The UN Through the Looking Glass: it's getting curiouser and curiouser
It's a wonderful world, full of magical events.
Like this one, for example (via Dr. Zin at Regime Change Iran):
The U.N. Commission on Disarmament elevated Iran to a leadership post - despite the terrorist regime's dogged pursuit of nuclear capabilities and defiance of its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran on the Disarmament Commission; it's rather like naming a member of the Ku Klux Klan to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights....
Speaking from its new perch of authority, Iran demanded that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and open all of its nuclear sites to international inspection. Such demands are considered statesmanship by a nation whose leader has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map."
For those who would rather watch train wrecks than tightrope artists, the United Nations may just be the greatest show on earth....Simply put, too many (quite possibly most) U.N. members put a much higher priority on America-bashing and anti-Semitism than on such U.N. ideals as disarmament, fighting hunger or advancing human rights.
Yes, the inmates are running the asylum, the fox is in charge of the hen house, the barn door is being shut after the horse has left (except, as far as I can see, it's not being shut at all)--and, as with Alice, we can only marvel, not only at my mixed metaphors and clichés, but at the wonder of it all:
"At any rate I'll never go there again!" said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. "It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!"
Just as she said this, she noticed that one of the trees had a door leading right into it. "That's very curious!" she thought. "But everything's curious today."
Everything's curious today. It does seem as though the upside-down quality that Alice politely referred to as "curious" has become more prominent in world--and especially UN--affairs lately.
Although maybe it was always that way.
posted by neo-neocon @ 12:46 PM
44 comments
44 Comments:
Humans are curious animals. And like all animals, facing up to the alpha male requires either subservience, envy, or building a coalition of back stabbers to seize power.
One of the best tools of the enemies of the US is the UN. The fake diplomats that keep saying keep the UN enemy closer, aren't that competent in stabbing the UN in the back while avoiding getting stabbed in the back. Byzantine politics is not for the delusional nor the over-confident. Well, maybe for the delusional, but must have competency to go with the delusions.
The socialization of human thought reminds me a bit of the Kondratieff Wave (economic cycles with a wavelength of ~50 years). We seem to be entering the trough of a cycle of human thinking. Consider the peak of this wave the Enlightenment/ Industrial Revolution. Followed by a plateau through most of the 19th Century. The tipping point of this curve began with Marxism and the other Dystopioid constructs. Today we have anti-rational, hypomoral Leftists in multicontinental distribution, Jihadists, platitudinous pacifists, Greens. They strike me as sharing bizarre, pathological thought processes. These groups are not reflexly scorned; the are given hearing, visibility and tolerance.
We are probably facing a very long, dark, and stormy time. Our plane is in a dive and if we pull it up the wings will likely come off.
Cheers!
this won't go down well but I do not get the point of this post. And i certainly don't know what tomtom is on about.
Surely the nature of a United Nations is that all nations are involved? Even the ones you think are lunatic. And iran is making a case for that name at the moment.
It has to be admitted that there is hypocrisy in the attitudes to who should have nuclear weapons. Why Pakistan ok but Iran bad? Pakistan is just as likely to have a dictatorship go mad and use them, against India say?
Surely by involving nations in the UN we have some chance of influencing what goes on. The UN has many obvious faults but I would argue that it is still better than abandoning any notion of international law or regulation.
It is an easy target, but what would the neo-con approach replace it with?
Yes, the higher the quantity -- the more vulgar the quality. A new United Nations should be re-built and include only those states that espouse the end-all qualities of a liberal democracy. But who will judge who is and who is not? Also, we should focus more on accounting for and defusing weapons of mass destruction. But someone needs to administer this, who? The natural choice is the nation with the greatest power and tradition of liberal democratic values. The world needs a Sheriff, and the more Sheriffs the better – as long as they are all dedicated to human freedom and liberty. ...And who is to be the judge of this? I just finished Robert Kagan’s, “of Power and Paradise” and loved the analogy of America as the Sheriff, World Terror as the Outlaws, and Europe as the Saloon Keeper; the Saloon Keeper has an interest in appeasement – because the Outlaws, for the moment, may only want to have a seat and a drink. The Sheriff shooting up the saloon pretty much leaves the Sheriff [and neutrals] the Saloon Keepers only customers.
We seem to be entering the trough of a cycle of human thinking.
Though not evident, maybe we are witnessing [or being force to repeat with Islam] the beginnings of an Islamic Reformation and subsequent Islamic Enlightenment. Can this process be hastened to a lightening pace? I know it's silly. It's the residual optimist in me. :)
How the dark-side of U.N. has developed reminds me of the American University, ha Stars Wars analogies. Professors are exchanging intellectual freedom in “teaching how to think independently” for “think like I think” – ah it probably boils down to some thing like what Ymarsakar said, “either subservience, envy, or building a coalition of back stabbers to seize power.” Professors are seizing power [they say because they feel pushed into a corner] through united schemer campaigns against counter-revolutionary Administrators, though denial of hiring, promotion, or tenure of counter-revolutionary colleagues, and simply squashing counter-revolutionary students.
Oh, check out this link: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=counter-revolutionary and tell if anything looks odd here?
Okay, Mr. Chatterbox will hush up now. }:\
nyomythus
the world is alot more complex than a cowboy film. America are not the "Sheriffs" and we, europe, are interested in more than money.....honest
neither is it star wars :-)
David, I never said that movies describe the complexity of the world. Analogies are nut shells of the novel – I’m not writing a book here. Of course the world is more complex than an analogy of a movie.
Though not evident, maybe we are witnessing [or being force to repeat with Islam] the beginnings of an Islamic Reformation and subsequent Islamic Enlightenment. Can this process be hastened to a lightening pace? I know it's silly. It's the residual optimist in me. :)
Possibly. I'd wager it would involve large numbers of thermonuclear devices.
Why Pakistan ok but Iran bad?
It’s not that Pakistan is OK but that there’s less that can be done once the rascals have the nukes, short of all out war. For now we’ll have to hope Musharraf avoids assassination. For just this reason Saddam was toppled before he could reconstitute his WMD program. By the way, Pakistan’s nuking up was a complete surprise to the CIA, which was too busy trying to make policy instead of finding out what folks are up to, which is their real job. Iran’s nuclear escapades should be nipped in the bud; they won’t but they should be, it would save a lot of (mainly Moslem)lives later.
Pakistan is just as likely to have a dictatorship go mad and use them, against India say?
Iran regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel & for years has sponsored terrorists that kill Americans. Pakistan does not daily call for the annihilation of India & doesn’t sponsor any terrorism against America that they’re willing to brag about. And Musharraf doesn’t impress me as being fanatical while the Iranian players are off the scale. If anti-warriors were cops they would say: Why prosecute Capone when Bugs Moran is still on the loose?
I think there's a basic misunderstanding from the European perspective and the American perspective. Meaning, Americans see things politically through the constitution. the europeans see things through their parliamentary lens.
this means, there are some different things. details later, gtg.
Well, that seems to be the typical liberal thing.
"I don't see why giving evil people weapons and not containing them is bad - after all what is evil and who has the right to declare it?"
...
Evil people attack liberals, kill many of them.
...
"Save us, save us Evil people are killing us" (suddenly "evil" is pretty clear even to them, though just as suddenly after being saved "evil" again becomes something intangable - especially when the bad stuff is happening to someone else).
...
"You guys are evil warmongers, you caused all this, we will go back to Enlightenment". (of course, the irony of that thought process is lost on the leftist)
Repeat the above steps over and over and over, sometimes even with a decade.
If it didn't effect me I would much rather skip the whole part where we go, fight, and die to save thier asses.
Oh, I remember that, that story about how Bush swooped in on a hang glider, kicked open the planes windshield, took the helm and flew the first plane into the 1st World Trade Center, miraculously parachuting out, kicking open the windshield to the 2nd plane and flying it into the 2nd building – and at this, it was all just so damned amazing to be believable. I mean it wasn’t even funny.
The warmonger is hypergenocidal [if I may] radical Islam. Liberal democracies, namely the USA, are the purveyors of human liberty. It’s a gift hold it close to your heart.
David
uh-huh, all nations can belong to the UN, even the lunatic ones;
And, at present, the lunatics are running the asylum.
P.S. Well, just as you Europeans aren't all intersted in money (though some, like Galloway, do give that impression), we Americans don't all think like cowboys. Even the cowboys don't necessarily think like "cowboys" (at lesat, the way you seem to mean it---hot-headed jerks, who just want to go out and conquer the world, and exploit poor, brown-skinned third-world peoples.
It's really about time you dropped that.
By the way---can you explain what the UN has done right lately, or why it's a good idea to have third world despots calling the shots for the rest of the world?
David, it would be great if you would drop the tired stereotypes, please. It was bad enough when you were reciting the "neo-cons are all racists" and "I'll bet you've never met a Muslim" lines. But now, you've trotted out the cowboys!
Only a European could possibly believe that there is anything new, useful, or even remotely interesting about pointing out to U.S. citizens that we aren't cowboys. Have you ever been here??
A new United Nations should be re-built and include only those states that espouse the end-all qualities of a liberal democracy
So that is China, Russia and Saudi Arabia out. Who do you actually think you would have in this organisation and what use would it be?
The UN is not brilliant. But the only other option of a brutal power struggle between all. Safer to have some kind of rules, however problematic that may be.
Blogger seems to be having some difficulties today. I'm commenting here as a test, to see whether it goes through.
Hmmm--it seems that the comments will indeed post if you click on "post a comment" and go ahead and write something. But they don't actually show up on the main page, and the comments count doesn't increase there. You can only read new comments if you click on "post a comment."
I also can't seem to publish a regular post right now, and neither can many others who are on Blogger. My guess is, if past experience is any guide, it will be fixed some time later today.
> Why Pakistan ok but Iran bad?
> It’s not that Pakistan is OK but that there’s less that can be done once the rascals have the nukes, short of all out war. ...[snip]... By the way, Pakistan’s nuking up was a complete surprise to the CIA, which was too busy trying to make policy instead of finding out what folks are up to, which is their real job.
Actually, we noodged the Pakis into the nuclear club for a reason that intertwines into history and stable power politics.
Q: How did CHINA get nukes in the early, despite being technologically about as bass-ackward as any major nation could be, and despite killing of huge numbers of scientists during their interminable cultural purges?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
A: The French GAVE them nukes.
Now, the question you must ask is: WHY?
A: The Cuban Missle Crisis scared the bejabbers out of most of the world (quite correctly, mind you). We were pretty damned close to discovering how effectively man could screw things up.
The problem lies in the two-power system -- it's not poltically all that stable.
However, anyone with an understanding of history can tell you that triumvirates are often VERY stable -- If one of the three legs gets too powerful, then the other two join forces and cut it off at the waist.
This was observed back in Roman times, with the triumvirate between Pompey, Crassus and Julius (aka "Caesar"). As long as all three lived, the power-sharing was fairly equal, and no one overreached. When Crassus died, it was Pompey vs. Julius, with the result you know -- Julius ruling all.
The Founding Fathers knew all this, and that is why the US Federal Government has three branches -- to spread power into three different areas so as to limit any one of them from reaching for the purple.
This can also be recognized in the USSR, which, for all its other flaws, did have a triumvirate which worked to limit and control the concentration of power -- Its triumvirate was the Army, The Politburo, and the KGB. After Stalin died, it functioned quite well to keep anyone from gaining the kind of power Stalin had.
As writer James P. Hogan put it:
When Stalin died in 1953, observers concluded that Beria, the feared head of the predecessor of the KGB, would take command. He possessed files on every senior Party official and general that would have enabled him to put any one of them before a firing squad. But it was this very power which destroyed him. The Party and the Army, understanding their joint predicament, executed the chief executioner and eliminated the heads of his security apparatus. But this released one of the leashes around the Army's neck. Marshal Zhukov, the legendary commander of WWII fame, began acquiring extraordinary powers at home and abroad, and demanded the removal of all political commissars from the Army's units -- to shake off the leash remaining. The Party and the newly formed KGB promptly closed ranks, Zhukov was dismissed, and the military machine drastically pruned. This extended the Party leg of the tripod to an alarming degreee, and in response, the impossible happened, when the two mortal enemies, the Army and the KGB, united to bring down the Party's head, Khruschev, who fell almost without a sound.
So: The above said -- Adding China to the list of nuclear powers essentially created a tripod of major nuclear powers, The USA, the USSR, and the PRC. Despite the communist nature of both the PRC and USSR, the long-standing enmity between the USSR and the PRC had re-established itself.
What this meant was that, if any two of the powers went to war, the one that kept out of it would be the "winner" -- as it would clearly have far more power than the remnants of the other two.
Now that era is past, but, going into the 90s, you had another two-power contention looming between India and its historical enemy the PRC. So, I believe the Amnerican geopolitical experts just did the same thing with Pakistan that had been done with China 30 years before. Between the PRC, India, and Pakistan you now have a three-way standoff.
As far as the claim that the Intel people were surprised, that seems specious at best, since we were the ones that gave the Pakis the tech in the first place that let them become a nuclear power.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Though not evident, maybe we are witnessing [or being force to repeat with Islam] the beginnings of an Islamic Reformation and subsequent Islamic Enlightenment. Can this process be hastened to a lightening pace? I know it's silly. It's the residual optimist in me. :)
Quantam said... "Possibly. I'd wager it would involve large numbers of thermonuclear devices."
I'm on the left side of the neo-conservative wing by even jesting that Islam can muster up a Reformation. Q: This revolution worked in Christendom because Christianity is fundamentally socially progressive, and the Enlightenment is the secularization and broadening of the same ethics? I’d wager that the answer is somewhere in the “yes” zone.
... and so the lesson would appear to be; if you want to avoid the US Marines crashing through your front door first thing in the morning, buy an atom bomb.
Click to find how Israel and South Africa got theirs.
And who is next? There is going to be a rush
Oh and this should be fun for ymar and the kung fu elves bomb damage calculator
Oh and while we are at it why is christianity fundamentlly socially progressive?. A fairly cursory examination of history will show you that at the time of the 'Dark Ages' when Christians were illiterate and violent, Islamic Culture was maintaining a hold on the learning of the ancient world and adding to it. Look here or if it want to be really depressed here
sorry my html is getting sloppy
South Africa
for ymar and the kung fu elves bomb damage calculator
The only kung fu elves are people who go into people's houses and slap the owner, then the owner slaps back, back and forth until you get someone in a coma.
That's the Kung Fu incompetent elves of Brit land.
Theodore bad
Read the link if you don't believe me.
christianity fundamentlly socially progressive? …that’s why I termed it as a question, something for discussion not something as a definitive conclusion, because certainly Christianity was enormously progressive in perspective to the abject barbarity of the 1st century. The hope it gave humanity was an incredible turning point.
The idea of American Revolution didn’t immediately end slavery … but in time [and the blood of free men] it did, and we are a better society today for doing so. Sometimes a great truth or idea takes time to triumph over long held institutions or ideologies. In time [and minimal agony] I hope your chains fall to the ground.
And this is all, times up, I’m not feeding the birds anymore.
By the way---can you explain what the UN has done right lately, or why it's a good idea to have third world despots calling the shots for the rest of the world?
I think david believes the UN has dones its job of making the US accountable to the brown people of the world, therefore justifying its existence. This is of course, not anti-American, and proof that david loves Americans... of course. And you can believe as much of that as you desire.
I'm not a cowboy, personally. I think more like an assassin. Moral considerations are important, since if you killed everyone, then you'd either be out of a job or they will hire another assassin to get you. Since America is the most powerful nation, that would require a coalition of assassins to get us, but still, it'd be annoying even if their chance for success is low. Assassins have to be careful and methodical, they have to apply decisive force at the right time, and not go in and start a fight without prior planning which prevents piss poor performance. Assassins are quite conservative, they don't usually try out new gadgets in the field, before testing them quite well in training. Rather embarassing to shoot an arrow into a target, and have the poison not work as advertised.
Assassins will run, to fight another day, and the most important thing to an assassin is their own welfare as well as their family's. It gets personal if you target an assassin's family.
Nick's triumverate comments are an interesting perspective. You don't see much of that, in the form of original or historical thinking, out of david here for some reason.
Because Europe can't elect their leaders directly, meaning their PMs, by vote, they have this assumption that it is the same in America. Meaning, that if President Bush gets elected, that means his party is defacto in power. More often it is the party of the opposite persuasion in Congress, compared to the Presidency. This works because the President is elected independently of the Republican or Democrat party. The idea that the leader of a nation should be elected based upon his "leadership traits" and personal charisma instead of the strength of his "party", is something most Europeans are unfamiliar with.
So when they see an American President acting independently, meaning not paying attention to the "advice" of the Euros, they see that as cowboyish behavior. Their leaders and PMs can't act contrary to their party's wishes without problems, if they did, they would face what Tony Blair faced, intense pressure. Only Blair's charisma and the power of Labour prevented Blair's removal. Bush can act against the Republican party leadership, and not get ousted, because Bush's power derives from the American people, not the elites in Washington. This means, that the idea of international leadership to the Euros, is based upon party agreement and "deals". "Deals" as in the "deal" Europe tried to offer as a bribe to the Iranians. This is the "deal" Europeans are dependent upon and rely upon for their existence. The "deal" that Euros would get the dole in return for voting socialist. The "deal" that Euros would benefit from American bases while sucking their own military dry for social programs.
The United Nations is favored by Blair, and not by Clinton, because it is not about the political persuasion of our leaders but the political system differences that sets America and Europe apart. Blair believes in working together, because he has not the power to do things by himself. He would not have gained power as Prime Minister, on a "loner" mentality. Thus the brits would seek to impose the same limitations on America, that they themselves see as natural. But the fact is that the United States is not as limited as Europe is, in terms of leadership.
David sees the UN much as he sees his own government. If his own government doesn't work together and make deals, then it collapses into powerless anarchy, sorta like France. David thinks the UN is a necessary evil in these terms. You have to work with all nations, because his leaders must work with all the MPs to do anything.
The United States is not your country david, and what works (or does not work) for you, david, does not apply whatsoever to the US.
The parochialism of Europeans are exceeded only by their scorn of the lack of cosmopolitanism of Americans.
Actually, we noodged the Pakis into the nuclear club for a reason that intertwines into history and stable power politics.
As far as the claim that the Intel people were surprised, that seems specious at best, since we were the ones that gave the Pakis the tech in the first place that let them become a nuclear power.
Anti-American Meme #1 = The US is the cause of all the world’s ills.
Is there an undesirable international situation developing? Is there any anxiety-provoking & grim fact to be pondered? Good, good, time to trot out weird anti-American theories. I’m not sure exactly what “noodged” means but I very much fear it is synonymous with ‘caused.’ For these far-out folk America acts as a magnet for blame. Anything blameworthy attaches to their America-phobia like steel filings & their powers of rationalization are sometimes impressive, in a goofy sort of way. If you want a definition of goofy you might want to Google James P. Hogan, the author Nick B. chooses to quote. Yikes!
... and so the lesson would appear to be; if you want to avoid the US Marines crashing through your front door first thing in the morning, buy an atom bomb.
Going nuclear is probably a sure-fire way of preventing Marines crashing through doors but maybe not a very good guarantee of eventually not getting a MIRV through your roof, if you are a fanatical Islamic state that sponsors terrorism(is there one that hasn’t?).
And who is next? There is going to be a rush
Libya might be next. After the Afghan War Qadaffi stopped his program but once he sees he can get away with it … The Saudis will want it, Egypt, the Turks. Bin Laden, or someone like bin Laden will eventually end up with a nuke. Adios, one(or more) American city; hello, smoking ruins in various places throughout the nuclear Middle East.
There's nothing wrong with James Hogan, and Nick makes some good points. If you'd stop with the anti-warrior rhetoric, you'd see some of that, perhaps, grackle.
David, quit hyperventilating, stop burbling about American Cowboys breaking down the door and Kung Fu Elves (or even Kung Fu Pixies, or Leprachauns) and listen to reason a moment.
1. Christianity, and Judaism, unlike Hinduism or pre-Christian pagan beliefs, posit a belief in a G-d who dwells outside of nature, who judges men, and who shows Himself in historical events. He is also a G-d of reason, who created nature and set down certain rules for it, i.e., gravity, the passage of time, etc.
So, those from a Judeo/Christian background do tend to think in a more linear way than, say, Pagans (who tend to see everything in terms of constant ebb and flux, a never-ending circle)and Moslems, who believe that Allah is bound by no rules whatsoever, and that, basically, anything at all can happen. Therefore, Judeo-Christianity is, by its very nature, more linear, because it believes things can be reasoned out, history has meaning, and we are all going somewhere.
And, please, the Dark Ages were not as dark as Socialists love to paint them, and the Christian world had outstripped the Islamic, Asian world in many ways by the 18th Century. I know Arabia-philes love to go on and on about Islam's "Golden Age"; in actuality, I suspect it was less golden than it's made out to be. And, anyhow, modern civilization has surpassed it.
2. Once again---the UN does not prevent conflicts. It cannot stop brutality. It couldn't stop it in the Balkans. It can't stop it in Dafur. (By the way, I've heard that it asked the US back in February to lend it a hand in Dafur; if any American Kung-Fu Cowboy Pixies start breaking down doors in the future, they might be acting for the UN!)
Can you name anything the UN has done lately? Any lives it's saved? Any conflicts it's prevented? Maybe we should trust other nations to protect themselves against brutality, rather than shoving them into the corrupt arms of the UN! For all you socialists claim to love and respect the common man, you show little respect for his judgment, or intelligence! You want to force individuals into collectivist states, and you want to force free nations into being bossed about by corrupt, world government entities, such as the UN!
And no, I'm sorry, but we Cowboy Americans don't want to become the "Cops of the World", enforcing the UN's decrees across the face of the earth---because, face it, that's exactly how it would work out if we were stupid enough to let it rule us! "Oh, you Americans are so powerful! Go and pacify Dafur for us, please, and then you can go help the Shah of Butwhackistan in his holy war against the evil Christian/Animists who are rising up against him! And then you can go invade Israel, to punish it for killing some Palestinian terrorists."
Thanks, but no thanks. We should have learned our lesson when the UN suckered us in Korea, and the Balkans, but noooooo. . .
The UN can't prevent country's being brutal to each other; brutality rages unabated. Meanwhile, the Saudis and all the Moslem nations do nothing but condemn Israel. China and Russia back them up, because they see that as a way of getting at the US.
I think most nations would be better off relying on themselves, rather than being given the false hope that the UN is going to come to their rescue. It won't. If anybody does, it will probably be the US---which will then, of course, be roundly condemned by the UN for its imperialism, even if the UN was the one who asked for our help in the first place!
The UN is as useless as the old League of Nations, but far more corrupt, and malevolent. We don't need its nonexistant protection. Past time to get rid of it.
I did google James, and if you had did what you recommended, perhaps you might talk about this. James P Hogan
If Bush would actually get rid of the UN or even move it from New York to Like Australia or something or Japan, then Bush's approval polls would go by up 10 to 20%, minimum. For a time of course.
The belief that without the UN, the world would go into war, is a Cold War mentality, and isn't beared out by history. The League of Nations did not prevent World Wars, after all.
There's nothing wrong with James Hogan, and Nick makes some good points. If you'd stop with the anti-warrior rhetoric, you'd see some of that, perhaps, grackle.
Ymarsakar, do you seriously believe that the US caused or contributed technology to Pakistan’s nuclear development? Are those the “good points” you refer to? James P. Hogan is an adherent of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo who doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened & that AIDS is caused by drugs, not a virus. He’s harmless but he’s no one to hang your view of history on. I see very well, thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Hogan_%28writer%29
I haven't studied it, so I can't say yes or no. I was refering to the triumverate. I did notice that you didn't present any evidence or arguments about the Pakistani situation though other than saying how it is like anti-warrior dislike of America or how inappropriate using the words of Hogan was.
There's a better website about Hogan, than Wiki. Wiki just claims stuff and doesn't really explain anything, unless you have the background of course, to deanalyze it.
Free-speech Hypocrisy
This week sees the disgraceful sentencing in Austria of the British Historian David Irving for disagreeing with what those in authority require that we believe. Others are imprisoned elsewhere in Europe under similar charges, by nations that crow about their upholding of free speech by publishing tasteless and insulting cartoons. Mark Weber, Director of the Institute For Historical Review in California, describes the circumstances and lists some of the victims at www.rense.com/general69/orvv.htm. What is it, exactly, that the Revisionists are saying and not saying? Professor Arthur Butz of Northwestern University--also currently the subject of considerable controversy and misunderstanding--sums it up cogently on his web site at pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/abhdhr.html.
The ritualized arrogance of the parrots that I read in the mainstream media makes me doubt if they have tried to learn anything about the subject before playing back their culturally indoctrinated opinions. Have any of them actually read any of the Revisionists' works, studied their sources, or compared objectively and critically the Revisionists' arguments with the officially dispensed story they've been told? If not, how do they presume to form any judgment that can be called informed before lecturing the world at large?
I have. In fact it was Arthur Butz's book (see Home Page from the link above) that first aroused my interest in the subject many years ago now. I got to know Mark Weber quite well during the time that I lived in California, as a result of my following up various further researches. And I find their case more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says. So I suppose that expressing such skepticism makes me a guilty party too.
In June this year I'm scheduled to visit Germany as the Guest of Honor at a science-fiction convention in Lubeck, and I have no intention of withdrawing on this kind of account. So are S.F. writers now to risk being arrested when they step off a plane, simply for looking at two bodies of evidence and reaching a conclusion other than the one demanded? Well, we'll see, won't we?
Comment Originally Posted on 21 January 2006
The Easy Life
Most people don't want truth; they want certainty. They look for answers that justify their preconceptions. Few things arouse emotions more than a comforting prejudice being threatened. Part of the reason why is captured well by Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:
"The advantages of accepting a dogma or paradigm are only too clear. One no longer has to query the foundations of one's convictions, one enjoys the many advantages of belonging to a group that enjoys political power, one can participate in the benefits that the group provides, and one can delegate questions of responsibility and accountability to the leadership. In brief, the moment one accepts a dogma, one stops being an independent scientist."
Quoted from an article expressing his skepticism of climate models. Full text at www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Climate%20models Tennekes.htm
If you don't like Libertarians against the Iraq War in Brit Land, then Hogan isn't your kind of guy.
LInk
Well it is early morning here and i should not be doing this but......
Todays prize for funniest comment
listen to reason a moment.
1. Christianity, and Judaism, unlike Hinduism or pre-Christian pagan beliefs, posit a belief in a G-d who dwells outside of nature, who judges men, and who shows Himself in historical events. He is also a G-d of reason, who created nature and set down certain rules for it, i.e., gravity, the passage of time, etc.
So, those from a Judeo/Christian background do tend to think in a more linear way than, say, Pagans (who tend to see everything in terms of constant ebb and flux, a never-ending circle)and Moslems, who believe that Allah is bound by no rules whatsoever
oh aye and wasn't hyperventilating was doing what we english call taking the piss It gets hard to argue with people who do use cowboys as a metaphor, who do refer to nonsense out of role play war games and now who do make racist assumptions about how their way of thinking is linear and rational and everyone else is basically silly.
oh yes and grackle
this is a good argument
Going nuclear is probably a sure-fire way of preventing Marines crashing through doors but maybe not a very good guarantee of eventually not getting a MIRV through your roof,
this is nonsense and nothing to do with what i, or as far as I can see anybody else has argued on here.
Anti-American Meme #1 = The US is the cause of all the world’s ills.
So why not stick to arguing and stop painting imaginary pictures of what you think other people are saying. Apart from anything else the "meme" concept as an explanation of ideas is not too cracking. Ideas are not fragmented bits but part of complex wholes.
Well it is early morning here and i should not be doing this but......
Todays prize for funniest comment
listen to reason a moment.
1. Christianity, and Judaism, unlike Hinduism or pre-Christian pagan beliefs, posit a belief in a G-d who dwells outside of nature, who judges men, and who shows Himself in historical events. He is also a G-d of reason, who created nature and set down certain rules for it, i.e., gravity, the passage of time, etc.
So, those from a Judeo/Christian background do tend to think in a more linear way than, say, Pagans (who tend to see everything in terms of constant ebb and flux, a never-ending circle)and Moslems, who believe that Allah is bound by no rules whatsoever
oh aye and wasn't hyperventilating was doing what we english call taking the piss It gets hard to argue with people who do use cowboys as a metaphor, who do refer to nonsense out of role play war games and now who do make racist assumptions about how their way of thinking is linear and rational and everyone else is basically silly.
oh yes and grackle
this is a good argument
Going nuclear is probably a sure-fire way of preventing Marines crashing through doors but maybe not a very good guarantee of eventually not getting a MIRV through your roof,
this is nonsense and nothing to do with what i, or as far as I can see anybody else has argued on here.
Anti-American Meme #1 = The US is the cause of all the world’s ills.
So why not stick to arguing and stop painting imaginary pictures of what you think other people are saying. Apart from anything else the "meme" concept as an explanation of ideas is not too cracking. Ideas are not fragmented bits but part of complex wholes.
I haven't studied it, so I can't say yes or no. I was refering to the triumverate.
I was clearly not criticizing “the triumverate,” as you call it. Did I even mention “the triumverate”? My subjects were Pakistan & James P. Hogan.
I did notice that you didn't present any evidence or arguments about the Pakistani situation though other than saying how it is like anti-warrior dislike of America or how inappropriate using the words of Hogan was.
The way I see it is I challenged an assertion(the US gave Pakistan the bomb). It’s the responsibility of the writer to offer proof of the challenged assertion.
Using a quote from an oddball like Hogan, who is not a historian, to make a historical point is asking for criticism.
There's a better website about Hogan, than Wiki. Wiki just claims stuff and doesn't really explain anything, unless you have the background of course, to deanalyze it.
One doesn’t need much of a “background” to realize Hogan is no historian. He believes the Holocaust never happened & that AIDS is caused by “pharmaceuticals.” That isn’t enough for you? That doesn’t make you suspect even a little bit that he’s a lousy historian?
Going nuclear is probably a sure-fire way of preventing Marines crashing through doors but maybe not a very good guarantee of eventually not getting a MIRV through your roof
this is nonsense and nothing to do with what i, or as far as I can see anybody else has argued on here.
You quoted my response to your comment, which I reproduce below:
and so the lesson would appear to be; if you want to avoid the US Marines crashing through your front door first thing in the morning, buy an atom bomb.
Those are your words, aren’t they? If you can’t see the connection between the two quotes there’s very little hope for you.
soprry grackle I should have been clearer
oh yes and grackle
this is a good argument
Going nuclear is probably a sure-fire way of preventing Marines crashing through doors but maybe not a very good guarantee of eventually not getting a MIRV through your roof,
was one point. The nonsense is all the meme stuff....and it is
Sorry, David, but you were, and are, hyperventilating. And you're the one who'se always bringing up the America = cowboy imagery; we're just making fun of it (we Amercian cowboys enjoy doing that kind of thing!)
Now, when you've finished hyperventillating, Taking a piss, burbling, whatever you want to call it, try offering up some reasoned arguments in support of your point of view, instead of just screaming.
who do refer to nonsense out of role play war games and now who do make racist assumptions about how their way of thinking is linear and rational and everyone else is basically silly.
The only people making kung fu fairy role playing references is, david here.
Just to get that clear.
this is nonsense and nothing to do with what i, or as far as I can see anybody else has argued on here.
The real argument is as nitty said. Once you have a nuke, there's some deterence. But there is nothng stopping us from destroying Iran once they've announced nukes, when Iran is short of actually making one. Without nukes there is no deterence. Iran is in the middle where they don't have nukes but say they will, soon, eventually. So there's a time limit option, that we can do something. Iran knows this and so they play the UN like a harp.
I was clearly not criticizing “the triumverate,” as you call it. Did I even mention “the triumverate”? My subjects were Pakistan & James P. Hogan.
Grackle.
One of the reasons why I said he had made interesting points that you had discounted. Even without Pakistan and Hogan, it would still stand. Without the triumverate, why would he use those past examples to justify something that doesn't exist? You're not arguing against his conclusions, just his evidence, yet that mandates providing your own counter-reasoning.
That doesn’t make you suspect even a little bit that he’s a lousy historian?
If you can provide any direct reasoning for why the use of Hogan's specific quotes in this instance counts as a reasoning flaw, then you should go ahead. But I'm not going to believe just because you think he is a lousy historian.
I'm not refering to the evidence a writer should provide, I'm refering to the reasoning you use to justify why you don't believe. It isn't very strong, concerning Pakistan or Hogan. Obviously you believe these things aren't true or credible, but the why of the matter is rather more mysterious.
Talkin
David doesn't seem to me to be screaming. Although he does seem to be exaggerating for effect with lines like these.
Oh and this should be fun for ymar and the kung fu elves bomb damage calculator
It must be so painful for all these genius peoples to have to live in the same world with we ignorant simpleminded linear cowboy Americans. But it DOES come in handy when you need your asses saved from anything or you just need to "borrow" enormous amounts of money for decades on end and never pay it back. That SIMPLE COWBOY LINEAR THINKING is a lot more helpful in real life than some brilliant existentialist america-hater that never washes himself sitting in a cafe blowing rings with his stinking Galouise.
If you can provide any direct reasoning for why the use of Hogan's specific quotes in this instance counts as a reasoning flaw, then you should go ahead. But I'm not going to believe just because you think he is a lousy historian.
Ymarsaker, to debunk Hogan as a historian as you would have me do I would have to buy his book(if Nick B had cited the title), read it & then write a critique which would probably be several pages long.
Ain’t gonna happen.
I’m getting old & have too many good books ahead of me awaiting perusal to be wasting my time by using several precious days debunking a crackpot. If you want to defer to Hogan as a historian, that’s your problem, not mine.
I have no idea just where Nick B got the idea that the US gave nukes to Pakistan but have a suspicion that fringe figures like Hogan, perhaps even Hogan himself, had something to do with it.
I see from the news that the UN has quietly sold off its entire, irreplaceable stamp collection and-- surprise,surprise--its against their own regulations and no one who should have signed off on the sale knows anything about it or signed any paperwork. Some of the likely culprits interviewed are having real memory problems too. "Senator, I have no specific recollection of this incident."
To judge from recent news, bloviation, obstructionism, institutionalized anti-Semitism, kleptomania and rape seem to be the UN's fortes, they're really good at dodging parking tickets too. This "Ministry of Truth" is just one big scam. And it started out with such good intentions but, then, so did the League of Nations. Wonder when they are going to start selling the toilet paper out of the restrooms, or perhaps they've already started. Hmm.
Post a Comment
<< Home