Egoism
Individualism
Sovereignty
Splendor

(These ideas are explicated in this sloppy manifesto)

 
Cain's world: Shocking and awe-inspiring to whom?

Billy Beck at Two--Four.net:

They are simply not grasping the fact that this is not about tonnage, or body counts, or any of the rest of the the concepts of war that they kept prior to the integration of information technology to weapons. They do not understand that the principle thing about it is that "shock and awe" will occur in the minds of military adversaries precisely because they are the ones at whom it is aimed: exclusively. The thing that's "shock[ing]" about it is that it can be that selective, as well as more ferocious than ever before. It implies the dawning realization in the mind of a military adversary that he can be segregated for destruction -- remotely.

posted by Greg Swann at 8:56 PM

 
The regime-change will be televised...

This is me, writing on December 15, 2002:

There are even cooler weapons than the ones discussed here, but the weaponry is not the news of the coming war. The news is: Television. This war will be quick, so Americans can watch it on television without getting bored. This war will be very hi-tech, so Americans can watch it on television with astounded delight. This war will be very precise and stunningly effective, so Americans can watch it on television without attending to the complaints of the inevitable protesters. And this war will be virtually bloodless, on our side, so that Americans can watch it on television without a second thought.

These are not virtues, or not wholly undiluted virtures, but they do betray the extent to which the Bush administration understands television in a way that neither Clinton nor anyone of the left ever has. The regime change will be televised. And the ratings will be huge...

For more of what I foretell for this war, see me feel me touch me here:

War with Iraq:
The Cain Doctrine:
1. The 'wrest' of the story
2. Taking a better grip
3. Why the Bush Doctrine will prevail--and fail
4. A Just and Libertarian war...

If you pluck a porcupine quill by quill, what you have, when you've taken away every possible objection, is a distraught but defenseless rodent. For the anti-war demonstrators, for France, newly admitted into the Third World, for the Koreans and the Chinese: Welcome to the New World Order. You got played, and you didn't even know what game was afoot. This is realpolitic, not principle, but it was beautifully planned and masterfully executed. The whole world is safer tonight and for now and perhaps for decades or even centuries to come. And the trickster's best trick of all is this: They still think the man is dumb...
posted by Greg Swann at 10:49 PM

 
"You are now actually watching REALITY TV"

So says John Venlet at Improved Clinch. Cathy planned to work from home today. Instead she's watching the war on TV. I was just at the airport, threading through the clumps of people crowded around every television set. This is the war I expected, a huge televised spectacle. Most impressive.
posted by Greg Swann at 1:19 PM

 
"Something unlike anything the world has ever seen"

Now?
posted by Greg Swann at 10:12 AM

 
A truly illibertarian political philosophy

In a separate post, John Kennedy offers this:

Suppose you go to take your car back from the gang-banger and he says "Over my dead body". And suppose means it.

Are you morally entitled to take it back over his dead body, or are you morally obliged to prefer his thieving life to the productive part of your own life that you traded for the car?

I say the former. Taking back your property on those terms is not immoral domination, he is in the wrong to stand between you and your property.

We all should be boundlessly grateful that Libertarians are 100% violent in their rhetoric and 0% violent in real life. If they actually behaved as they pretend they behave, they would be a real problem. Luckily for us, John kills nothing bigger than fat Connecticut mosquitoes.

The answer to the question is obvious, though. People who kill people present a much greater peril to their neighbors than people who steal cars. The car will be replaced by the insurance company. The life cannot be replaced. Never. Not even in John's fervid imagination. There are much better arguments against killing--I address them in fiction in A canticle for Kathleen Sullivan--but from the point of view of the polity, a person who behaves as John Kennedy imagines himself behaving is a far greater threat to the peace than is a car thief.

How lucky for us that John doesn't really behave that way.

How sad for him that he pretends he does.
posted by Greg Swann at 8:21 AM

 
A truly libertarian political philosophy

John Kennedy at no-treason.com says:

Greg Swann Often Confuses The Hell Out Of Me

It's because he's not paying attention.

He quotes me as saying, "Any human social contact that is not mutually-consensual is necessarily criminal." Then he says:

This seems to me to be a very odd thing for Swann to say, considering how enthusiastic he is about this war.

But of course I am not 'enthusiastic' about this war, I am aware of the still-worse consequences of evading this war. I am not 'enthusiastic' about surgery or dentistry, either.

In an email to John from February 19th, quoted on my weblog, I said:

I have the advantage of being opposed to force where all libertarians favor it--in retribution. But this war is not about retribution. It is about prophylaxis. The only just use of force is the emergency response, where to fail to respond would result in greater harm. This situation qualifies, although I lack confidence that the war will end there.

The fact is, I knew John would knee-jerk to the war and to separation in time. I thought about cutting off those paths in advance, but he's not paying attention anyway.

John says:

The kind of domination Swann describes is in no way essential to the defense agencies described by David Friedman

This is false. A Friedmanical Free-Market Mafia would have to invade the property and coerce the bodies of people it suspects--after the immediate fact--of causing injury. The essential component of Statist domination--coercion of the sovereign human being--is likewise the essential component of Friedmania. David Friedman hears 'monopoly on force' and thinks the problem is 'monopoly'.

John continues:

I have little doubt that there will always be some market for domination, but won't there also be a market for the legitimate value of securing one's rights?

Yet again: "No one volunteers to be pushed around against his will." And: "There can be no such thing as the just domination of one person by another."

Can peaceful dispute resolution be a legitimate market value? Surely. Desperately needed.

Can forceful dispute resolution be a legitimate market value? Obviously not.

OBVIOUSLY not. John does not address my argument at all, issuing knee-jerk, emotional rejoinders instead. This is not new to me. All of political philosophy--and each of its extant exponents--exists to justify, rationalize and reify savagery, to excuse coercive violence even though the proponents know in advance that their prescriptions violate the inalterable identity of human beings. I don't care about this. All of my arguments--all of which are readily available on the internet--proceed from the identity of human beings. To argue against them is to argue contrary to readily discernible fact. John doesn't have to tell me that he wants to lock up his neighbor. He has to tell me how he--or David Friedman--can "legitimately" lock up the neighbor, but the neighbor cannot "legitimately" lock him up. Facts are ugly things. But fantasies are uglier.

This is from email I sent on March 1. John was copied on that mail, as it turns out. It's extracted from my book Janio at a Point, which outlines outlines a truly libertarian political philosophy. John might not be paying attention, but it may be you are.

So, my view is that the intelligent thing to do, the thing one ought to do, is to react to crime in this way: respond to crime in kind as it is happening, if you choose. And respond to it after the fact by seeking redress through the courts, by seeking restitution for such real injuries as you sustain. In general, I would argue against responding violently even while a crime is happening. For one thing, any incidental damage you cause is your responsibility. For another, you could get badly hurt.

As I said before, I advocate noncoercive means of settling judicial claims. The reason for this is, even though you have been injured, this does not give you the right to initiate injuries. If I punch you in the nose and you beat me to death with a ball bat, I have committed a small crime. But you have committed a much larger crime. The first blow was self-defense. Everything after that was new injury, initiated by you. In the same way, if I swipe your purse, to forcibly recover it, you would have to force you way into my home and compel my person. Your purse is yours, and you have every right to recover it. But my house is not yours, nor is my body. The injuries you inflict upon things that are not your property are Crimes.

Now, why would we want to do things this way? As a matter of rectitude, as an ought chosen in the best service of the full needs of the ego. Your life is not your life at this instant, but your whole life, remembered, lived now, and anticipated. If by your actions now, you imperil your future, you are not acting in the best interests of your spirit. A system of noncoercive Justice best serves your need to preserve your soul - outside of the emergency situation.

You can respond to tiny injuries with massive retaliation. But you cannot reasonably expect to escape the consequences, still more massive retaliation. In this way, unjust responses to crime are contra-utilitarian; your life is more threatened afterward than before. Likewise, unjust "justice" is invalid. It is incorrect with respect to the actual nature of the object considered; it presumes that self-control can somehow be negated or transferred. But what is compelling is this: criminal "justice" is unrighteous. In the long run, reasoning by the Madnesses that have driven government destroys your capacity to achieve true Justice. If you wonder how a monster like Hitler could send millions of innocent people to their graves, your answer is here. When someone begins to argue that people innocent of any wrong-doing "ought" to be punished for potential injuries to imaginary victims, he is walking the same road...

I left one little escape hatch in there, and it's time to close it up. I said: "outside of the emergency situation". What is an emergency, and why does it deserve special consideration? An emergency is a circumstance where, if something is not done right now, serious and irreparable damage will result. An example is a mugging in progress. Ordinarily, I could not intervene in someone else's defense without that person's consent. He has the right to control his life however he chooses, and I have no right to impose my oughts on him. But if I see a mugging happening, I know that if I do not act at once an injury beyond robbery may eventuate. In that sort of circumstance, I can temporarily act outside the bounds of a contract, because to fail to do so would result in a worse injury. I am not morally bound to do it, and I should take care to assure that I am not interrupting a free if perverse trade. But I am within my rights to act that way, in a genuine emergency.

In the same way, if I am out boating with a friend and a storm whips up, I may have to take actions that normally would be unjust. If my friend becomes crazed by the thunder and proceeds to try to saw holes in the hull, I have every right to restrain him by any means, up to and including throwing him overboard. Ordinarily, that would be murder. But in the emergency situation, if I fail to take the actions necessary to defend myself at that point in time, then I have failed in my self defense. Do you see? Outside the context of the emergency, I could sue my friend (some friend!) for the damage done to my boat. But because we are at sea in a storm, if I don't act to restrain him at once, I won't live to see the inside of a courtroom.

There is a lot more to this, so, in preference to issuing a lot of sputtering but-but-buts, if you're interested you might just go ahead and read the book.
posted by Greg Swann at 7:16 AM

 
SplendorQuest: A little touch of Harry in the night...

WESTMORELAND:
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING HENRY V:
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honor,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honor
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

--William Shakespeare, King Henry V, Act IV, Scene III
posted by Greg Swann at 9:58 AM

 
If human beings are sovereign, forceful dispute resolution is necessarily criminal

At no-treason.com, dada-esque contributor John Sabotta has posted an article that is cogent and readable, features no cartoons or references to bad movies or worse novels, and, in a complete reversal of form, is actually topical. And reversing the trend for the entire forum, it is pertinent to significant contemporary events: the left's reaction to the War on Islam. This may be a counter-coup against John Kennedy, who on Tuesday posted an extended passage from the world's most tedious unillustrated comic book. lewrockwell.com my ass!

But: today Kennedy raises a serious issue, for which he deserves a serious response. He says:

It seems clear to me that the securing of rights is a legitimate value that individuals would seek in a free market, in the absence of state monopoly.

The term "securing of rights" is vague. What John actually means is forceful dispute resolution, which is something that nearly everyone wants when it's his ox that's gored, and that virtually no one wants when it's the other guy's. Among the many problems with what I called the Friedmaniacal Rothbardified idea of free-market mafias is the fact that no one would consent to his own violation. If human beings are sovereign, then all non-criminal human social contact must be mutually-consensual. Any human social contact that is not mutually-consensual is necessarily criminal. If you are detained by Janet Reno, by Vito Corleone, or by David Friedman dressed up as Janet Reno or Vito Corleone, you are equally aggressed against. To say otherwise is to miss completely the essence or crime. If human beings are sovereign, forceful dispute resolution is necessarily criminal.

Quoted below is me from Meet the Third Thing. The essay is long, and the underlying argument is made more fully in Janio at a Point. Even though this extract is fairly short, I want to highlight two sentences from it, so the point is not lost:

No one volunteers to be pushed around against his will.

and

There can be no such thing as the just domination of one person by another.

With that, to the text:

How can we dominate people without claiming that "might makes right"?

It's a good question. A noble question. And the people who have striven to answer it have been, for the most part, proud and noble people. The answers they've come up with have been demented, of course, but that's unavoidable: the question is demented.

When the gang-banger invites you to stand on the curb while he drives away in your car, "might makes right" is his only justification. And when the cop invites you to grab your ankles so he can search your rectum for contraband, "might makes right" is his only justification. No one volunteers to be pushed around against his will. "Volunteers against his will" is a meaningless construct. And "dominate without 'might makes right'" is also a meaningless construct.

The question the political philosophers don't ask is: how can we elicit the cooperation of people? They don't ask it because the answer is obvious; we all know how to elicit cooperation. The problem, they say, is: what about people who will not cooperate?

Well, what about them? We're not asking whether or not one has the right to retaliate--respond "like for like"--to injury. We're asking whether or not you have the right or power or capacity to dominate me, to break me like you'd break your horse to saddle. If you don't, then we must either find a way to cooperate or part company. But if you do, then we are not the same kind of thing, we are as unlike as you and your horse, and "might makes right" is the only philosophical justification for your actions.

This is vital: one person cannot dominate another without deploying superior martial prowess, superior weaponry, or both. To dominate means to rule by force. There is no other way to rule, and there is no justification for ruling by force except force, "might makes right". The Third Thing is the means by which philosophical proto-savages attempt to convince themselves that brutality-for-a-cause is in some meaningful way distinct from ordinary random brutality.

The Third Thing is the thing that stands between the political philosopher and his own recognition that he has not renounced savagery, he has merely rationalized it.

The Third Thing is the things that, you say, joins the two of us when you claim that you are right to do to me what you would insist would be wrong for me to do right back to you. If you can arrest me but I can't arrest you, there must be some distinction between us, something that makes us not equal, and that distinction is the Third Thing. If you can imprison me but I can't imprison you, there must be some distinction between us, something that makes us not equal, and that distinction is the Third Thing. If you can punish me--for my own good, to teach me a lesson--but I can't punish you, there must be some distinction between us, something that makes us not equal, and that distinction is the Third Thing.

In order for you to claim any justification for your domination of me, you must insist that there is some distinction between us, some right or power or capacity that makes you super-human and renders me sub-human. This distinguishing property, whatever it is, is the Third Thing.

And, whatever it is, it is imaginary. It does not exist. We are equal. You are what I am and I am what you are. We are equally human, the same kind of thing, and there is no basis in evidence for claiming that we are in some way distinct.

And where the savage says, "I am distinct from you because I have a weapon in my hand," the political philosopher insists, "I am distinct from you because I have nothing in my hand, nothing but an unreadable book and a sacred amulet."

The Third Thing does not exist. And because it does not exist, there is no defensible creed of the domination of one person by another. You can try to dominate me, but you cannot argue that you are justified in trying to dominate me. There can be no such thing as the just domination of one person by another.

Friedman is a Utilitarian. Rothbard, when he wasn't kissing up to Statists, was a Utilitarian. The fundamental basis of an Egoistic Anarchist civilization is the recognition that each human being is Sovereign. Any form of dispute resolution in such a civilization must be either unanimously mutually-consensual, or it must not engage in any sort of involuntary human social contact.

The common retorts against this argument are based in Smiting-the-Wicked (Statism/Theism/etc.) or in Convenience (Utilitarianism). These do not matter at all. What we are talking about is what human beings are, actually, factually, indisputably.

If human beings are sovereign, forceful dispute resolution is necessarily criminal.

And if human beings are not sovereign, then all questions of philosophy are moot.

Again:

No one volunteers to be pushed around against his will.

and

There can be no such thing as the just domination of one person by another.

This is what we are, as much as we might want to be otherwise.
posted by Greg Swann at 8:57 AM

 
Stooping to conquer



Odysseus got a new collar today, along with this ID tag. The flag is serendipity; I thought I was buying black. But it's a truly happy accident, since this dog's name is no accident. Odysseus is named for the trickster, the man who fought by his wits, the man who taught the West to make war in Cain's way, not Abel's. Where honored tradition had assailed and failed for ten years, rational guile won the war in one night. Godspeed and the spirit of the Bloodhound to the men and women who will fight that way tonight.
posted by Greg Swann at 2:38 PM

 
BurqaLib: Coming to grips with the first diversity in "Vaginabad"

After the premiere performance of The Vainga Monologues in Islamabad, Pakistan, the Toronto Globe and Mail quotes an audience member as saying:

"Having these Pakistani women talking about vibrators--that's what it's all about."

It may turn out that there is a little more to it than that. Nevetheless, there is nothing submissive or collective about an orgasm. If the sisters are doing it for themselves, they are not doing it for the workers, for the state or for Allah.
posted by Greg Swann at 12:36 PM

 
Celebrating the Mafia at lewrockwell.com

Craig Russell aids lewrockwell.com in its quest for complete irrelevance by celebrating organized crime. The demurrer would be that Russell is praising The Godfather as a work of art, but what he admires in the film is purely fantastic--the masturbatory indulgence of a fantasy world:

Unlike the State, the Don is not corrupt--violent, yes, but not corrupt. While he buys politicians, he himself cannot be bought. Our indoctrination, however, tells us that, since he uses violence, he is therefore an evil man. But he is not. He's just a man who has refused to yield to the State, among other things, its desired monopoly on violence, which is the cornerstone of the State's power.

The state is the state because it is the organized criminality of superior fire-power in a particular locale. This doesn't make lesser criminals less criminal. To celebrate crime because it is simultaneously defiant of the greater criminality is nevertheless to celebrate crime. The Friedmaniacal Rothbardified idea of free-market mafias is bad enough. To rejoice in the exploits of the real Mafia--the amazingly violent, utterly corrupt, unrelently criminal Mafia--because it sometimes snubs your enemies--that is a practical referrent for the idea of obscenity.

Do you doubt this? Reread the paragraph quoted above, substituting the name of Osama bin Laden for the references to Don Corleone.

There is a name for people who worship their despoilers. Russell might look it up when he's done jerking off.
posted by Greg Swann at 12:00 PM

 
SplendorQuest: Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers



Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein's martial masterpiece, is a fine read for what may very well be The Day, the first day of the War on Islam. Heinlein wrote this book after the Korean War, and the enemy arachnids are a not-very-subtle cipher for the vast hordes of the Chinese infantry. The book has incited no end of controversy because of the very Prussian moral philosophy it espouses. In response to that I offer these two caveats:

First, Heinlein was a novelist before everything. His goal was to explore the gestalt of his stories in every detail. Was he a Prussian 'fascist' here, in 1959, and somehow an anarcho-capitalist six years later, when he wrote The Moon is a Harsh Mistress? Or was he simply a great storyteller playing with great big ideas?

Second, what Heinlein was actually doing in this book was making an extended homage to Rudyard Kipling's The 'eathen, which is quoted in full below.

Avoid the Paul Verhoeven film version. It's a hokey teen-warriors-in-space movie; not entirely awful, but completely beside the point of the book. You're much better off reading the book itself while watching the real war on TV.
posted by Greg Swann at 10:56 AM

 
The 'eathen

by Rudyard Kipling

The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone;
'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own;
'E keeps 'is side-arms awful: 'e leaves 'em all about,
An' then comes up the regiment an' pokes the 'eathen out.

    All along o' dirtiness, all along o' mess,
    All along o' doin' things rather-more-or-less,
    All along of abby-nay, kul, an' hazar-ho,*
    Mind you keep your rifle an' yourself jus' so!

The young recruit is 'aughty--'e draf's from Gawd knows where;
They bid 'im show 'is stockin's an' lay 'is mattress square;
'E calls it bloomin' nonsense--'e doesn't know no more--
An' then up comes 'is Company an' kicks 'im round the floor!

The young recruit is 'ammered--'e takes it very 'ard;
'E 'angs 'is 'ead an' mutters--'e sulks about the yard;
'E talks o' "cruel tyrants" 'e'll swing for by-an'-by,
An' the others 'ears an' mocks 'im, an' the boy goes orf to cry.

The young recruit is silly--'e thinks o' suicide;
'E's lost 'is gutter-devil; 'e 'asn't got 'is pride;
But day by day they kicks 'im, which 'elps 'im on a bit,
Till 'e finds 'isself one mornin' with a full an' proper kit.

    Gettin' clear o' dirtiness, gettin' done with mess,
    Gettin' shut o' doin' things rather-more-or-less;
    Not so fond of abby-nay, kul, nor hazar-ho,
    Learns to keep 'is rifle an' 'isself jus' so!

The young recruit is 'appy--'e throws a chest to suit;
You see 'im grow mustaches; you 'ear 'im slap 'is boot;
'E learns to drop the "bloodies" from every word 'e slings,
An' 'e shows an 'ealthy brisket when 'e strips for bars an' rings.

The cruel-tyrant-sergeants they watch 'im 'arf a year;
They watch 'im with 'is comrades, they watch 'im with 'is beer;
They watch 'im with the women at the regimental dance,
And the cruel-tyrant-sergeants send 'is name along for "Lance".

An' now 'e's 'arf o' nothin', an' all a private yet,
'Is room they up an' rags 'im to see what they will get;
They rags 'im low an' cunnin', each dirty trick they can,
But 'e learns to sweat 'is temper an' 'e learns to sweat 'is man.

An', last, a Colour-Sergeant, as such to be obeyed,
'E schools 'is men at cricket, 'e tells 'em on parade;
They sees 'em quick an' 'andy, uncommon set an' smart,
An' so 'e talks to orficers which 'ave the Core at 'eart.

'E learns to do 'is watchin' without it showin' plain;
'E learns to save a dummy, an' shove 'im straight again;
'E learns to check a ranker that's buyin' leave to shirk;
An' 'e learns to make men like 'im so they'll learn to like their work.

An' when it comes to marchin' he'll see their socks are right,
An' when it comes to action 'e shows 'em 'ow to sight;
'E knows their ways of thinkin' and just what's in their mind;
'E knows when they are takin' on an' when they've fell be'ind.

'E knows each talkin' corpril that leads a squad astray;
'E feels 'is innards 'eavin', 'is bowels givin' way;
'E sees the blue-white faces all tryin' 'ard to grin,
An' 'e stands an' waits an' suffers till it's time to cap 'em in.

An' now the hugly bullets come peckin' through the dust,
An' no one wants to face 'em, but every beggar must;
So, like a man in irons which isn't glad to go,
They moves 'em off by companies uncommon stiff an' slow.

Of all 'is five years' schoolin' they don't remember much
Excep' the not retreatin', the step an' keepin' touch.
It looks like teachin' wasted when they duck an' spread an' 'op,
But if 'e 'adn't learned 'em they'd be all about the shop!

An' now it's "'Oo goes backward?" an' now it's "'Oo comes on?"
And now it's "Get the doolies," an' now the captain's gone;
An' now it's bloody murder, but all the while they 'ear
'Is voice, the same as barrick drill, a-shepherdin' the rear.

'E's just as sick as they are, 'is 'eart is like to split,
But 'e works 'em, works 'em, works 'em till he feels 'em take the bit;
The rest is 'oldin' steady till the watchful bugles play,
An' 'e lifts 'em, lifts 'em, lifts 'em through the charge that wins the day!

    The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone;
    'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own;
    The 'eathen in 'is blindness must end where 'e began,
    But the backbone of the Army is the non-commissioned man!

    Keep away from dirtiness--keep away from mess.
    Don't get into doin' things rather-more-or-less!
    Let's ha' done with abby-nay, kul, an' hazar-ho;
    Mind you keep your rifle an' yourself jus' so!

_____________
*abby-nay: Not now. kul: Tomorrow. hazar-ho: Wait a bit.
posted by Greg Swann at 10:32 AM

 
Cain's world: What are we fighting for?

Islam-the-religion is no threat to the West, no more than Hinduism-the-religion or Zoroastrianism-the-religion. But Islam-the-compulsory-universal-theocracy must be contained. Now, while it still can be contained. Here is why.
posted by Greg Swann at 9:44 AM

 
Cain's world: Shock and awe--from here to China...

Take note of this from London's Daily Telegraph:

British military sources confirmed yesterday that 10 per cent of all major buildings in Iraq are possible targets.

Ten percent of all major buildings. It's a decimation worthy of Marcus Licinius Crassus! A few days ago I wrote:

The United States intends to demonstrate in the demolition of Iraq that it can do more damage with conventional weapons than any potential enemies can do with the nukes they don't dare use. Visualize every dam in China crumbling all at the same instant. The Chinese will, when they see the mushroom cloud of dust over Baghdad.

I think I am dead right about The Cain Doctrine, and so, here, on the very Eve of Destruction, I commend you to it:

War with Iraq:
The Cain Doctrine:
1. The 'wrest' of the story
2. Taking a better grip
3. Why the Bush Doctrine will prevail--and fail
4. A Just and Libertarian war...

If I am right, the Bush administration is poised the make the world a safer place for centuries. Not necessarily more free, mind you, but amazingly less perilous.
posted by Greg Swann at 9:47 PM

 
The lingering stench of the Clinton administration...

Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, as quoted in the Boston Globe:

What has happened to the Bill of Rights? What has happened to due process?

I think we should ask Vicky Weaver. Or Elian Gonzales. Or the Branch Davidians. The ones Janet Reno failed to slaughter, that is.
posted by Greg Swann at 9:22 PM

 
Cain's world: What are we fighting for?

From the Times of London:

"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food."

Not enough?

“Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped."

Then there's this:

Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?

It's a good question...
posted by Greg Swann at 7:18 PM

 
"It's not the people, it's the idea. The idea makes the people great, as great as they want to be."

This is me, from The Unfallen:

"Here's the secret. My grandfather knew this old black Dominican who had a cigar shop on Harrison Avenue. You could buy tobacco in the leaf there, Havana-seed tobacco from Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. But you could buy smuggled Havana leaf, too, if you proved you could be trusted. So my grandfather, a life-long anti-Communist, a dyed-in-the-woolen-underwear American patriot, defied the Cuban embargo so he could continue to roll his own Havana cigars. He never let me smoke one, because my mom would have killed him. But he taught me how to roll them, and I can still do it."

He was smiling everywhere, just beaming. She said, "You loved him very much, didn't you?" She regretted it at once.

Sadness dropped down on him like a curtain. "I miss him every day. Every day. Any time I need to see him, I can, though. I can see him laughing. Just wild and innocent and sweetly crude and gently rude and completely free in the shadows of the late-afternoon sun. Laughing from his throat like rocks in a barrel, laughing around a fat hand-made Cuban cigar...

"He used to take me with him, every Sunday, once I got to be about Hunter's age. All week long he was a businessman. Not a big businessman, but quick and shrewd and clear-sighted and very decisive. On Sunday he was just a sweet old Greek with a push cart. Always had time to chat with old friends and new ones. More often than not it was my job to move the merchandise, because he was having too much fun just being out in the world. We didn't need the money, it was just something he did. Something we did.

"We worked the Bicentennial together, and I'm glad we did because he... He died that winter. I was sixteen and too proud and then some, and it seemed like all spring and summer of 1976 he was rapping me on the back of the head and telling me not to be a horse's ass. We'd go to Breed's Hill or the Common or the Old North Church and all these ugly people in ugly summer clothes would show up and honor America by throwing tonic cans and gum wrappers at it. It offended me, particularly because my grandpa was the real glory of America and these corn-fed idiots just treated him like dirt.

"We worked The Esplanade on Independence Day that year, very big history-making day. Six-hundred-thousand drunken morons and The Boston Pops. And tall ships. And fireworks. We couldn't push the cart, it was too crowded, so we just stayed where we were, selling stuff hand over fist. But I was in the blackest mood I've ever been in.

"My grandfather was the American dream, every page of that story. My father was a Captain in the U.S. Navy. I was a teenage physics god who was really going places. And these fat stupid beery people were treating my grandfather like an organ grinder and me like his monkey.

"There's only so much you can say when a boy's almost a man, right? My grandpa pursed his lips and let me stew. We shut everything down when The Pops started the 1812 and he pulled me tight to him. I was maybe four inches taller than him by then, but it didn't matter, because he'll always be bigger than me. It was loud, loud, loud and I knew he was trying to say something to me but I couldn't hear him, I could just see the tears rolling down his cheeks.

"He grabbed me by the hair and pulled my ear down to his mouth. He said, 'It's not the people, it's the idea. The idea makes the people great, as great as they want to be.' And right then the cannons went off and the fireworks went off and the sky over the Charles was enflamed. And we stood there together crying, him for his America, and me for him..."

posted by Greg Swann at 10:38 PM

 
In Defense of Fort McHenry

by Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

posted by Greg Swann at 10:36 PM

 
Islam watch: Pipsqueaks of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains!

What happens when student newspaper reporters grow up? Apparently, they get jobs with the Arabic News:

It is time to kick the USA out of the UN Security Council for starters, or out of the United Nations if need be.

Who could disagree with something so sensible?
posted by Greg Swann at 9:31 PM

SplendorQuests