?
You should accept the criticism. It’s spot on.
Nic has an embarrassing meltdown:
Jaysus on a crutch, honey, take your hang-ups to professionals — don’t post them here in public.
Seriously, Mona, you of all people should get off your gender-critical ass and quit slinging the ad hominems like they matter. Who gives a flying flick what her gender is? To have it somehow inform her comments and call her ‘honey’ is just rude.
Women always seem the first to go out of their way to gender shame the hell out of their opponents and the last to be willing to put the time in to come up with actual retorts as soon as they find out they’re talking to another woman. Maybe it’s your generation or something. (<- see, that was an ad hominem, done on purpose). News flash, all people are entitled to opinions and emotions, provided they're willing to actually do the work to have them.
I've never bore you any personal animosity (and I hope you know this) but the histrionics aren't becoming (yes, I used histrionics to make a point).
You're a fount of emotion yourself, often enough.
And you still didn't reply to my questions on the Hulk Hogan article. ;)
(BTW the main reason I replied is because, no lie, at first read your comment looks just like something Louise Cypher would write.
Arguing in a cogent debate and acknowledging the other party’s humanity is gender-neutral — doesn’t matter if you agree with them or not.. I’m not even a feminist (humanist, yes) — but I resent when people jump on gender as a way to avoid the actual conversation and denigrate or diminutise the person attempting to have it — that’s a sexist, sure, but moreso just insulting approach, especially when you then just dismiss the rest of the conversation — and it deprives everyone of the real conversation at the same time.)
Are you drunk? As is my habit, I did not introduce the topic of gender. She of the Martyr Complex did that. Glenn spoke in his usual acerbic manner — which strikes male and female alike — and poor widdle Nic tuned it into an extended whine about her “pretty little head” and other things Glenn didn’t say or remotely imply.
Nic is absurd, and my use of “honey” is a put-down I (rarely) apply in a gender-neutral manner. It’s an “inappropriate endearment” useful for putting whiny idjits — male and female — in their place.
In any event, I didn’t see your Hulk Hogan question, and that thread is stale.
Hey Useful Idiots, wanted to say thanks for the comment. I’m becoming alarmed by the Lord of the Flies tone that has taken over GG’s comments section now that it exists in a rather insular environment vs. the more diverse atmosphere of The Guardian. At this point I feel like I have to own my own role in the relationship and either stop posting or acknowledge that I write here knowing I’ll be verbally abused and that I’m putting myself in that role by choosing to engage, I have no one else to blame. So I am going to try to stop the Battered Poster and Enabler thing and actually leave and stay gone this time, for my own psychological health, but want to acknowledge people who have contributed to a more positive commenting environment here. I have a feeling you and I would disagree on a lot IRL, but I’ve enjoyed engaging with you.
You’re welcome. I’d do it for anybody who acted reasonable, though — you just happened to be the one involved. I’m sure we would disagree on a lot (on or offline) but I don’t really see that as all too relevant. What I do see as relevant is the desire to have the conversations (or debates, or disagreements) in a reasonable environment, even (or especially) when people disagree. If the whole idea was to start a debate on all of this stuff publicly, it strikes me as disingenuous to try to shut down the debate when people are actually trying to have that debate. Even though we disagree on a number of things, I will miss your presence around here.
Hi Mona, I was tempted to just let your statements stand for themselves, but I have a few minutes to spare.
“It’s an “inappropriate endearment” useful for putting whiny idjits — male and female — in their place.”
“Putting [people] in their place” assumes that you either know what their place is, or that you’re somehow entitled and empowered to decide what their place is, or to put them there (wherever that is); if you want to play that game, then you have to be willing to let other people play that game as well (either way it’s a nasty game). I thought this was supposed to be a discussion, or even a debate, not a place to come for summary judgment and/or execution (like being ‘cast off of the island’). By somehow creating in-groups and out-groups and using insults and derision you’re basically inviting the behaviour you claim to loathe; by exhibiting the same behaviour you’re just fanning the flames. There’s a double standard at play (actually several of them) and that, I suspect, is one thing that rubs people the wrong way.
“In any event, I didn’t see your Hulk Hogan question, and that thread is stale.”
I can buy that you didn’t see it, but your excuse for not answering it is kind of silly. ‘That thread is stale’ is pretty much what *I* keep deriding: short attention spans in general on the internet that have 0 chance of actually enabling real debate, discussion or change (and that is by no means limited to you — or limited at all). As soon as things are off the front page, they’re ‘stale’, only the issues and the ideas never go away — initial statements are made but then the next thing comes along and the original thoughts and prejudices (*in any/every direction*) just sort of calcify. The way articles get posted here in spurts now just makes it easier for this to occur faster.
Anyway, here’s an article for you: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/26/technology/copyright-boobs-revenge-porn/
I do know the place for the persistently inane, yup I do. I do indeed know the place I assign them to here. No one else need accept my assignment, of course.
This isa discussion space. And I discuss substance with the non-inane. Asinine tripe, however, — especially from repeat offenders — pollutes the substantive discussion and you can see how I register my disapproval.
As for the Hulk Hogan thread, I spent several days there and that is as much time as I care to give that topic.
Several days? No, you’re overcalculating the number of days. That story was a week prior to when I pointed out you still hadn’t replied. Your comment was, I believe, on the 1st. I replied on the 3rd. It was still an active thread. Unless you define several days as a day or two, and stale as ‘more than a couple of days’, I’d have to respectfully disagree, though I think it’s a story that I probably would have wanted to go stale fast if I worked for First Look.
As to replying to the inane, a long long time ago, on a planet far away, in my early youth (that’d be the Pleistocene, book courtesy of a time travel machine), someone once suggested to me that I read Mortimer Adler. At the time I thought it was one of the dullest books I ever had to read that wasn’t ‘required’ (and I was probably too young for it), but it wound up causing me to read a whole lot about Nicomachean Ethics and Platonic discourse, which eventually gave me a solid respect for rebuttals that actually had to do with the subject at hand; failing to grant the person who is engaging with you that respect or time, it’s better just not to reply than to resort to insults, ad hominem, sarcasm and provocation. I’m not perfect in this regard, of course, but *everybody* deserves respect — even if it’s the respect of not replying if you cannot reply without tainting the reply with insult. But that’s just my perspective, and I wanted to give you some idea of how I came to it (it only seems fair).
Out of curiosity, as I don’t know much of your background, only that you passed the bar — do you mind if I ask, what is/was your litigation experience?
Incidentally, since it bears on so much of what T//I is about, this is a pretty cool quote:
Adler’s Institute wrote, in “The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom” that there are three kinds of freedom:
”
1. “Circumstantial freedom” denotes “freedom from coercion or restraint.”
2. “Natural freedom” denotes “freedom of a free will” or “free choice.” It is the freedom to determine one’s own decisions or plans. This freedom exists in everyone inherently, regardless of circumstances or state of mind.
3. “Acquired freedom” is the freedom “to will as we ought to will” and, thus, “to live as [one] ought to live.” This freedom is not inherent: it must be acquired by a change whereby a person gains qualities as “good, wise, virtuous, etc.”
“
Maybe you decided the question was stale, but just in case you didn’t see, I’ll reply again:
“Out of curiosity, as I don’t know much of your background, only that you passed the bar — do you mind if I ask, what is/was your litigation experience?”
If you don’t want to answer that, of course you can just say you don’t want to answer it.
Well put!
In defence [ouch] of Blair, he does say ‘totally innocent’ people. That’s a nod to permissability of action against the military? But when it’s sunbathers..
The death of the innocent people who don’t happen to be us is not an emotionally heart wrenching topic for most people here though. Perhaps if it were, something would actually be done to stop it.
Your comment became much more interesting when I replaced the word ‘blame’ with ‘responsible/responsibility’.
From Wikipedia:
Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it…”
Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
SO which is the colony and which is the mother country??? CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD AND THEIR FREEDIMS….We the people can not get any honest answers from the governments of the world – – the beginning steps of……..R E V O L U T I O N…