July 18, 2006

Meta-strategy of the Left - Recurrence of Thought

*Something I noticed when I was reading Bookworm's post about bloggers on the Left*

I think what Kos is saying is that he is going to wait until Israelis and Palestinians kill each other to the last man, woman, and child, then he is going to go there and declare victory for his side. It's not anything new after all. Two guys fight, fresh new guy comes in and claims the spoils after finishing the two fatigued fighters. Kos is like that, or at least he believes that it is justified to goad people into mutual annihilation.

After all, the Left likes cycles of violence. If the cycle of violence was broken, what would they exactly salve their guilt on any ways if there is no oppressed peeps to pity?

Of course Israelis want to get out of the fight. That's the problem, as Kos sees it. War will not end and utopia will not begin, if both sides don't get tired of fighting. This requires that Israelis suffer as much damage as Palestinians. This means both sides must be immolated in hate. It's pure annihilation style anarchy and nihilism. There's various degradations and modules depending on who on the Left you're talking about. Kos is more pure than most. As they say, the weapons runners get rich from selling weapons to both sides. Kos pushes the weapon of ideology, and the fury of false righteousness. Jews, Judaism, Jihad, Muslims, all must be incinerated in the fires of purity for the Left to create real, lasting, peace.

Does anyone really believe that Howard Dean would not use nuclear weapons to purify the Middle East, and claim that he has made perpetual peace on earth? Of course they would, the Democrats are the war party, in world history only a Democrat, Truman, used nuclear weapons on civilian and industrial cities of an enemy nation. Don't be fooled by Democrat propaganda about "peace" and whatever. Look deeper. Religious fanaticism isn't something the Islamic Jihad has a monopoly on.

In actual fact, it isn't ideology or even bloodthirstyness that causes people to committe attrocities against humanity. No, it is the inherent belief that what they are doing is righteous, that it will lead to a better world, this justifies in people's mind the destruction of life. The Democrats may have the "ideology" of something they call pacifism or whatever, chickenhawk little perhaps, but this is not the model you should use to predict their actions when they gain power.

It all comes down to the mental and spiritual health of the person, the individual. It seems that happens a lot these days.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/on_limits.html

That link describes the real path to peace, without mutual destruction. All other paths lead to complete, utter, annihilation, of one or the other side in this war amongst humanity unleashed. The Democrats would love the excuse to fight. I say again, the Democrats would love the excuse to purge humanity of its weaknesses. I do not doubt this, because even after making this statement with only my memory to back it up, I can go find something to support it. Clintons' letter in 1969 for example.

From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above...
- Clinton in a letter to ROTC

I ask, what is the best way to threaten the lives of the American people collectively, and therefore justify the destruction of an entire race and demographic? You would know the answer from Grim's intel brief if you read it. What is the best way to ensure that things immediately involve the peace and freedom of the nation? What happened right after Clinton left office? Do you see the meta-strategy of the Philosophy of the Left? It appears, again and again, if you know what patterns to look for.

If you’re going to be perpetually and shallowly mean, at least do it in an equal opportunity way.

Indeed, such is Wonkette that she is not particularly partisan, except on screen of course. You cannot be partisan with that level of perspective.

And if you actually have an advantage, you shouldn’t use it, so that you won’t run the risk of winning against the bad Army.

And what do you think the natural logical conclusion of this "tactic" is? Someone mentioned it before here or at neo's site. The natural logical conclusion is what Winston said. Don't fight now when you can win with little cost? Okay, you can fight latter when you have to sacrifice your wife and children. Is the Democrats on the Left suicidal then? Absolutely not. You mistake and underestimate the power of self-righteousness and religious zealotry when you believe such leads to a suicidal belief. Their logic is unshatterable concerning this point. You remember all those Hollywood movies where the cops catch the bad guy, but he can't shoot the bad guy cause he surrendered or whatever? Do you remember what actually happens to these bad guys that we know should be killed? The Hollywood mofos kill them. But the special part is how they kill them. They don't kill them via assassination and instantaneous fatality strikes with gun or blade. No, what they do is have the "hero" lower his weapon, turn his back, and show mercy. Then suddenly the bad guy has this instant hidden weapon in hand and is about to use it, but low and behold our hero is the master mofo cracker and shoots dead the sota. Really. Again, their logic is unshatterable on this score. Religious zealots never believe they will lose, how can they, ain't Allah on their side? Ain't the righteousness of the Rule of Law, and the Separation Between Church and State, on the side of the Democrats? Every side believes God is on their side, military psychology has already recognized this and taken measures to correct the bias.

This is not a philosophy from the world. The citizens of the world know too much cruelty and hopelessness to ever believe in the infallibility of their "heroes". No, this is a philosophy from the decadent core of America, something called Hollywood. Dumb, ignorant, fools are a dime a dozen. Dumb, ignorant, fools with bigazillions in money, however, are not so common.

Again, to be fair to the enemies of humanity, is to be cruel to the weak, whom has never been shown one iota of fairness from the strong of this world. Grim's intel brief highlights this. We are cheating by occupying Iraq and building democracy there. We are cheating in the hopes of altering the odds in our favor, so that we are not attacked at home. If we are not attacked at home, we will never be required to retaliate with nuclear or even massive conventional weapons like the MOAB or Air Fuel Bomb. There will be NO immediate threat to the freedom or safety of the nation, we will prevent it from getting to that stage. This means waging unpopular wars.

The Democrats would love an excuse to purify this world. I would prefer not to give them one. Oh, they aren't disinterested, they're waiting for the bodies to decompose. The field must be prepared for purification after all.

Am I overreacting? Is there a real problem here?

Well, after reading what I wrote, am I overreacting? You decide if there is a real problem here. I know what I believe, and what I've seen, and the psychological profile of people on Left, both Democrats like Clinton and the grassroots/netroots version.

If I’ve correctly identified a problem, will it at least have the beneficial consequence of harming Democrats in November, when the American public starts thinking about whether liberals or conservatives will best be able to protect American interests in a changing world?

As for local politics, that's a toss up between personal motivations. There's too many motivations for individuals that I can't predict who they will vote for. It is not even a Presidential election. I mostly study the polls about Iraq, not the US. And certainly not a state/federal election cycle. I leave that to politicians and those who work for them.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Bookworm said...

That's an awfully grim view you attributed to the Left and, sadly, I think you're right.

19 July, 2006 00:17  
Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Democrats now a days aren't the same caliber of men as Truman, or even FDR. It's just, they are different. But their tactics and strategy hasn't changed all that much.

Now, a soldier can be trusted with the firepower to incinerate cities and what not, because he is actually sane and responsible. Truman was responsible, but even him had to justify the deaths of Japanese, or otherwise he wouldn't have been able to sleep, he would have suicided. Nobody can order the deaths of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people, and then seeing the pictures of suffering on the newspapers and feel "nothing". Without justifications, humanity breaks down into guilt ridden pathetic wimps.

The Democrats in today's world, should not be trusted with a thimble of acid, lest they attempt to drink it.

Pretty grim, because power in the hands of people you wouldn't trust your children with, is uh not a good idea.

19 July, 2006 00:32  
Anonymous Lucyp said...

The Democrats are not left, faux left possibly but not left in the proper socialist sense unless the left has another meaning that side of the Atlantic.

19 July, 2006 17:57  
Blogger Ymarsakar said...

I don't know what you mean by a proper socialist sense. The Left in American affairs is both a general and specific reference to anyone that is on the Left of Bill Clinton. Specifically, it means the Far Left, the extremists.

I've modified my use to mean anyone Left of Bill Clinton including Pat Buchanan and the David Duke archetypes.

Lucy, here, for example would not fit under the description of the "Left". Because when you're talking about circles and spheres, instead of lines, you don't necessarily occupy one point at a time.

I use the term to both mean people of a certain politics and people who think alike.

19 July, 2006 19:19  
Anonymous Auguste said...

The Left in American affairs is both a general and specific reference to anyone that is on the Left of Bill Clinton.

Who is, in relation to European politics, essentially centre to centre-right. I think that was Lucy's point.

23 July, 2006 19:13  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home