War Can Be Good. Never So Political Correctness.

War can be many things. Kepler declared, his 30 year “war on Mars”. He won: Mars followed an ellipse, not a circle.

That war can be many things, some of them good, was understood by Jesus, and Muhammad. The Qur’an advocates “Jihad”, a war-like effort. Some situations, they said, are best dealt with the sword (for the record I do not approve of using the sword against “unbelievers” as Jesus and Muhammad advocated; instead I propose to smother them with ideas).

Real war can be, not just justified, but the only solution. In particular, war against those who want war for no good reason is always justified. Turning the other cheek won’t help.

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

War Is The Essence Of Plutocracy

Dean Mitchell: “I have to disagree. The history of war shows us that there is always a vested interest in war that has nothing at all to do with justice. Justified war seems like madness to me.”

Nathan Daniel Curry: “…To turn the other cheek requires a very deep metaphysics to make any sense. The problem is why war repeats. The reason is our societal models. Patriarchy does not work. Only a triune society can intuit the complexity of human nature and hear the sense of lack that breed the myopia that leads to helpless people lashing out in cruel and pitiful ways. The truth is they are not helpless. It is the ego that preaches that doctrine.”

Hearing this argument, Florent Boyer smiled: “What about the Amazons?” Indeed, the Amazons! They really existed. Women princess warriors buried with weapons. So much for the patriarchy thing.

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

My Arrows Pierce Sexist Males

[470 BCE Greek vase representing an Amazon. Notice the pants, the skirt, the shield, and the arrows’ quiver.]

And so forth. With all due respect, all the objections above remind me of someone protesting a thunderstorm by pointing out that it damages leaves, except that smart insects can crawl and hangs below the other side. All true, indeed, but irrelevant to a family whose roof is been taken apart by a tornado.

Stopping war is not about calling Hitler “my friend”, and sending him love letters as the Mahatma Gandhi did. Stopping war is done by launching efficient systems of thoughts and mood.

The Franks shadowed the retreating Huns after helping to get them out of Orleans. A few weeks later, with the standard Roman legions headed by Aetius, and the Visigoths, the Franks crushed the Huns. 375 years later, or so, the Franks penetrated the three concentric rings that defended the Avars in Hungary, and destroyed them.

The Mongols of Genghis Khan, who descended directly from the Huns and Avars, remembered all this. So, after reaching the Adriatic in present day Croatia in the Thirteenth Century, they reminded each other that their weapons had proven of little use against the Franks (who had invented tactics the Mongols adopted). It was decided to stop the Mongol advance, and stay in the steppe.

That’s how one stops war. Through terror. Through past shock, future awe.

This master idea, that “Justified war seems like madness to us” was held by Central European Jews when confronted to Hitler. They clang to it with the intelligence of barnacles lashed by waves.

As I have observed, seconded by Hannah Arendt, that those “Jewish Councils” collaborators of Adolf Hitler. This deliberate, willing collaboration only incited the Nazis to go further. Instead, the Jewish Councils ought to have screamed bloody murder, and screamed for help from the French Republic. That would have made it easier for the French to declare war unilaterally on Hitler, without waiting for British agreement.

Those who believe there are no justifiable war, are not just mad, they are, with all due respect, the sort of people who enabled Adolf Hitler. And the like. And there are really a lot of Hitler-like leaders out there.

As I explained in the Will To Extermination, man is all about exterminating man. Complaining about war, is complaining about man. Instead of begging not to take part in war, ask what war is worth fighting, and which one to avoid.

In this light, Nathan’s eternal return of a state of war, sounds like the eternal return of man. That war repeats is not a problem. The problem is that the problems that made war the only solution, keep on repeating. Fortunately, change is in the wings. When the ocean starts rising 10 centimeters a year, and a billion people catch the fancy that they are not fishes, and would rather live somewhere else, while energy supplies get constricted, the military is going to be busy. The false debate of whether war is just in the mind, will vanish.

Especially as countries that have purchased pieces of other countries, try to impose their sovereignty.

Dean Mitchell: “I understand that position, Patrice, but the problem with Hitler was wholly contrived. Sniff out the danger when it is obviously there instead of encouraging it and there is no need for millions to die.

War is never an “only solution” except as a profiteering racket. Men go to war to act as pawns of the puppet masters.”

Patrice Ayme: Sniff out danger? Whatever, Dean, whatever. It did not happen like that. Hitler was not a the monster out of the depths, who surfaced like Godzilla, taking over the world. Quite the opposite. Hitler was the master tool of a massive conspiracy that involved Soviets, American, English, and even German overlords.

To this day, that conspiracy has not been “sniffed”. Mention it to the average Joe, and the reaction will be hostile: the notion disrupts the established order of thought.

The Devil is in the details, camping on one’s own good will, and self-admiration, is not a solution.

War is a solution, but it is rarely tried first.

The best example is France, from 1919 to 1939. France knew that the Germanoid superiority monsters, having got away with their demented crimes in World War ONE, would try again. The help of the British aristocracy (Lord Russel, Keynes are some of these famous double agents, on the intellectual side), and American plutocrats completely blocked the French Republic (Hitler got colossal financing from Henry Ford as early as 1920; while the entire government of the USA expropriated Germany before redistributing the proceeds to some of the most evil men in the USA… who found German henchmen to serve them, such as Schacht).

The French republic tried to stop Hitler and his fascist mentors for 20 years. Finally, on September 1, 1939, France gave Hitler with a 48 hours ultimatum to get out of Poland. On September 3, around 11 am, Great Britain and then France, declared war to Germany.

Yes, the Nazis were right, they did not want that world war (not yet! They were not ready). Yes, France started it. But it was a matter of survival.

Dean Mitchell: “Remove Hitler and the likelihood was that there would have been no war.”

Patrice Ayme: Once again, France tried her best. But France had in her way London, Wall Street, and even mighty German-American Jewish (!) plutocrats as the Warburgs. Yes, the Warburgs collaborated with Hitler, not, as the “Jewish Councils”, with the rat-like wishful desire of survival, but out of sheer greed for money and power.

The French secret services tried to break the Warburgs as early as 1934, while the French government tried to persuade Washington D.C. to stop the USA’s plutocrats support of Hitler. All that did was to make Washington hate Paris.

Dowd, historian at the University of Chicago and then USA ambassador in Berlin agreed 100% with the French. His best friend was Francois-Poncet, the French ambassador. Both used to amble the close by Tiergarten, the Berlin zoo, to escape Nazi eavesdropping, while fearing assassination.

Furious that Dowd could NOT get along the Nazi government, and his dire warning about those thugs, Roosevelt removed Dowd in 1937, and replace him by a pro-Nazi: Roosevelt was into helping his plutocratic class. In London Roosevelt put the outrageously pro-Nazi Kennedy as ambassador. And so on.

Hitler annexed 3 countries, invaded a fourth. Finally, Britain found its spine. At that point, France could only attack. What did the USA (plutocrats) do? Provide crucial military support to Hitler.

All of this has been occulted in official history.

But, yes, there are just wars, even if they killed 70 million, 4% of humanity. The Secession War, according to the latest, best estimates killed 3% of the USA. That, too, was a just war.

Bismarck said: ”Real philanthropy consists all too often into knowing to shed blood”. Bismarck, who was a great man in many ways, launched a lot of wars, and an empire, all quite successful, from his point of view, and yet bound to cause catastrophe because all too many Germans ended up confusing war and philanthropy. (Just as the present USA confuse plutocracy and philanthropy.)

So there is clearly a risk to overdo it. War can be an eternal return of the same, just worst: after two millennia of intense military activity, France has not recovered, by a long shot, the borders that Gallia (“Gaul”) had when the Romans started to invade it (Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Northern Italy… The natural borders, in other words, used to be in it, when the Romans were made to pay ransom to the Celts).

But then, again, when the Prussians attacked in August 1914, they committed war crimes and atrocities on a deliberate, industrial basis, as ordered from above, as soon as the first few days of the conflict. Surrendering to them, at that point was surrendering to barbarity (that was naturally the notion advocated by Lord Russell, a highest British noble, and thus a relative, spiritually speaking, of the Prussian aristocrats; the Kaiser was a descendant of Queen Victoria).

So it’s not just that “war is a continuation of politics by other means” (Carl Von Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege (On War) published posthumously in 1832). It’s not just that Bismarck’s more radical expression was correct. Let me go all the way, all the evolutionary way:

War is the continuation of life by the means of death, it’s what humans do. Forgetting this, is forgetting not just what humanity does, but what humanity is.

As I explained before, the unique position of humans as the apex creature for millions of years, has made it so. War is how man is regulated. Just as there is the law of the jungle, there is the law of man, and its name is war.

To ignore this, and switch to the “politically correct” mode, where wishful thinking is the absolute good, facetiously brings, even more war. The Nazis said so much about themselves that they were and wanted to be, “immer correct” (always correct), that they forgot the big picture.

That sea, now rising by nearly two centimeters a year in Bangladesh, means war. Those who ignore it, are collaborating with the coming war, the greatest humanity will have ever brought.

And those who want to mitigate the coming disturbance, need to be armed with the correct theory of war, instead of just making war to reality, armed with comfortably numb illusions.

Patrice Ayme’

Note On Amazons: Advanced technology, namely the bow and the horse, made women into as capable warriors as men. Women ride better than men, and they can be just as precise, if not more so. Some empires that brought the Amazon phenomenon were distinguished by multi-decadal war expeditions by their men folk (up to a documented 28 years in one case), so the women had to do everything, including procreating with alien warriors.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “War Can Be Good. Never So Political Correctness.”

  1. EugenR Says:

    The truth is painful, this is why most of the people avoid themself to confront it. The truth is; It is easier to hate then to love. Another truth is that Islam doesn’t accept the right of the individual for his personal opinion and the right to live individual human life accordingly.
    Monotheistic world view in its essence says one God one faith. Anything that is not according to this one faith is not valid and they fight against it. The difference between Islam on one hand and judaism with christianity on the other hand is that while jews and christians gave up their strife to impose their faith on others, most of the islam followers have not. They believe in absolute totality of their world view based on their  faith and find it valid to use any instrument including violence to impose their believes and way of live upon others. This is why its impossible to live in peace with Islam. Most what can be achieved is kind of cease fire in between the wars which is actually defined in their faith, and called the Jihad. The cease fire is recognased as a necessary compromise between war effort, that has to be fought all the time to enforce the islam on all the humans.

    The western civilization that adopted liberal pacifist world view after the disastrous world wars and revolutions it initiated and fought in the first halve of the 20 century, can’t understand that the faithful of Islam will not be pacified by policy of political correctness.  In contrary,  they will see it as a weakness,  and an opportunity to strike again against the unbelievers, to islamaze them. Their main target in these days is the “Christian” Europe. So the Europeans and other “Western” oriented people will have no choice, but either to fight back, and it can’t be according the morality of political correctness,  or to addopt the Islamic faith, which for the secularized Europeans can sound as a small price to pay for peace, if with it wouldn’t come the need to adopt the Islamic way of life, meaning; no alcohol, no parties, no girls exposing their face in public, not to speak about other parts of the body, etc.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Eugen for a relief from the sea of disapproval, when not outright insults from some other commenters. I lived in Islamist countries for most of my first two decades. The types of Islam I lived in had nothing to do with Wahhabism… The later, the faith of the Saudis, is a completely different religion. However, that’s what people understand by “Islam”.

  2. gmax Says:

    BTW, THANKS FOR RESISTING the terror of political corectness on this blog. And for taking the high road

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks GMax, much appreciated. It always hurt when people attribute characteristics that are the exact opposite of what one is. And it keeps the mind all too busy, fending off imbecility. Arguing that violent discrimination is what we need to defeat hateful discrimination is excusable only during war. Maybe that’s the definition of war: the pursuit of peace, or treasure, by massively violent means.

  3. Benign Says:

    Provocative pseudo-philsophical ranting of the lowest order. War is never “good.” Period. Justified at times, yes.

    Very disappointing; puerile, in fact. Totally inappropriate to the times.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Benign: The distinction between “good” and “justified” is just a matter of taste. “Justified” comes from “Just”, itself coming from the Latin “Iustum”, which was behind the notion of “Just War”.
      Shallow minds attribute the notion of “Just War” to some 16 and 17 Centuries authors.

      Those simpletons did not read the Romans, 18 centuries before, but they try to show they know stuff. In truth, Bellum Iustum had been thoroughly studied back then, and Polybius reflected that later.

      Your insults are off base. You just don’t get it, so you lash out. The distinction between “good” and “just’ is primary school: if it’s “just”, it’s good. If it’s good, it’s just.
      At this point both Hamas and Israel believe war is “just” and thus “good”.

      What’s lowest order is to insult people. An insult consists in asserting the object of contempt (here, myself) is “lowest order” and then not worth even explaining why it is so. That sure is no good.

      Hysterical belligerents of political correctness, instead of insulting theoreticians of war such as me, should ponder, as I do, why war happens. Because it’s clearly no benign that it happens (pun intended).

      My family’s history led me to study why extremely gentle and nice people get violently killed and disposed. As I see the ugly face of insults rearing again, I’m not surprised.

      Long ago, I talked extensively to racist fascists, nostalgic of Hitler and violent colonization. That was before the rise of Islam as a fascist interlocutor. They knew me well, and all they had left with was quiet rage, because their insults had long backfired. One day, to my horrified surprise, they staged an attack in my (public) place of study, and threw a bomb.

      So here you come, tell me I am “lowest order”. I recognize the mood, don’t worry, I have seen it before. And it will not prevent me to try to understand matters.

      Anyway, thanks, for the reminder. For philosophers, pseudo or not, enmity is a precious, sustainable gift. Friends, with very few exceptions, are just fake flakes.

      Once upon a time, on this site, there was a commenter commenting all the time, with immense enthusiasm, writing quasi love letters at times. Then he misunderstood my position on the mass killing in Norway by a racist fascist hyper violent lunatic murderer. The commenter went nuts, he asked me to “unsubscribe” him. I replied gently that, as the victim of a similar mass assault (yet specifically directed at me), I was not what he had decided I was, but the opposite. I never heard from him again.

      Was it worth it being gentle? Yes. As an experience on human imbecility. As for the heart, it’s mine, and all this shows that I better keep on being careful (and stay away from several characters who are all too anxious to meet with me, some of them obviously up to no good… As it’s “urgent”0
      What’s urgent is to think, and brutes are in the way.

      • EugenR Says:

        Dear Patrice. Let me add to your claim that Good and Just are different. Good is a subjective feeling of an individual, just is a social political convention.
        I remember invaiting once a friend of mine, a Pakistan Muslim to a halal dinner. We spoke about faith, etc. and then he said, “I am not a good man”. I asked him surprised a little, why so? Because in am not living according to how a Muslim should live. So I told him, obeying the religious commandments has nothing to do with being good. Good has to do with relationships between and among humans, while religious commandments is about relationships between the man and his God. He was surprised to hear it, and helped him change his mind about the morality. But unfortunately this is one case out of billion. More common view is the case of your Marocain friend, who saw Romans as occupants of Arab lands.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          My Moroccan “friend” was mostly a friend of my spouse, rather than me. They had done at least one trip overseas together, years earlier. The contact with me was fatal to the relationship. She got upset when I told her the Romans got to Morocco nine centuries before the Muslims did. The Romans called Morocco “Mauritania”. She claimed I was lying. Muslims had always been there. She got hysterical. I should have added I descended from baboons.

          Fact is people reason from the heart, not the higher parts of the brain, as witnessed by some comments on this site.

          Deep down on the site, one can find comments by committed Jihadists: I offended them so much by my answers, that they have not been back, sniff sniff… Once I sat for at least 6 months (only time that happened) on a totally NAZI comment, with plenty of links against the Jews and their evil ways. Finally I put it on the site, with a maximally ferocious rejoinder.

          My overall position is to talk to the heart, with the heart. For example, if French judges have decided to make apes of themselves, let me point it out in those terms. They don’t like banana peels? Let me prepare some of these unglorious descendants of monkeys. Similarly, the Nazis were mental retards. It’s pretty obvious that Goebbels and maybe Hitler, were physically degenerate. Himmler not only looked degenerate, but it nearly fainted when some blood got on his clothing. So he was no man of will. Goering was obviously a moral degenerate, for all to see.

          The point here was that the Nazis claimed to be superior, so how come they looked so inferior, with inferior emotions and inferior logic, and inferior knowledge?

          In my dialogue on this site with Jihadists, my position was to tell them they believe to the tooth fairy, and its name is Muhammad. Maximal offense, OK, but then what? Do they believe Allah needs help? Then ain’t Allah. In other words, if they want to fight in the gutter, dig it deeper. Provoke them out of their burrows. Make them enrage, that they show what they truly believe, 100% insults and bombs. Then we can really go heart to heart.

    • gmax Says:

      So you think just is not good? And insulting people by calling them lowest order is not puerile? Maybe you feel Patrice causes wars, like Helen of Troy?

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        ;-)! Thanks! I thought just the same, but did not present it that violently, because I thought that war was no good. Yet, it was justified. Benign had to make us the greater gift of specificity, instead of precious, but all too simple insults. Precious, because all too truthful.

  4. red Says:

    So you like the concept of jihad. 😉 too bad they all getting slaughtered. I know you said you are against it, but this article ends up reinforcing it.

    What a bunch of idiots those jihadists…they are fighting a losing battle, all the while destroying entire generations/countries. They might as well jump off the cliff of history. There were some good strains in islamc history, but the current one is screwed beyond repair. Like every other culture, they are only good/glorious when powerful/wealthy (entire society, not like Saudis lol). Wealth is often the defining factor for sheeple’s good cultural evolution.

    Anyways, it’s always a bad idea to go to war blindly.

    Gandhi was a smart dude. You can wage wars without weapons. And when you have enough weapons/power, certainly prefer this over Gandhi approach (idiotic not to). It’s faster and definitive. Pales tines should do Gandhi now, and isrl non-Gandhi (which they are).

    • EugenR Says:

      I am not so sure the jihadists… are fighting a losing battle. From their point of view they are winning. Just think about it 20 years ago Fukuyama published his End of history, chicken soup. Who would then think that a new wave of murderous ideology will wake up within few years and it will oriented from religion?
      As to good versus just, of course there are different. Good is a subjective feeling of an individual, just is a social political convention.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Very well said, Eugen. Apparently in France now, those like me who recognize they descend from baboon like ancestors will go to jail when they remind overlords that they are just the same… And that will be just. Based on fifty shades of brown.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Red: To say I like the concept of Jihad without reservation would be rather ironical in my case, as I am notoriously anti-Wahabbist, and extracted nearly 10,000 words of (generally) vicious and unjustified violence, in the Qur’an alone. They are in my “Violence In the Holy Quran” essay.

      I of course hate and disapprove violence for the sake of Abrahamic religions. Yet the most general concept of Jihad is what Kepler meant with his war on Mars, say. A huge, war like effort. Muhammad would have called the Apollo program, landing on the Moon, a Jihad, and would have approved it. Actually I think he wanted to dilute strict war (bellum, stricto sensus) into more general efforts (say treating women better in some important ways).

      As Eugen says, the Jihadists, from their point of view, are NOT losing, at least against Israel. Israel is in the process of realizing the Greater Israel. It’s very slow, because internationally, it’s not acceptable, and Shoahizing 5 million Palestinians while feeling just requires slow simmering.

      What Hamas and company are achieving at this point is a confrontation. To lose a battle allows to hope to win a war. France was better off losing the Battle of France of May-June 1940, rather than waiting for the Nazis to have piled up the force they intended to have in 1945.

      The Jihadists have closed the Tel Aviv airport, and that’s a giant victory. The rage of some of Israel’s government officials is certainly well worth the effort.

      I do NOT esteem Gandhi (although I esteem Mandela or MLK very much). He had it easy with the Brits, who had lost any ardor for Jihad. Besides befriending Hitler, he caused the partition of India in 3 pieces. Ultimately he saw the error of his ways, and courageously opposed the frantic Hindi nationalism he had himself promoted. He died from that. So the very last acts of his life were good, but too late, after much too bad.

      It’s true that Palestinians’ best strategy would be to love and embrace Israel, and the one I defend. But they would need help to do so, and the 2 states solution is in the way. Also Orthodox Jews (who do not want a secular, but Jewish state).

  5. Luke Says:

    No way a significant number of women were just as good as men as archers. The male archers in many armies (English longbowmen of late Middle Ages is a good example) routinely had permanently twisted spines from the effort drawing a militarily significant bow took. (Jennifer Lawrence in the fiction movie “The Hunger Games” used a toy bow, not even adequate for high school archery competition.)

    Take a look at Stephanie Guttman’s and Brian Mitchell’s books on women in the U.S. military to dispel these inaccuracies in your opinions.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Luke, and welcome on the comment side of this site. I attach a lot of importance to weapon systems, as perusal of this site will show (type in Patrice Ayme F35 Rafale in the Google search engine!).

      I did not claim that women were as powerful as men in archery. I just claimed they were lethal enough.

      Some African Bushmen are small. It’s curious, as men have used bows for 70,000 years in Africa (or so). Should not all Bushmen be ever bigger to hit further? No. Because, it turns out that, to kill big game with poisoned arrows, approaching at a close distance is the most important factor.

      The fact, and it’s not just historical, but now archeological, and even genetic, women warriors armed with arrows dominated the Northern Black Sea area for many centuries, and they held their own in battle, using mostly arrows, during all that time.

      In war what counts is not whether one is “as good as”, or not. What counts is lethality, and awe.

      In 1940, the French military was way superior to the Nazi military… In all ways. Yet, the Nazis smashed the French. Why? Precisely because, knowing they were way less “good”, the Nazis tried desperate strategies and tactics that neither the French nor the British had anticipated, nor even believed as they unfolded. Similarly, the French and the British, imbued by their manifest superiority, forgot to check the lethality of the worst possible cases.

      Is the U.S. military still using bows and arrows? no wonder… ;-)!

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: