On War #248: My Master’s Voice

By William S. Lind

Yesterday I placed my annual call to my All-Highest War Lord and Sovereign Master, Kaiser Wilhelm II, to offer my usual felicitations on his birthday. His Majesty was laughing when he picked up the receiver, so after congratulating him I took the liberty of inquiring what Heaven found so funny.

“Democracy,” His Majesty replied.

“I take it you are watching this year’s Presidential election in the U.S.,” I said.

“The flea circus? That’s part of it,” said the Kaiser. “It nicely illustrates one of democracy’s contradictions, namely that no one who is willing to crawl and grub for votes can be worthy of the office to which he aspires. There’s no place for the nolo episcopari in democratic politics, it seems, nor for anyone with the slightest shred of character. Your Giulianis and McCains, Clintons and Obamas are happy to eat every toad in the public garden.”

“I think the American public is no happier with their options this year than is Your Majesty,” I replied.

“Thereby illustrating another funny aspect of democracy,” the Kaiser shot back. “Who do they think is responsible? They are, of course. No candidate who told them the truth could get above 10% in the polls. They want nostrums, bromides, comforting lies, and they won’t tolerate anything else. America speaks of citizens, but all it has are consumers whose heads are as fat as their bottoms. That too is where democracy leads, to an ever-declining lowest common denominator. It cannot do anything else.”

“The funniest aspect of the whole business,” His Majesty continued, “is that the lower America sinks, the more determined its politicians are to force democracy on everyone else. All but one of your Presidential candidates has pledged to continue crusading for democracy, despite the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. By comparison, even the late Spanish Hapsburgs were models of realism.”

“The democracy advocates – and I trust Your Majesty knows I am not one – would reply that democracy is necessary to freedom,” I suggested.

“Another contradiction,” said the Kaiser. “Prussia in my day was far more free than America is today, because Prussians understood what freedom is. Freedom is not doing whatever you feel like. Freedom is replacing imposed discipline with self-discipline. No democratic office-seeker would dare say that, because the voters would not like it. They want to be told that they can do whatever they please – spend without saving, live immoral lives without degenerating, vote without thinking – and suffer no unfortunate consequences. If the public wants to square the circle, Presto!, a hundred politicians promise to do it.”

“I trust that Your Majesty’s preferred alternative to democracy in monarchy, as is mine,” I said.

“Yours, mine and Heaven’s,” the Kaiser replied. “As I have said before, Heaven is not a republic. Though there are, I think, two countries God intends should be republics.”

“And those are?”, I asked.

“Switzerland, to show that it can be made to work, and America, to serve as a warning to everyone else.”

“Were America to wake up to the virtues of monarchy – and God knows our current election campaign should wake us up – who would you recommend for the American throne?”, I inquired.

“An Austrian Hapsburg, I should think,” said the Kaiser. “They are accustomed to ruling over ramshackle, polygot, decaying empires. My old friend Emperor Franz Josef did so remarkably well.”

“One last question, if I may,” I said. “Should America continue on the unhappy road of democracy, what lies in our future?”

“Let’s just say that the combination of military defeat and economic depression is not a happy one,” the Kaiser answered. “And now I must ring off. I hear the band of the Garde du Corps playing, which means it is time to review the troops. I think the tune is, ‘And the World Turned Upside Down.’

William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

To interview Mr. Lind, please contact:

Mr. William S. Lind
Free Congress Foundation
717 Second St., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Direct line: 202-543-8796

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed in Uncategorized | 34 responses so far

34 Responses to “On War #248: My Master’s Voice”

  1. mycophagiston 30 Jan 2008 at 2:05 pm 1

    Mr. Lind, whom I admire greatly, has a bug in his bonnet about Democracy, and another bug about Imperial Germany. Decision making in Imperial Germany could not have been more poorly played. The decision to build a fleet to challenge England on the High Seas, led inevitably to England choosing sides in the conflict. The decision to alienate Russia, led to another enemy on Germanys East in direct alliance with France. Even after the war started, decisions were made which would never have been taken in a Democracy. Who after all was behind the decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare, which gave the US the excuse to join the war? And for that matter who was responsible for the German occupation of Belgium and the barbaric behavior which also paved the way for US intervention?

    As Churchill once commented, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

    Our problems here in the US is not our Democracy, but our LACK of Democracy. We essentially listen to the one voice of the Corporate media; almost a controlled media. Recent changes in the laws are simply compounding this monopoly in the way the public recieves its facts.

    NB. You cannot have a functioning democracy with a controlled media. Bring back the fairness doctrine, end the ability of Corporations to control all aspects of what we hear, and our democracy will revive.

    Certainly Imperial Germany made, if not More mistakes, greater mistakes than even the Bush administration has made.

    Dave

  2. masterdaveon 30 Jan 2008 at 3:39 pm 2

    Greetings all,

    We are–in our way–on the road to becoming the Demarchy, as shown in “The Slaves of Heaven Belt” by Joan D. Vinge.

    Their society was run by a process in which anyone could propose an immediate vote on something. This would be seen on everyone’s information consoles. Those who were interested could vote. After about half an hour–speed of light lag–the voting would be closed, and the proposal adopted or rejected.

    That’s a good idea… Except for the huge amount of corporate influence in their system. Between that influence and simple personal greed, the Heaven Belt system was going down the tubes. As are we.

    My observations agree with what Dave said above about the U.S. Democracy requires “One man one vote.” NOT the “One dollar one vote.” process in use today!

    Sincerely,
    Master Dave

  3. Fabius Maximuson 30 Jan 2008 at 3:50 pm 3

    I strongly agree with you about the political weaknesses of Imperial Germany. It is an odd choice to give as a model for America.

    But the rest seems problematic. I would bet the first and primary use of the “Fairness doctrine” would be to limit popular expression by controling what is said on talk raidio. That appears to be the intent of the elite voices advocating its imposition.

    Attributing any decline in the operation of our democracy to corporate control of information seems difficult to support. The Fox network has broken the stranglehold of the three ideologically similar “big 3” networks over TV. The prolifferation of cable channels has done so to an even larger degree.

    Political activism on radio exists to the highest degree in the history of the medium.

    And most of all, we have the internet — opening of information flows to a degree without precedent in history.

    Whatever the problem, controlled information seens an unlikely source.

  4. ignatxon 30 Jan 2008 at 5:31 pm 4

    It shouldn’t be news to anyone that democracy isn’t a perfect system of government, certainly not to anyone who has read, say, Polybius.

    The particular degeneration that US democracy has suffered is an interesting one. The weak party system and other factors – notably the subversion and intimidation of the military and state department, respectively – have made the control of policy prey to capture by comparatively small special interest groups, pursuing unreconciled interests. The need for campaign finance has produced a sort of oligarch rule via control of the mob.

    It’s really quite appalling, but it reflects more on the exact nature of the American character (especially its quite religious worship of the state and the symbols of nationhood, making effective criticism extremely difficult) and the US constitution, which provided an overly utopian form of democracy, burdened by overly frequent elections and, again, that weak party system.

  5. xenogragon 30 Jan 2008 at 6:49 pm 5

    The mention of (1) alternative to democracy, (2) military defeat, and (3) economic woes reminded me of “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012” by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. [Parameters, Winter 1992-93].

  6. ignatxon 30 Jan 2008 at 7:05 pm 6

    Re. that “weak party system” and it’s importance via just one example: One of the US’s problems is what could be called “policy Balkanization” – the pursuing of unreconciled conflicting policies, eg energy security vs support for Israel. This is promoted by a weak party system, where presidents and other actors have to *barter* for votes rather than being able to reply on a strong party machine. Weak parties are also susceptible to capture by fringe groups, such as the Neocons.

  7. mycophagiston 30 Jan 2008 at 7:17 pm 7

    Fabius Maximus wrote:

    “Political activism on radio exists to the highest degree in the history of the medium.”

    “And most of all, we have the internet — opening of information flows to a degree without precedent in history.”

    “Whatever the problem, controlled information seens an unlikely source.”

    The average citizen does not “Hunt” for information. The average citizen is told that the media is liberal. The average citizen thought that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Where did they get this idea? Even as we write, we are being told that Iraq has “turned around” and that the surge is working – presumably the new day is dawning where they will have a Burger King on everry corner… :)

    It would be true to “blame” the average citizen (which I suppose is the basis of Mr. Linds comments) for this situation. On the other hand, are we taught civics? Are we taught the responsibilities of citizenship? Most of our citizens “mind their own business.” And if you read Pericles remarks to the citizens of Athens, politics is OUR business.

    No, sorry, I disagree. “We,” meaning the citizenry as a whole, do not have access to many voices. We once did, and now we don’t. The recent changes in ownnership criterium for media domination of markets will merely accelerate this process – But it’s been going on for years.

    Dave

  8. tredhekon 30 Jan 2008 at 7:42 pm 8

    Whenever Mr Lind writes about the Kaiser, I am reminded of ‘The Napoleon of Notting Hill’.

  9. 008klmon 31 Jan 2008 at 6:59 am 9

    I’ve been listening to Mr Lind since about 1992-3, as often as I can (repost several of his articles in MS Word at a time and have Word read them to me). He is the most interestng recent speaker I’ve heard. Since he co-hosted Next Revolution I’ve been hooked on his speeches and writings (fiction and non), and tried to listen to his radio programs when they were available on C-band radio. I have trouble understanding Mr Lind’s nostalgia for Kaiser Wilhelm, (and apparently federalist Germany’s ruling elite class of the period) though. That place and time maybe comes closest to approximating the model of a stable system of state. Yet Mr Lind is well aware that that particular state was at that stage reaping benefits from it’s having formed a stronger union, and therefore was about to reap the detriment after.

    Still, I must call myself an objectivist, not an anarchist, and will continue to struggle towards forming or finding a society in that model, and would, like Mr Lind, far prefer Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany to the self-destructive collectivist society we live in today.

  10. gcc40on 31 Jan 2008 at 12:55 pm 10

    I guess Mr Lind is hankering after the good old days. Nostalgia usually means looking back on the past with rose tinted glasses. As the song says, prices were always lower, young people respected the old and politicians never lied. In truth, the good old days were never really that good. People complained that the price of bread was outrageous and criminal, young people disrespectful of their elders and politicians and princes were out and out scoundrels.

    The last thing we need is a new generation of kings and princes and dynasties. Of a social elite with delusions of granduer and a belief that they are divine and have a right to rule…that their reign will be golden, while we the lower orders touch out forelocks, bow and scrape and trust that their rule will be just and wise.

    Yet History, that most implacable and harshest of critics show this to be utter bollocks.
    They end up bankrupting their nations, or fall to revolution and wind up having their heads stuck on spikes. Or they to come to some arrangement with the people that allows them to live in the luxury they’ve come to depend on and let a parliament rule in their name…in time their only justification to exist is that they raise the profiles of charitiable groups and are good for tourism.

    Perhaps that is the point of the article…an satirical piece showing the folly of people constantly leaving an elite in charge and compalin that they, while having the vote, can do nothing about it.

    I hope thats what he intended. Its last thing we need a lurch back in time and the return of inbred idiotic princes with unfashionable moustaches!

  11. mycophagiston 31 Jan 2008 at 4:23 pm 11

    gcc40 Wrote

    “I hope thats what he intended. Its last thing we need a lurch back in time and the return of inbred idiotic princes with unfashionable moustaches!”

    And you would be wrong… :(

    Mr. Lind regards the French Revolution as the greatest disaster to befall humanity…

    Well, in discussions that I take part in, it’s normal enough to doubt any of your views, if it’s possible to pin a label on you. Am I a Liberal? Why should any conservative take Any of my opinions seriously? Am I a Conservative? Why should any liberal take my views seriously.

    Mr. Lind has some views on society which are far to the right. How does this affect his ability to analyse and comment on Fourth Generation War? No doubt it has Some effect.

    On the other hand, Mr. Lind has no problems at all from using so called liberal sources, or conservative sources, etc, etc. So whatever other views he holds, he’s not a victim of our nations latest craze of bashing each other on ALL our opinions merely because the source wears the wrong label.

    On one board, which from time to time, prints his articles, he is called a “raving Marxist lunatic.” Why? The obvious fact that the Iraq War was and is stupid, is a “liberal” position… :)

    While I am politically FAR to the left of Mr. Lind, as I said before, I greatly admire him. And while I choose to poke holes in some of his social beliefs, nonetheless I read and enjoy his writings on the military – which are basically objective, and trancend my disagreements…

    (My apologies to Mr. Lind for claiming to be able to fairly address his positions, but as of two years ago, I’ve been told he doesn’t even own a computer…)

    Dave

  12. maximilliangcon 31 Jan 2008 at 9:45 pm 12

    My read is that in this series, Lind writes in hyperbolie,
    and example by choice of

    “groupthink”

    Or expressed in the reciprocal, lack of independent reasoning.
    It’s rampant in the US Military, Government, Politcal leadership,
    candicacies, the media, and most corporations.

  13. rogelio007on 31 Jan 2008 at 11:54 pm 13

    “On one board, which from time to time, prints his articles, he is called a ‘raving Marxist lunatic.’ ”

    This is very likely a reference to military.com. I have noticed an overwhelming tendency on the part of military personnel to label anyone who opposes the Iraq war a leftist. They don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that a person can be on the right and oppose the war – e.g. William S. Lind, William F. Buckley and Ron Paul.

  14. maximilliangcon 01 Feb 2008 at 12:38 pm 14

    “I have noticed an overwhelming tendency on the part of military personnel to label anyone who opposes the Iraq war a leftist. ”

    Exactly Rog.

    How can you say that ? (big sarcansism)

    Look at the stunning progress after 5 years of concerted effort and trillions of hard
    earned tax payers dollars, that our mighty invincible military has made ?

    And, Don’t forget we have the invincible F-22 Stealth fighter plane and the JSF
    coming online soon, which are making a Big, big difference.

    Follow the link provided to glimps the magnitude and type of “progess” the US
    is working to hard to maintain and build on.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_violence

    At least 64 dead in Baghdad market bombs By HAMID AHMED, Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 25 minutes ago

  15. […] William Lind, letting his inner monarchist run free, invokes the shade of Kaiser Wilhelm II: “I trust that Your Majesty’s preferred alternative to democracy in monarchy, as is mine,” I said. […]

  16. maximilliangcon 01 Feb 2008 at 10:06 pm 16

    And then the wheels fell off,,,

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080201/wl_afp/germanyusafghanistannatomilitary_080201214725

    http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=15152

  17. mycophagiston 02 Feb 2008 at 1:27 am 17

    I was always in favor of our intervention in Afghanistan. And while I might be naive, I think that if it had been run properly, billions committed to peaceful rebuilding, encouraging secularists, etc, etc, I actually think we could have built up a model country.

    I’ve watched over the years, with disbelief as this administration has worked overtime to get everything wrong. Unlike Iraq, we did indeed have support amongst the locals. So instead of my picture of how events should be run, we wound up creating another Islamic State, dealt with the very people who made the Taliban a popular alternative – Did we leave out anything to assure defeat? Oh yes, never having enough troops there, we relied on terror bombing (whatever you want to call it, that’s what it amounts to).

    It may be that my support of the concept was indeed naive. We will never know now.

    Who can blame the Germans for avoiding pouring more men and material into this US made disaster? We pulled out of meaningful commitments in Afghanistan when we decided to drop everything and fiasco in Iraq.

    Dave

  18. maximilliangcon 02 Feb 2008 at 1:25 pm 18

    mycophagist said, on February 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 am

    I was always in favor of our intervention in Afghanistan. And while I might be naive, I think that if it had been run properly, billions committed to peaceful rebuilding, encouraging secularists, etc, etc, I actually think we could have built up a model country.

    Very good dave, we’ll count you in, as many amoung this following may have at one time agreed.

    The problem as you noted is in the excecution, and the disasterous
    red herring diversion and squandering of resourches, national will,
    personel, and treasure in GWB’ s “I-Rack.”

    The “other” problem is the historical precidence of forgien militrary mis-adventures
    in Afganistan, it simply will not work, no way, no how, period.

    Good night.

    “Everything wrong”

    You nailed it.

    Maximillian

    “I’ve watched over the years, with disbelief as this administration has worked overtime to get everything wrong.”

  19. 008klmon 03 Feb 2008 at 7:20 pm 19

    It was wrong to invade Afghanistan. It was immoral. The US invaded, not because of 9-11 (which was an in-house event), but because much of “our” elites’ (Bush/Clinton Mena Crime Cabal) opiate supply for their heroine trade was being restricted by the Taliban.

    The idea of ‘state’ is collective, like a herd of healthy water buffalo forming a line, putting themselves between lions and weak or weakened member(s) of their herd which the lions strive to separate, kill and eat. This common buffalo behaviour is called instinctive. The herd always does this behaviour and weak young grow, and temporarily weakened members heal and survive. Individual buffalos have longer lifespans and stronger chances to survive as long as their herd’s line is strong enough to keep the lions at bay. Not only is the herd stronger when there are enough healthy members to fill any breeches, but the lions will not bother that herd which shows evidence of such requisit strength, saving herd members from expending energy towards defense which can then be spent towards obtaining food resources. Kind of a symbiotic relationship between individual and state.

    Meanwhile the USA, founded as a herd of buffalo, is finding itself acting as a pride of lions. In order to prey on other buffalo herds our ‘pride’ leaders (portrayed by our controlled media to us buffalo members as “herd leaders”) have dealt with other lion prides’ leaders to obtain resources needed to sustain an assault long enough to break some of the smaller herds’ lines. Our USA ‘pride’ defeats other heards (states) by using 3rd GW against their 1st or 2nd, or failing that, by keeping them constantly under assault until their members grow too hungry, tired and weak to continue the fight. Once their line is broken, those lending prides’ leaders take the lion’s share of the resources obtained from the slaughtered herds. The USA herd/pride members police the remnants of the defeated herd for the duration of the transfer of their resources (indefinately, since they are the resources). Their herd is then rebuilt to install a ‘pride’ leader and infrastructure needed to facilitate the enslavement of their herd, like a farm, designed to deliver their resources to the globalist elite farmer’s co-op. As part of the deal with the other prides’ leaders, the USA is also becoming an animal farm.

  20. 008klmon 03 Feb 2008 at 8:31 pm 20

    PS: The other part of the reason for the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is the elite’s global resource strategy and need to control the oil pipeline. Carter’s Brzezinski stated the need for the invasion in his book (forgot the darn name). Refer to Rupert.

  21. mycophagiston 04 Feb 2008 at 12:05 am 21

    I’ve been enjoying a thread on a photography forum about how the Moon landings were faked by Nasa…

    Final proof was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt… :)
    http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

    On the other hand, I’ve always had some problems with the Babs and Jena Bush theory of the WTC. Did those two girls personaly plant the charges and take down the WTC, or did they have some help?

    Why did this administration invade Afghanistan? I’ve already called myself “naive” but I actually believe they thought they were doing the right thing. In this administration making a buck or two on the side, never stopped them. And if the buck or two on the side, interferes with other matters, what’s the big deal?

    No, I don’t think the invasion was immoral. Certainly their handling of this war trancends simple question of morality. Is stupidiy, when it goes off the measurement chart immoral? Maybe.

    I like the aphorism, “History punishes stupidity quicker than it punishes evil”

    At some point in the not so distant future, (Like tomorrow? Next week?) it may come down to my simply saying that we’re not doing any good there, cannot do any good there, and might as well leave.

    As has been pointed out, Afghanistan is a country that doesn’t treat invaders kindly. Our chance, and in my opinion a good chance, once the Taliban was smeared, would have been to come there with pocket books open and guns hidden. To cover the place with money (which would be far cheaper than what we’ve already spent) and completely avoid the impression of being invaders. What the heck there aren’t more than twenty million or so of them. If we had to we could have bought anyone and everyone.

    Create a nice secular government, with just enough moderate Muslims to give it a facade…

    No, sorry 008klm – I disagree. And while you can always make a buck, even in Afghanistan, whose location is good for pipelines – This administration has already, by their actions, shown us where the money is –

    Dave

  22. maximilliangcon 04 Feb 2008 at 12:49 am 22

    “been enjoying a thread on a photography forum about how the Moon landings were faked by Nasa…”

    Agreed Dave, much like yourself, there’s a line I refuse to cross when it comes
    to consperacy theories, JFK, 9-11, etc,,etc,,etc,,.

    Noam Chomsky does a brilliant job dispensing with 9-11 orchistrated consperacy theory.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4

    Meanwhile, read and weep,

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget

    “2 hours, 17 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON – In the nation’s first-ever $3 trillion budget, President Bush seeks to seal his legacy of promoting a strong defense to fight terrorism and tax cuts to spur the economy.”

    Maximillian

  23. maximilliangcon 04 Feb 2008 at 2:07 pm 23

    “Meanwhile the USA, founded as a herd of buffalo, is finding itself acting as a pride of lions. In order to prey on other buffalo herds our ‘pride’ leaders (portrayed by our controlled media to us buffalo members as “herd leaders”) have dealt with other lion prides’ leaders to obtain resources needed to sustain an assault long enough to break some of the smaller herds’ lines. Our USA ‘pride’ defeats other heards (states) by using 3rd GW against their 1st or 2nd, or failing that, by keeping them constantly under assault until their members grow too hungry, tired and weak to continue the fight. Once their line is broken, those lending prides’ leaders take the lion’s share of the resources obtained from the slaughtered herds. The USA herd/pride members police the remnants of the defeated herd for the duration of the transfer of their resources (indefinately, since they are the resources).”

    Most facinating THEORY, now give us one single example of where
    this has worked successfully in the last 50 years.

    Maximillian

  24. mycophagiston 04 Feb 2008 at 4:37 pm 24

    maximilliangc wrote:

    “WASHINGTON – In the nation’s first-ever $3 trillion budget, President Bush seeks to seal his legacy of promoting a strong defense to fight terrorism and tax cuts to spur the economy.”

    I am impressed. Impressed to the point of emulation! There are so MANY useful photographic accessories and machines out there…

    Why should I pay them with the money I have, as opposed to the money I can barrow? What after all can a creditor do to me? Very little. Why should I not own all the toys?

    But one thing I must admit, my toys will at least serve my interest, even if my larger interests are compromised. Mr. Bush’s toys serve no ones interest, even the interests of those who would like to own Iraqs oil, or all the other “corporate toys” on the “Market.”

    This at least partially explains the abundance of conspiricy theories. Since Mr. Bushs spoken agenda makes no sense, and in my opinion, what I think is his Hiden agenda make no sense, then there Must be a Machiavellian plan which we know nothing of…

    Thats the advantage of having world leaders with the common sense so aptly demonstrated by our Neocon leaders. Everything could be true, since what is occuring just doesn’t appear rational. Once we dispense with rational explanations, then everything is possible. Occams Razor meets Godzilla so to speak. Why not believe that Babs and Jena are behind all this? Makes sense to me… :)

    (My apologies to Babs and Jena) :)

    Dave

  25. 008klmon 04 Feb 2008 at 5:34 pm 25

    Maximillian-

    Tibet

  26. 008klmon 04 Feb 2008 at 8:01 pm 26

    Sorry max, my bad. Tibet vs red china was more an example of a flock sheep, but it appears to fit the condition of the US populace than a herd of water buffalo. I only wish we were as strong as a herd of water buffalo.

  27. maximilliangcon 04 Feb 2008 at 8:57 pm 27

    “Tibet vs red china was more an example of a flock sheep”

    See also,
    US in comparison to Canada, been there, done that.

    The former being cattle, to be lead off a cliff,
    or perhaps more aptly lemmings,
    the latter being sheep, in the form
    of a captive flock, to be fleeced.

    MC

  28. rogelio007on 04 Feb 2008 at 9:01 pm 28

    George W. Bush trying to save his legacy now is too little, too late. George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents of the United States. And there is absolutely nothing he can do about it.

  29. 008klmon 04 Feb 2008 at 9:07 pm 29

    Dave –
    I’m an ignorant objectivist buffalo. As a leftist you must ‘dis’ my belief. That is my foundation belief, nonetheless, and I can only coexist in a herd which instinctively protects itself from lions, even lions clothed in the skins of buffalos and calling themselves “buffalo leaders”. Our herd’s current leader no longer bothers hiding himself in a buffalo hide. He acts as a lion, portrays himself as one, and behaves towards all members of the herd as a lion does towards a buffalo, with an obvious contempt. Our subleaders changed the rules so that he, ‘our’ lion leader, is above those rules which govern the rest of the herd, so that he can better deal with ‘dangerous’ and ‘foreign’ buffalos that may be hiding in amongst the herd.

    Every CFR-Trilateralist-Bilderberger-neo-con-globalist and international corporate cartel CEO is a member of our lion’s pride. They have rules amongst themselves regarding their pride’s pecking order, dispostion of herd resources, etc. We are no longer free independent herds, but the lions’ farms. Our ‘leader’ is tasked with using our herd’s resources to change the last vestiges of free herds into farms for their pride.

  30. mycophagiston 05 Feb 2008 at 12:35 am 30

    008klm Wrote:

    Dave –
    “I’m an ignorant objectivist buffalo. As a leftist you must ‘dis’ my belief. That is my foundation belief, nonetheless, and I can only coexist in a herd…”

    My apologies. I am not “dising” your beliefs, but rather peripheral aspects of them (Bush did the WTC) and perhaps your analogies. Besides, what an old fashioned leftist like myself doing admiring an extreme right winger like William Lind? :)

    With the support of the corporate media, Mr. Bush is attempting to…

    What exactly is Mr. Bush attempting? None of what he is attempting to do is succeeding very well. Will the US control Iraqi oil? Not with this kind of clownish evil. Overthrow our Constitution? If he succeeds in that, it wont be because if his efforts.

    If he is a lion, it is the lion of the Wizard of Oz..

    Why do we take him seriously? Is it not because those who should, and probably DO know better, make believe he is a serious person, whose views carry weight.

    I am at a loss here to explain this in better terms. Look at the Democrats? Are they caving in to him for simple political reasons of expediency, or do they perhaps want, Want those very powers which he claims for himself?

    Am I a victim of my own non conspiracy, conspiracy theories?

    As a leftist I regard the WTO, NAFTA etc, all part and parcel of a Corporate plot. But what does that have to do with the practical acts of this administration? As a realist, I hope to see a restoration of the simple common sense of the Roosevelt administration – Not because Roosevelt was “left wing,” but rather he had enough common sense to realise that creating and supporting a middle income middle class, would ultimately make Capitalists rich. That the resulting society would be equitable enough so that further change could take place in a non-hostile manner.

    He did not, and probably could not, foresee that his Capitalist buddies couldn’t care less about the country. What amazes me is how many refuse to see what’s going on to our country as a result of this surrender to corporate greed.

    Indeed, even if a Capitalist wants to stay here, wants to pay his employee’s a decent income, they cannot – They cannot because they are competing with those who wish to pay nothing; who export our industries abroad; who have turned us in thirty short years from the largest exporter of finished goods, to the largest importer of finished goods. From being a creditor nation, into a debtor nation. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now Bush again – All carrying out the same game plan. Do they know? Do they care?

    As I sit here typing, taking off from work, with some version of the “Bubonic Plague,” (well perhaps I exaggerate… :) ) I can’t afford health care insurance. I have a little time in my feverish (literally) imagination to wonder about these people.

    When I was a young man, my views differed from those of today only in that my opponents Had to be evil men. I know better now. Good men can do evil, without even knowing it.

    No, no 008klm, the war in Afghanistan is certainly looking “wrong” now, for simple reasons of pragmatism, but it didn’t look wrong then. The war in Iraq looked wrong from the beginning. Mea culpa’s from the Times aside, without at least the tacit support of “Bush hating Liberals” it never would have happened.

    I’m sorry if this doesn’t address your statement directly. I’m not sure how anything I could say would.

    Dave

  31. mcduffon 03 Mar 2008 at 7:45 pm 31

    Deary me. All those times we have chopped off the heads of some inbred buffoon who was decreed fit to “lead” simply because his daddy was a wealthy man with a large moustache, and for naught? We are to be criticised because, like a fungal infection, the wealthy and elite keep trying to re-establish monarchies?

    Even dictatorships have more credibility as government than monarchies. A dictator can at least have the good graces to admit that his “right” to rule with an iron fist comes from his guns and police forces, not from such pseudo-justifications as the purity of his blood or divinely ordained destiny. And people don’t weep and wail as much when someone puts a bullet in the head of a dictator, wheras they get awfully misty-eyed over the occasions when someone decides that enough is enough and that the principle of hereditary rule needs revisiting, as if somehow entertaining enough romantic notions about individuals would convince the world itself to stop being so messy and untidy.

    If “stability” is what you’re after then monarchies are hardly your best bet, are they? Always jaunting off on ill-advised wars based on decades old familial grudges, getting themselves offed by wronged and jealous dukes and earls, or dying of syphilis contracted from to much sowing of wild blue oats, raising punitive taxes on a whim, swapping around which rich old family gets to lord it up over which group of peasants this decade and generally making a proper dog’s breakfast of the whole business of government.

    I’m sorry, but if you bring back the monarchies you’re only going to bring back the Oliver Cromwells, and decapitation is such an ugly business. Better to attempt our tiny and lawful revolutions once every four or five years than than to keep our frustrations with our leaders bottled up and then hang them from a gibbet every couple of decades, wouldn’t you say?

  32. Barryon 11 Aug 2008 at 6:54 am 32

    In Dreadnought by RK Massie the German foreign policy was seen to be at fault . When Joseph [CR correction — see next post] Chamberlain made overtures about a closer relationship they thought it was evidence Britain was scared and isolated. When Germany ended up at war with all the major powers and his prime minster offered to resign,the Kaiser told him ” You’ve cooked this soup and now you’re going to eat it”.

  33. Barryon 11 Aug 2008 at 7:12 am 33

    Correction; I meant Joseph Chamberlain of course. The Kaiser quote is from Norman Davies’ History of Europe.

    Germany before WW1 was quite close to a democracy according to some. This has been seen by them as discrediting the notion that democracies never fight each other.

    I have read that the failure of the German stormtooper offensive was due to lack of rotation of front line units (captured British alcohol didn’t help).

    [CR: The US Civil War being another.

    Bruce Gudmundsson (see the Bookstore) goes into some detail about the reasons the March 1918 offensive failed. In addition to their inability to rotate out leading elements, he cites the terrain (“full of towns, canals, forests and rivers”), and British counterattacks. Boyd also suggests that Ludendorff didn’t have enough faith in stormtroop tactics and so didn’t reinforce von Hutier’s proto-blitzkrieg in the south, but I’m not sure Gudmundsson would agree. Interesting topic — thanks.]

  34. Barryon 21 Aug 2008 at 8:37 am 34

    Mearsheimer’s Tragedy Of Great Power Politics gives another perspective he sees the problem as being one of Germany being too strong by 1900 to produce anything but an alliance against it.

    Bismark’s much vaunted alliance with Russia was a dead letter 4 years after it was made . Some nineteenth century German strategists expected Britain as the strongest state to be the focus of a balancing alliance against it that included Germany. They forgot that navies are not seen as effective instruments of aggression ilke big armies are.

    Mearsheimer says great powers are forced by the potential threat of other powers to be aggressive, in order to ensure their own survival they must take any good opportunities to increase their strength relative to others. An anomaly occurred in 1905 when Russia was weak. Germany never seriously considered attacking them as they could have with excellent propects of success. The subsequent events might be evidence for the Professor’s assertion that failing to act according to the dictates of his “Offensive Realism” is a foolish mistake which always has unpleasant consequences