HITLER AND SADDAM | 2003-05-31
An African economist I knew was often faced with proposals to build little inefficient railroads. Some of those railroads got built despite his opposition. Those who had wanted the railroads built would then ask my friend whether he thought those railroads should now be destroyed.
No, he said, with all the money already sunk into them, it would be better to keep them than to tear them up. People would then say that he was wrong to oppose building those railroads in the first place.
Any logical person can see why this conclusion was wrong.
Once something is built, you are no longer dealing with the question of whether or not to build it.
Today those who supported the war in Iraq are saying, "Would you like to have Saddam back?"
The question of whether or not one wants Saddam back is not the same as the question of whether we should have gone to war in Iraq. The fact that Saddam was a horrible man was not the reason we went to war.
There is a lot to be learned from decent people who opposed the Iraq War. There is a lot to learn from decent people who opposed America's entry into World War II. This does not mean that we want Hitler back.
But just because you don't want Hitler back doesn't mean that there was not nothing wrong with the way we got into World War II.
ANOTHER READER MAKES ME THINK | 2004-04-24
A WOL reader reminded me that the Iraqis look upon us as occupying their country.
He compared Iraq to the situation in the movie, "Red Dawn" when the Soviets were occupying America
I watched "Red Dawn.". It was Patrick Swayze's first public exposure.
I was very upset that, in the movie, they kept playing "John Brown's Body" as the Resistance Song.
That is an anti-South hate song.
I was in DC when Reagan was inaugurated, and I wrote an article in the Southern Partisan bitching
about that song being played at Reagan celebrations. Thurmond's office read my article and it
stopped at once. I am a real SOB, but I am a very effective SOB.
Back to your point.
We ARE occupying Iraq.
Even on September 11, 2001, I made it clear that I understood a lot about the Arab's point of view
LINK: September 11, 2001 - MY ARAB SYMPATHIES
If I were an Arab,
I would want the Americans out of my heartland.
So why don't we get out? Bush and Kerry agree we will be there for many years, all for the good of the Iraqis, of course.
The so-called Iraqi nation is a joke. It is cobbled-together province of the old British Empire. You know that.
Iraq is a multi-ethnic state. All multi-ethnic states end up with an authoritarian ruler to hold them together. Yugoslavia was doomed the minute Tito died. Iraq will have another Sadam or it will come apart.
America demands that Iraq be free and united. Where did this nutcase idea come from?
BEHIND EVERY SUCCESSFUL MAN... | 2005-02-19
It bothers me, though I can't tell them, that so few of the men fighting for our cause have a female anchor at the TOP LEVEL.
They've got good men, but men are theorists. A woman who cares about you takes care of things IN DEPTH, and I can see as plain as day that the "disconnects" in most organizations are the direct result of not having the right woman in the right place.
This is where my extreme disabilities have given me an understanding of something basic.
My first two books were dedicated to my now ex-wife. They could not have gotten done without her. One could make up a theory about how I was Progressive enough to understand the special place of a brilliant woman who cares.
Sorry. I thought this way long, long before Women's Liberation came up with Female Appreciation. I didn't THINK about this at all. I can't do without this kind of in-depth backing.
It goes like this
"Bob, you are WONDERFUL. I am (sincerely) very proud of you."
"Now, Bob, has X and Y been taken care of? Bob, you answered his point very well, but you didn't deal with his question."
Backup in detail. Deal with the question.
Generally, men are scatterbrained. Some are pretty good at this type of detail, but are no substitute for a woman.
Most men can get by on their own. I can't function without it.
WORDISM: NATURE'S ONE ISSUE POLITICS | nationalsalvation.net
It has been noted that most eugenicists had no children.
It has also been noted that most Secretaries of the Treasury leave household finances to their wives.
It was a revolution when Robert Ardrey revealed to the world that War Heroes were not restricted to human beings. To a reading audience that was absolutely astonished at the time, he gave example after example after example of social animals of numberless types who gave their lives for the survival of the group.
What was remarkable was how gross a violation his examples often were of the tenets of Marxism. The lowest-ranking males who were denied any offspring of their own were as likely to give their lives for the group that oppressed them as were the alphas.
No Army Ant will ever father one of its kind.
We knew that about ants, but it was a shock to find that war was not a result of a lack of Wordism in higher animals. But the reason is exactly the same. Nature gives us one purpose and one purpose only: to produce offspring, of our own or of our group, who look like us.
It was thought that birds made their noises to attract females. We have only learned during my lifetime that birds make their noises to keep other INTERBREEDABLE birds out of their territory. Females go to the one with the best territory.
In our society a sterile billionaire will do exactly the same thing: he will give his money to his form of Wordism. He could have left it for white orphans as he did before, but now that is forbidden. His unnatural identity, his Book, gets the money to produce more who say what it says.
In a tiny society like a lion pride, the one or two male lions who rule it will produce all the offspring and kill the kittens of its predecessor. But in a large society each individual takes a separate role in group survival, and the lower class in a non-human society is as dedicated to the survival of the group as those in the top echelon.
This is how NATURE works. Nature is only interested in one issue, the issue of one's own type in competition with other GROUPS. Nature is the opposite of the Class Struggle. Nature is the opposite of the Libertarians.
Like nature, we are obsessed with one issue.