The basic idea has stuck with me as I have seen the rise of the radical left and the end of civil discussion. Once we have abandoned debate,(and let's face it, we have), we choke off any reason to find a common ground. What the documentary offers is that genocides happen because the people have dehumanized the "other" so completely as to make killing them not only a necessary evil but a righteous endeavor. Wholesale murder does not happen by the instigators but by the very people that were neighbors and friends.
Now we have this from the Social Justice Warrior, Millennial/Gen Z crowd:
And this:
Petulance, and self-loathing externalized to hate the very free market social systems that support their destructive lifestyles and the community that nourished it. This is the kind of evil you cannot debate or reason with. This is the kind of group think you cannot talk down off the ledge. Moreover, this brand of crazy will become only more loud with an "R" headed toward the White House.
Hitler telegraphed his intentions very well when he wrote Mein Kampf. He told the world exactly what National Socialism would look like. Today we have a much bigger format than print with social media. Listen to these people now. They are telling you everything you need to know about where they are going. The question I have is where do you think these people will be in another five years? Ten years? I'm doubting we have that long.
It is going to be a very long and hot summer.
8 comments:
As people succumb to theories of collective guilt and denigrate personal responsibility, it becomes not only inevitable that the moral courage to resist participating will be sapped, but that the 'final solution' to intractable social problems will seem justified. Logically, the idea that individual human lives have innate value despite posing obstacles to the aims of the majority of society must depend on the premise of free will being real and significant. If you look at someone as being guilty or innocent based on their ancestry rather than their own actions, then free will cannot matter all that much.
And without that rational barrier to murdering someone simply because of their collective identity rather than their personal choices and actions, the concept of 'humanity' becomes confined to those it is convenient for you to recognize thus. We already in this country accept, even if not all of us positively celebrate, the deaths of millions every year for no crime of their own, simply because their lives are inconvenient. The bulk of these millions are innocent babies, but increasingly our 'ethicists' justify similar treatment for others who are not deemed 'useful to society'.
There are limits to what we can do to oppose such evil. Many of the murders of which I speak occur in China under the authority of a government that is well-armed enough to ensure stopping them by force would cost more lives than it saved, at least in the short term. The limits of moral suasion become apparent very quickly when we're talking about the CCP. We might take longer to find the limits of such persuasion when dealing with our own national culture and government, but they most assuredly exist and you encounter them quickly enough if you seriously try.
In the end, all we can do is commit to hold people, including ourselves, personally accountable for individual actions. This commitment, like the actions flowing from it, is also individual and personal.
In the end, we cannot trust in a select group of political leaders (who have invariably failed in the past) to protect vulnerable, disarmed people. This sad delusion is, more than anything else, the status quo which ensures that genocide will remain a viable option for those seeking to consolidate power and eliminate opposition.
It is sad that, after so much reflection, the presenters of this cannot bring themselves to even mention the possibility of arming people to allow them to deter genocide against themselves. Or even worse, the idea simply cannot enter their minds. "Worse than War", it is titled, but apparently they mean only war waged by surgical airstrikes and followed up with covert assassinations.
People participate in genocide and other war crimes because they believe that "just following orders" will be a defense, and the 'solutions' which hold only the top leadership responsible can do nothing but strengthen this vital component of each tragedy. Conversely, those about to participate in mass slaughter will be inclined to consider the full weight of their choice when the potential victims are armed sufficiently to fight back, even though outnumbered, in a way that makes it possible that the attackers will suffer real casualties even if they prevail. It is then that the potential attacker pauses and asks whether this is something that he personally is willing to risk dying over.
Sometimes that answer is "yes". Sometimes it even should be "yes".
But by simply having those doing the actual killing ask themselves if it is worth risking dying themselves, we take away the power of political leaders to wipe out innocent populations.
If a population adopts a mindset given them by their "leaders" to take away others rights, jail their opposition or murder them outright because their "leaders" told them to, they will do it. TheONLY solution is to remove those leaders, of course, so that the malleable populations dont have a central steering mindset to guide them, and the threat of genocide is nearly removed entirely. The fact that people just simply dont understand that, is well mindboggling, the fact that the survivalists and opposition just dont get it is testament to their failure to actually understand history, human psycology, communist ideology, demonstrated historical genocides and the "leaders" who made them happen. If you cant understand it, you cant fight it and remove the threat, or the likelyhood they will be successful at taking your life.
Sign Me, Neal Jensen
Excellent comments above. Please post them on websites frequented by the slow witted and politically poisoned. Be "Stan" when possible!
The problem I have is with appealing to ever more powerful leaders to eliminate the leaders that a sufficiently corrupted by power to resort to genocide.
If armed people want to take out a bad leader, that's fine with me, I'd like to do that myself sometime. But disarmed people always hoping that giving a few ever more elite leaders far more power will get rid of the bad leaders without becoming worse leaders...it's insanity.
I noticed a couple of genocides that were conspicuously absent from that documentary. Not because they were too small, but because the leaders who committed them were too powerful for external intervention to be a meaningful possibility. Okay, I mentioned a couple of those myself already, but I didn't mention all that I noticed.
Not that I've figured out any practical way to arm babies in the womb...or a billion Chinese, for that matter.
Where they'll be 5 - 10 years from now? Probably in the ground, and maybe sooner. They seem to be the only group with no conscience, sense of responsibility or even guilt. It's always "Whitey's fault" they're in the predicament they're in. I guess it was Whitey who made the Hutus massacre all those Tutsis, eh? Lincoln was right, we should've shipped them all back to Africa when he took office.
-MM
Too bad that Mike is totally Anti-Trump, I think he could learn a thing or two from the guy. I used to be a big fan of this blog, but the Anti-Trump messages have driven me away. Good luck to you.
Thanks for the video posts. I'm obviously the "normative colonialist patriarch" they are coming to get some reparations from. Would you like that at 2750fps, or Rwanda-style neighborly love?
Ms. Barnhardt is correct in her assessment of the quantity of supplies needed for the coming festivities.
pdxr13
Post a Comment