Sonia's will to power.
A recent exchange with our friend and yours:
In your post you ape Michele Malkin in criticizing Cameron Diaz for wearing a shoulder bag bearing a red star and a Maoist slogan while visiting Peru. As you and Michelle's flying monkey Allahpundit both note, Peruvians suffered under the Maoist guerrilla insurgency for many years. But by the logic displayed in your response indicates that if this organization the U.S. Department of State has added to it's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" had succeeded in it's "Revolution," and for that matter if Israel ignored the lessons of WWII and successfully carried out a genocide against the Palestinian people, you'd be perfectly fine with that.
You note that human beings are "stinking cowards." You say they always, "attack and criticize the weak." But isn't your thinking here really the attack on the weak?
Ahenobarbus,This was in response to my question, "I often wonder what the reaction would be if the Palestinian people start wearing the crescent moon on armbands and black and white striped pajamas around their little ghetto/concentration camps." I hate to be an askhole here, but what exactly are you endorsing?
You really want to know ? If this actually happened, all criticism of Israel would stop. Human beings are stinking cowards. They always attack and criticize the weak, while only respecting the strong. The Israelis are condemned because they DIDN'T exterminate the Palestinians. If they had, nobody would dare to critize [sic] Israel. People would be too scared. But because the Israelis are seen as weak, everybody is condemning them.
It has ALWAYS been like that. Everybody respected Hitler until he lost the war. Only then, he became the symbol of all evil. If he had won the war, EVERYBODY would become an anti-semite.
In your post you ape Michele Malkin in criticizing Cameron Diaz for wearing a shoulder bag bearing a red star and a Maoist slogan while visiting Peru. As you and Michelle's flying monkey Allahpundit both note, Peruvians suffered under the Maoist guerrilla insurgency for many years. But by the logic displayed in your response indicates that if this organization the U.S. Department of State has added to it's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" had succeeded in it's "Revolution," and for that matter if Israel ignored the lessons of WWII and successfully carried out a genocide against the Palestinian people, you'd be perfectly fine with that.
You note that human beings are "stinking cowards." You say they always, "attack and criticize the weak." But isn't your thinking here really the attack on the weak?
"But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust. 'Might makes right,' and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies." Adin Ballou - Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important Bearings, Illustrated and Defended, 1846
Labels: Camron Diaz, Nietzsche
I find it hard to take her seriously with all those exhibitionist self-portraits scattered throughout her blog.
Posted by
Agi |
June 25, 2007 at 10:28 PM
But by the logic displayed in your response indicates that if (Shining Path) had succeeded (...) and (...) if Israel (...) successfully carried out a genocide against the Palestinian people, you'd be perfectly fine with that.
I never said that 'I would be perfectly fine with that'. Don't put words in my mouth.
You note that human beings are "stinking cowards." You say they always, "attack and criticize the weak." But isn't your thinking here really the attack on the weak?
Yes, it is an attack on the weak, but it isn't 'my thinking'. It's EVERYBODY'S thinking. And that's what disgusts me.
Let me give you examples:
1. I was always against Saddam and wanted anybody (US, Lucifer, Satan, I don't care) to invade and depose him. When Bush finally decided to invade, the world's reaction was 'you cannot do it', 'Saddam is the legal ruler', huge demonstrations, 'illegal invasion', 'sovereign rights' etc. etc. But once Saddam lost, suddenly EVERYBODY agreed he was a monster, that he committed atrocities and genocide. People started their denounciation of Bush by clearing their throats with 'I am against Saddam, but...'. Suddenly everybody remembered that US helped Saddam in the 1980's.
My point here isn't the defence of Saddam. Just that this magical transformation occured for ONE REASON ONLY - Saddam lost the war.
2. Trotsky. Before he lost the power struggle in 1927 - a 'great revolutionary hero' to leftists and 'smart dangerous Bolshevik' to rightists. After - 'traitor' and 'fascist' to the leftists, and 'pathetic looser' to the rightists. Same ideology, same man.
3. Ochoa. Before being purged by Castro on trumped-up charges - 'hero of the Cuban revolution'. After - 'drug dealer'...
4. Hitler. Too obvious to describe.
5. Battista. Rarely or never denounced in the leftist press in the 1950's. Castro overthrows him in 1959 and bingo, 'the greatest oppressor of Cuban people in history'...
6. The Shah. Shortly before the Iranian revolution, the shah visited all the Communist countries. He was hailed as a great statesman in the right-wing Western press AND in the Communist press as well. After the revolution - suddenly EVERYBODY remembers he was installed in 1953 by the CIA, suddenly everybody remembers the SAVAK, the lack of democracy, etc.
7. Ceauşescu. Before 1989 - 'the only Communist leader brave enough to challenge Moscow's supemacy' (according to Western right-wingers), 'pure and uncompromising socialist' (according to leftists). After 1989 - 'butcher of Romania, the vampire, the monster' (according to everybody)...
I could go on, but you get my point...
Comandante Agi,
I find it hard to take her seriously with all those exhibitionist self-portraits scattered throughout her blog.
That's precisely the point. I don't want to be 'taken seriously' by people who get offended by pornography.
Posted by
sonia |
June 26, 2007 at 6:02 AM
Last thing first, I don't think Agi has a problem so much with pornography as he has with other aspects of your persona. I'm mean, if did have a problem why would he frequent this little out of the way saloon? I'll leave that up to him to answer.
Secondly, it's not everyone’s thinking. I'm glad you think it's disgusting, but your examples rot--especially the Saddam one. Most everybody agreed he wasn't the best sort of fellow, but just because he was didn't justify invasion. There was no magical transformation; there were a whole lot of people waking up to the truth coming from what you, Beakerkin and the rest classify as dirty hippie communists.
The truth was there all along, but when you jump on the band wagon(like believing we have a right to go around knocking down Dictators instead of allowing Democracy to arise from within)you'll be lead astray every time.
Posted by
Ahenobarbus |
June 26, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Sonia: I should clarify my initial brief comment. It's that I had a hard time taking your argument - not you the person - seriously.
I've seen your comments around Graeme's blog and think you have an interesting perspective to offer on various topics. From your blog I assumed you to be a libertarian, easy-going person. So reading your seemingly pro-genocide will-to-power comments really clashed with my initial assumption of your character. I didn’t think you could seriously be arguing that crime is justified as long as the criminal goes all the way with the crime and is never caught.
Now that you’ve clarified your statements with examples (Trotsky immediately came to my mind) I think we’re on the same page. And to second Ahenobarbus, I’m in no way offended by pornography. After all, that’s what the internet was made for…
Ahenobarbus: No dice on that translation. It’s Portuguese, not Spanish. But – I dropped it into babelfish and it basically says “I got this video from someone else and it is number one in my top ten list of videos”.
Posted by
Agi |
June 27, 2007 at 4:50 PM