Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/14/2002 6:45:26 AM EDT
Available here: [url]armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_armedndangerous_archive.html#85522590[/url] Excerpts:
One of the overdue lessons of 9/11 is that we can't afford to sneer at physical courage any more. The willingness of New York firemen, Special Forces troops in Afghanistan, and the passengers of Flight 93 to put their lives on the line has given us most of the bright spots we've had in the war against terror. We are learning, once again, that all that stands between us and the night of barbarism is the willingness of men to both risk their lives and take the awful responsibility of using lethal force in our defense. The rediscovery of courage visibly upsets a large class of [i]bien pensants[/i] in our culture. Many of the elite molders of opinion in the U.S and Europe do not like or trust physical courage in men. They have spent decades training us to consider it regressive, consigning it to fantasy, sneering at it — trying to persuade us all that it's at best an adolescent or brute virtue, perhaps even a vice. Like all virtues, courage thrives on social support. If we mock our would-be warriors, writing them off as brutes or rednecks or simpletons, we'll find courage in short supply when we need it. If we make the more subtle error of sponsoring courage only in uniformed men — cops, soldiers, firemen — we'll find that we have trouble growing the quantity or quality we need in a crisis. Worse: our brave men could come to see themselves apart from us, distrusted and despised by the very people for whom they risk their lives, and entitled to take their due when it is not freely given. More than one culture that made that mistake has fallen to its own guardians. For multi-culti and po-mo types, male physical courage is suspect because it's psychologically linked to moral certitude — and moral certitude is a bad thing, nigh-indistinguishable from intolerance and bigotry. Men who believe in anything enough to fight for it are automatically suspect of would-be imperialism &mdash, unless, of course, they're tribesmen or Third Worlders, in which fanaticism is a praiseworthy sign of authenticity. Elite opinions about male physical courage have also had more than a touch of class warfare about them. Every upper crust that is not directly a military caste — including our own — tends to dismiss physical courage as a trait of peasants and proles and the lesser orders, acceptable only when they know their place is to be guided by their betters.
View Quote
Good read.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 6:53:29 AM EDT
True story. WTF happened to our so-called elites? Used to be that almost every Taft, Kennedy,Rockefeller, etc would spend a couple years as a 2LT upon graduation? Not since Vietnam, it seems. The part that leaves me cold it that they look down their noses at the very people that supply them with the freedom to wax even fatter than they are now!
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 7:46:22 AM EDT
Good question,Picolo, and believe the answer is in their 'politics'. Our DC oligarchy has demonstrated an ability to gain and expand their power using fascist methods DESPITE the 'characteristics' of the old Republic. Obviously physical courage isn't 'enough' nor even a factor in their success, so naturally they have contempt for it-it's simply not necessary nor useful to them9nor deters their 'legal' success]. When any physical courage is actually required, they rely on the coercion of the state or the 'deluded mass' to provide the cannon fodder. 'So who needs it' might be their position if pushed. TPTB have created a system that protects them from both application of law or retribution. Just one reason that 9-11 was a great OPPORTUNITY to them[stalin act and faderland security]-forget this 'tragedy' business-that's just media-speak to foment the proles. Obviously anyone who would risk their lives over a 'media-event' isn't worth any adulation!? Seen from that perspective, their position makes perfect sense-and it's obvious. Until we demonstrate the MORAL courage to re-estabish the Republic, physical courage is only appreciated on an individual level. Not even here does anyone note that if the 2nd amend. HADN'T been abrogated -and that 'allowed'-NONE of the hijackers could have pulled-off this op with BOX CUTTERS!!! We were beaten with stone age weapons[edged instruments-coulda been flint!]. The 'responsible' persons weren't simply ragheads but more profoundly our own fascist votewhores who have 'disarmed' an infantile population. Smacking some camel jockeys around while the votewhores expand their power/control merely increases their contempt for those using only physical courage. It's time for some 'smarts' and moral retribution added to physical courage to 'change' their perspective. JMO,Ghost
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 9:07:54 AM EDT
Nice try, piccolo, but it is wrong to let the military take so much credit for sustaining our "freedom" in this country where freedom is becoming more and more scarce with each passing day. Firemen get paid to do what they do, and most of the time they lead a pretty cushy life. It is not the mark of really courageous and heroic men to call attention to their deeds during the few times they are actually called on to perform them. Special Forces in Afghanistan? Give me a break. What have they accomplished over there, exactly? They killed a bunch of people who had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan was a diversion to make Americans think that the government had a handle on terrorism and could actually strike back. Neither has any bearing in reality. Furthermore, it's pretty easy to be courageous in an unfair fight--B-52s vs. guys who still carry Lee-Enfield rifles. The only courage shown in Afghanistan was by the people over there! And then there's Flight 93. Hardly a shred of evidence exists to support what actually took place on that flight, yet almost everyone was very quick to eat up a cock and bull story about heroic passengers who fought back. Bullshit! That plane was blasted out of the sky by a fighter jet. If the passengers had been really heroic, they would have found a way to rescue the plane. Getting everyone killed is a failure, plain and simple. Always will be. I see plenty of latent physical courage in Americans, it was never sneered at and has never disappeared. Frankly, I would rather see people not resort to brute force in order to solve their problems.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 10:25:36 AM EDT
Hmmm? Somebody else caught Imbroglio's Disease? I hope you're kidding. Of course firemen get paid. How else do you expect them to eat? And to support their families? And don't even get me started on Afghanistan. We failed to capture the big guys, but we sure sent them running. Unfair? Tell that to the folks on the ground. Tell that to the families of the 30 Americans (plus 4 Canadians, and one Australian, to give credit where credit is due) who gave their lives. Tell that to all the soldiers who received fire and returned it. Tell that to the family of Mike Spann. Cowards indeed. Too many people in the world understand only brute force. And it's about time we realized that. Certainly the latent courage has been there. But as ESR points out, it's been suppresed and denigrated.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 10:46:52 AM EDT
Trickshot, I believe a circle in hell was just created solely for you.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 11:03:16 AM EDT
Trickshot, "And then there's Flight 93. Hardly a shred of evidence exists to support what actually took place on that flight, yet almost everyone was very quick to eat up a cock and bull story about heroic passengers who fought back. Bullshit! That plane was blasted out of the sky by a fighter jet." Where is your proof? Bilster
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 11:17:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2002 10:36:14 AM EDT by SGB]
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 11:41:19 AM EDT
Trickshot, You are a fuckhead.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 11:50:16 AM EDT
Top Top