How many people, facing medical emergencies, may have died from the latest victim stunt, pulled by Hamas, in which the international media willingly colluded? As Bob Owens writes at Pajama's:
The recent blackout in Gaza was reported dutifully around the globe with Israel’s responsibility for the lights-out nearly always leading the story. The fact that it was Hamas that cut off electricity to Gaza City and then staged the candlelight protests against it was no secret — yet the U.S. media stuck to the Hamas-driven narrative...And how many thoughtless do-gooders will write a cheque, or lend their voice, to organizations enabling Palestinian fascism because they are shocked to "learn", from the Boston Globe, that Israel isn't providing half a ton of flour per person per day?
Or how many people fell for this apparent Palestinian media stunt that Wretchard and Richard Landes are revisiting?
Anyone remember green helmet guy, or the al-durah affair?
After the victimary left and the unelected promoters of "international law" and transnational bureaucacy, have successfully eroded the Western nation-state as the actor primarily responsible for mediating international conflicts and wars, will we have less or more violence? If you hope that systems of democratic accountability can help erode our addiction to victims, should one want more or fewer Israels, more or fewer groups like Hamas?
We might try to strike up a sane debate. But with whom? If you hate Jews, no lie is too evil, and the mainstream media reports them.
6 comments:
The worst thing about having a bad memory is that the bad memories are the ones I remember. I remember, for example, the young woman standing on the sidewalk listening to me say that Israel is a great place. It should have been one of our prouder days, the day we stood out and protested against hundreds of Death Hippies having a hate-fest inside the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver, Canada.
I can still replay the scenes in my mind as we talked to and listened to the Death hippies who, as one did, took on the role of Jesus, claiming she is responsible for the sins of America, if not all of Mankind, because of the Vietnam War. The stunning vanity of the woman is nothing compared to the mindlessness of the girl who said in response to my adulation of Israel: "That's not what my friends tell me."
There are smart people in this world, and there are stupid people; but I find to my utter dismay and to my horror, that there are fucking retards who live and mingle among us. There are people so stupid and so malignant and so creepy that nothing gets through to them but violence and drugs and other ugly-minded people to pump them up. Retards is all I can use to describe them. Our intelligentsia, often pure scum to the ground and below, and the retards I meet lap up the filth with an appetite. I can hardly remain calm in the presence of retards, but I am truly angry at those who whip the retards into frenzies of harm against the innocent. There is no excuse, and if there were it would make no difference to me when it came time to mete out just revenge on them.
Yes, there is a price and a reckoning. It's not just a game we play for our own amusement. regardless of how much fun it might be to live this life of daring and adventure. It's a serious game, and the price one pays for losing is dramatic. For turning retards into killers the price is vast and eternal.
Unlike our Death Hippie opponents, most of us have the soul to know retribution rightly. But it'll come regardless, even if we must act in ways that might now shock us.
This cannot continue, this evil twisting of the minds of retards, one of whom I could have gladly choked the life out of this very evening. A retard is a retard, hardly responsible for anything. So those who play the retards are the ones who will have to pay for this. And pay they will. It ain't for free.
Well, I think we all will pay, not just the retards, and that's why it's so maddening. What are you going to do, hunt down every gnostic, fire all the teachers? Then the righteoustards will only dig in. Nope the best we can hope for is a great unveiling: show (don't tell) them what they are, and maybe just maybe if we do it with enough love and discipline and unquestionable truth showing, enough will get it and get out of the fantasy. No doubt many will have to have a taste of the barbarian alternative first, but the thing about that is that it is irrational in its chosen victims.
To find a way to change someone else, first think about how you'd like someone to go about changing you for the better, if you had false beliefs that were hurting both you and others around you.
We act on our beliefs, so to change actions we need to find ways to change beliefs.
Nobody enjoys being proven wrong, no matter how much we may later realize we have benefitted from the correction. We need to keep that in mind whenever we try to shift people in their beliefs. Leave some room for people to retain their dignity... because that's the least we would hope for for ourselves, when we realize that we hold false beliefs, and work to make amends.
Also, again basing a strategy of changing others upon what would work in changing ourselves, we should expect a long-term, step-by-step, degree by degree shift, and not a sudden Road-To-Damascus transformation, as the more probable of results. Maybe instead of talking about "changing" what people believe, we should treat it more fully as "shifting" what people believe.
It's not that everyone is identical; what works on me might not work on someone else. But if we don't even understand ourselves, or don't try to be honest in how we ourselves think, we don't really have a hope in shifting how other people who disagree with us might think.
In thinking about the two years we've been meeting and arguing about the world we live in, the one change I've noticed most in myself is a greater desire to be honest with myself, about what outcome it is that I really want, and What Works and what doesn’t, in bringing it to light.
I see now too well the ugly truth that I used to do what I did and say what I said just in order to feel good about myself… bringing short-term satisfaction that I was “fighting the good fight”, but at what cost to long-term victory? I don’t think I was acting in a way likely to change people who disagree with me.
Now I try to focus on the long-term, and what actions might be more likely, honestly, to bring about long-term change for the better.
I've shared anecdote after anecdote at the meetings, from talking to the anti-american anti-semites that I have to deal with, that the more anti-american and anti-semitic someone is, the more miserable and unhappy in general they tend to be, usually bereft of anything even approaching a sense of self-deprecating humor. Is their misery springing from a resistance to self-examination and self-judgment, an avoidance of testing their most deeply held beliefs in the laboratory of experience that exists around them? Is that why there’s such hostility towards beliefs founded upon expectations of self-discipline, self-sacrifice and self-betterment?
If we think they are wrong for believing what they believe, we must avoid acting as they act, because their beliefs and their actions are poisonous to them, and would likely be poisonous to us as well were we to drink from their cup of self-denial in pursuit to self-satisfaction.
If we are to get them to question their beliefs, and change for the better, we must be able to question our own, no matter where the truth may lead. Maybe then they’d follow our example.
What seems to be suggested is that we should "blend and redirect," which physically works well, since our human forms cannot be willed away.
To use such tact in debate of wills, one must have a strong sense of what can not be negotiated. In blending of wills one can find themselves redirected. Which if the commitment is to truth, and the redirection is to that same end, then no harm is done. But if one blends with liars and becomes a liar then the process has undermined the goal. Such has happened with "multiculturism." It was hoped that peace could be found through blending, but then any truth that suggested distinction was sacrificed. Such truth should have acted as a fulcrum toward enlightenment.
Assuming the role of that obstinate fulcrum can continue to "unbalance" those that should be re-grounded in the reality of individualism.
Yes, even though TP thinks Aiki a dangerous philosophy, I've been reviewing some previous readings.
Maccus,
Just the other day I was thinking maybe I should sign up for some classes. Writing isn't going to make be safe on our increasingly scary streets!
Post a Comment