The War Machine, and A Very Curious Silence

[Gary Childress]

If Mick Stinks calls him a Nazi then he most like isn't one. IC is just a kristian. No way is he a Nazi.

I don't think he's a Nazi. He doesn't want to have anything to do with them, that is clear. However, I think he's misguided and is not looking at what is going on among some he's defending nor with some he's accusing of deciet. I took him to be saying that there are no such things as "Neo-Nazis." If I am wrong and there are no such things as "Neo-Nazis" then I am wrong. However, I don't know what else to call someone who waves a flag that pretty much every human being in my country generally knows to associate with murder and genocide. If that didn't happen in Nazi Germany, then I'm also wrong.

I think that adding 'neo' to it simply allows wonkers like Mick Stinks to give anyone who disagrees with him a label with the word 'Nazi' in it. A Nazi is a Nazi.

OK. Whether a "neo-Nazi" or just a "nazi", either they exist in the world or they don't. IC seems to claim that nowhere are these "Nazis" to be found. I would like to know what else to call someone who brandishes a flag of the original "Nazi" party. Why shouldn't people be warry or disapprove of people who wave a flag like that? In the end, that's all it comes down to. People can scream "Nazi" at the top of their lungs. If it's not true, then that's one thing, however, if some truly believe that the policies of Nazi Germany were somehow admirable enough for whatever reason to warrant them waving their flag, then what is more appropriate to call them than "Nazis?"

[Constantine]

As to the tax dollar lost via the military industrial sector.... tough. Not a real problem.

No, it really, really IS the problem.

That's the whole reason for the war...and for the succession of useless foreign wars American has fought. It's the tax-fraud strategy of a politician's wildest dreams, and nothing else comes close to it. Billions of dollars just get to disappear off the accounting radar, and nobody knows where they are, when there's a war on.

So that's just a crazy thing to say...even if we forget about the billions being stolen from the poor and needy, to say nothing of the honest working folks in America and elsewhere, what it's going to, what it's being used for, is horrendous. And the poor people of Ukraine...what a horrible price they're paying for a tax-grab scheme run in other countries.

I cannot imagine how you could even write a line like that...

I can because there wouldn't be at this point a banking system without strong international blocs. Everyone would be very poor. Irradiated as well. You don't comprehend the gravity of the philosophical commonwealth we used to speak of in the 1700s and 1800s shifted to transnational blocs, not the nation state. Only reason the US remains rich is because it finally grasped this in the second World War. It's a system that forces multinational integration and trade pacts. If it has no military strength behind it, like what Germany did to NATO allowing Russia to invade Ukraine, Or ECOWAS not having a trained standby rapid reaction force, it falls apart. Cargo currently can't ship out of Ukraine, and grain is stuck in Benin due to these consequences.

You have to spend on breaking the tactical synthesis of your enemy (the one likely to break your bloc) and spend on making sure your collective militaries are used to each other, can fight and take objectives. That's the brutal honesty machiavellian truth. You owe your wealth and sense of peace to this rationalization made a few generations back. Whenever we turn against it, war happens. People ignorant of it are war mongers.

If you put enough effort in, and it's alot, war either doesn't happen or is rare. It allows for a abundance of idiots on philosophy forums who never study up on these essential issues unfortunately. It's much better to live in a strong bloc like NATO than to find yourself needing one, without. Life can be very brutal and quick, as half the world is still living in the 19th and early 20th century with the mode of warfare and politics present then.

Two of the top warmonger on this forum:

Gary and Veggie.... extreme reckless ignorance, getting people needlessly killed.

Your not much better. I have no desire to head back to WW1 ideals. Disband a standing army and let drone carriers from China expand across the pacific, overwhelming south Korea and Japan while Russia smashes europe..... all for tax relief? We won't have trade with Europe or Asia then. We will be collectively poorer. Australia and New Zealand will be cut off. India isolated. Each nation on their own. The countries most enthusiastically encouraging this stupidity (Russia and China) would smash everything. Nukes would go off from multiple parties. Absolutely no.

We invest in DARPA or we die. We invest in allies or we collectively fall. As 13 colonies on the Atlantic seaboard we once made the decision to band together and federalize. It made us stronger. We wanted trade and security and a place amongst the nations. We have that place now. Many others like us, and we get along peacefully. I'm not interested in a bunch of clueless people, neonates or Marxists trying to tear it all down. I rather like the good world we are increasingly living in.

The tax is simple. You pay for a strong military, and the cost of diplomacy and international integration. You mix your intellectuals, expand the debate. You train each other up. You make damn sure predators like Russia and China can't kill you. And you try to convince as many of the unaligned to join your cause, or set up a similar defensive bloc and try something similar. It's a mohist philosophy in the end.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't think he's a Nazi. He doesn't want to have anything to do with them, that is clear. However, I think he's misguided and is not looking at what is going on among some he's defending nor with some he's accusing of deciet. I took him to be saying that there are no such things as "Neo-Nazis." If I am wrong and there are no such things as "Neo-Nazis" then I am wrong. However, I don't know what else to call someone who waves a flag that pretty much every human being in my country generally knows to associate with murder and genocide. If that didn't happen in Nazi Germany, then I'm also wrong.

I think that adding 'neo' to it simply allows wonkers like Mick Stinks to give anyone who disagrees with him a label with the word 'Nazi' in it. A Nazi is a Nazi.

OK. Whether a "neo-Nazi" or just a "nazi", either they exist in the world or they don't. IC seems to claim that nowhere are these "Nazis" to be found. I would like to know what else to call someone who brandishes a flag of the original "Nazi" party. Why shouldn't people be warry or disapprove of people who wave a flag like that? In the end, that's all it comes down to. People can scream "Nazi" at the top of their lungs. If it's not true, then that's one thing, however, if some truly believe that the policies of Nazi Germany were somehow admirable enough for whatever reason to warrant them waving their flag, then what is more appropriate to call them than "Nazis?"

They would be called extreme right wing, but then IC calls them 'left wing' so there's no reasoning there anyway.

[Gary Childress]

As to the tax dollar lost via the military industrial sector.... tough. Not a real problem.

No, it really, really IS the problem.

That's the whole reason for the war...and for the succession of useless foreign wars American has fought. It's the tax-fraud strategy of a politician's wildest dreams, and nothing else comes close to it. Billions of dollars just get to disappear off the accounting radar, and nobody knows where they are, when there's a war on.

So that's just a crazy thing to say...even if we forget about the billions being stolen from the poor and needy, to say nothing of the honest working folks in America and elsewhere, what it's going to, what it's being used for, is horrendous. And the poor people of Ukraine...what a horrible price they're paying for a tax-grab scheme run in other countries.

I cannot imagine how you could even write a line like that...

I can because there wouldn't be at this point a banking system without strong international blocs. Everyone would be very poor. Irradiated as well. You don't comprehend the gravity of the philosophical commonwealth we used to speak of in the 1700s and 1800s shifted to transnational blocs, not the nation state. Only reason the US remains rich is because it finally grasped this in the second World War. It's a system that forces multinational integration and trade pacts. If it has no military strength behind it, like what Germany did to NATO allowing Russia to invade Ukraine, Or ECOWAS not having a trained standby rapid reaction force, it falls apart. Cargo currently can't ship out of Ukraine, and grain is stuck in Benin due to these consequences.

You have to spend on breaking the tactical synthesis of your enemy (the one likely to break your bloc) and spend on making sure your collective militaries are used to each other, can fight and take objectives. That's the brutal honesty machiavellian truth. You owe your wealth and sense of peace to this rationalization made a few generations back. Whenever we turn against it, war happens. People ignorant of it are war mongers.

If you put enough effort in, and it's alot, war either doesn't happen or is rare. It allows for a abundance of idiots on philosophy forums who never study up on these essential issues unfortunately. It's much better to live in a strong bloc like NATO than to find yourself needing one, without. Life can be very brutal and quick, as half the world is still living in the 19th and early 20th century with the mode of warfare and politics present then.

Two of the top warmonger on this forum:

Gary and Veggie.... extreme reckless ignorance, getting people needlessly killed.

Your not much better. I have no desire to head back to WW1 ideals. Disband a standing army and let drone carriers from China expand across the pacific, overwhelming south Korea and Japan while Russia smashes europe..... all for tax relief? We won't have trade with Europe or Asia then. We will be collectively poorer. Australia and New Zealand will be cut off. India isolated. Each nation on their own. The countries most enthusiastically encouraging this stupidity (Russia and China) would smash everything. Nukes would go off from multiple parties. Absolutely no.

We invest in DARPA or we die. We invest in allies or we collectively fall. As 13 colonies on the Atlantic seaboard we once made the decision to band together and federalize. It made us stronger. We wanted trade and security and a place amongst the nations. We have that place now. Many others like us, and we get along peacefully. I'm not interested in a bunch of clueless people, neonates or Marxists trying to tear it all down. I rather like the good world we are increasingly living in.

The tax is simple. You pay for a strong military, and the cost of diplomacy and international integration. You mix your intellectuals, expand the debate. You train each other up. You make damn sure predators like Russia and China can't kill you. And you try to convince as many of the unaligned to join your cause, or set up a similar defensive bloc and try something similar. It's a mohist philosophy in the end.

Neither Veg nor I are "warmongers". It is the height of absurdity to accuse those protesting a war that seems to be escalating to more and more dangerous levels causing more and more people to die, of being "warmongers".

[mickthinks]

I took him to be saying that there are no such things as "Neo-Nazis."

Yes, that's what I take Manny to be saying, too. It's one of the reasons why I suspect him of being one. Here's one of the more conspicuous American Neo-Nazis that Manny says don't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer .

[Gary Childress]

I took him to be saying that there are no such things as "Neo-Nazis."

Yes, that's what I take Manny to be saying, too. It's one of the reasons why I suspect him of being one. Here's one of the more conspicuous American Neo-Nazis that Manny says don't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer .

I honestly don't think IC Is a "Nazi". Is he in essence more critical of socialists and queers than people who wave the flag of Nazi Germany. Yes. It seems so to me. Is he knowingly making what seem to me to be insane choices? I don't think so.

The Vatican allegedly stayed relatively silent through most of the war as the Nazis rampaged in Europe. There were doubtless some Catholics who expressed protests. There was even a Father Kolbe who voluntarily threw away his own life into the death camps for no apparent other reason than to suffer with the victims there. But my understanding is that the Vatican was more or less silent on the matter. Does that make the Vatican genocidal maniacs who murdered Jews, Gypsies and all manner of "undesirables" or does that make them people who failed to raise their voice when genocidal maniacs were murdering Jews, Gypsies and all manner of "undesirables"?

[Wizard22]

Western Civilization has moved so far beyond World War II and the Europe-centric historical past, that Westerners have largely forgotten the reasons underneath and causes of war and military in general. Armies exist to protect one group of people, while waging war against others. So who is the "my people" of the West? This is hard to pin-down, because the Eurocentric (Nationalistic) past blinds people to where Westerners came from, where we are now, and where we are headed. Even mentioning this, summons the rabid far-left Wokies (like mick), who want to shut down these conversations before they even start. Thus to broach the subject of Nationalism, aka. Eurocentricity, means that you are "Neo-Nazi" to the far-left. But...they're retarded and should be ignored.

So I pose the question: who is the "my people", "our team", social identity of Westerners in general?

This is complex. From the Center-Right, people instinctively associate "my people" with ethnic and racial familiarity. This is what is attacked from the Center-Left, like micky here.

So from the Center-Left, this is a reactionary social identification which poses something "greater than" ethnic, racial, familial bonds (Blood and Earth)—for example Faith, Ideology, Religion, Culture.


The Center-Right believes military and war serves the people, bound by blood.

The Center-Left believes military and war serves ideologies, political loyalties, religious affiliations.

This means Christians/Jews/Moslems, are also Center-Left, because they too put their religious affiliations before their Kin.


Notice how it is the absolute worst thing in the world, the most evil, among the center-left, to defend your own kin, your own family, your own children. You are a "Nazi" for doing so. Instead, according to them, you must serve something else—anything else. Usually, they mean serving whatever ideology they-themselves have bought into: social justice, liberalism, Judæo-Christian Zionism/Globalism, whatever. Meanwhile, the Washington DC supposed "elites" are busying ingratiating themselves, lining their own pockets, manipulating the masses through propaganda, and perpetuating the global war machines. Does anybody here really think Western governmental authorities "care" about the lives lost, the blood lost, or if things get out of hand, that the Western poor population wouldn't be conscripted, drafted, and sent to die for their greed?

The fact that there is no more "Anti-War-Leftists" should wake you all up. But most are still sleeping.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know much about "skinheads" and people who want to be "edgy", you'll have to educate me on that.

I'm totally uninterested in that task, Gary. The minute somebody cranks out the "Neo-Nazi" accusation, I lose all belief in their intelligence and their integrity. There's just no coming up from a mendacity so transparent or an accusation so perverse and dishonest.

What else would you call someone who waves the flag of a political organization that is widely reputed to have murdered millions of human beings in order to "solve" the "problems" with their society?

Well, just as well, I might call them a Communist. National or International Socialism, it has all done the same thing. It all kills people, it's all racist, it's all violent and militaristic, and it all destroys whole countries. It's never done anything else.

But consider this, Gary. Calling somebody a "Nazi" merely because they disagree with you is a dirty trick. It's a trick, because you really have no reason to believe they are; and it's dirty, because it's an attempt to smear somebody so that you don't have to respond to their concerns or deal with their objections. So it's low and cheap in every possible way: and it's also a confession of failure on the part of Leftists...that, having run out of reasonable things to say, they are at the point of merely having to throw slurs. That's why the Left does it: because they're all out of real answers. Yet they still want to impose their "program" on all of us anyway. So silencing the opposition -- whether by brownshirts or red purges -- is the name of the game.

So don't be cheap. Don't reach for the facile slurs of the Left. If you can't answer the question or deal with the perspective, just say so, like a man. Don't throw mud, like a spoiled child.

[Immanuel Can]

Two of the top warmonger on this forum:

Gary and Veggie.... extreme reckless ignorance, getting people needlessly killed.

Your not much better.

The person who wants increased militarism calls me a "warmonger," for calling into question the integrity of a foreign war the West provoked and which the elites are using to bilk the American public of tax dollars? I'm the warmonger for wanting Ukraine to return to peace, and the Russians back in Russia?

You haven't been listening, clearly.

Let me try out a new thesis for you: the corrupt politicians behind this war want it to continue. They want it to continue no matter how many Ukrainians and Russians are killed. They want it to continue until they get "regime change," meaning Putin dead or jailed, and their own puppet in his place. Then they'll need a new war; this one will be played out. But the money-and-power machine cannot be suffered to stop.

So the narrative they want sold to the public is that there is no alternative but further escalation, more militarization, more global policing by America, more money flowing through the war machine, no chance of a truce or settlement of any kind, and certainly no possibility of withdrawal, or anything else that will end the war. They want people in the West to believe fervently that the matter is simple: supporting Ukraine against Russia is just plain good; expressing even the least doubt about the necessity of America being involved in European wars is blasphemy. And nothing less than the death of Putin will resolve the conflict. There's no point even in offering terms of peace; you can't negotiate.

That's the narrative they want. And you can see why they would want it. Is that hard to believe?

Don't sell it for them.

[Immanuel Can]

But I have met many dedicated and sincere individuals who have practiced activism on behalf of troubled people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZdgBPkmEE&t=22s
It's about 7 minutes. And it will be 7 of the best minutes you can spend.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As to the tax dollar lost via the military industrial sector.... tough. Not a real problem.

No, it really, really IS the problem.

That's the whole reason for the war...and for the succession of useless foreign wars American has fought. It's the tax-fraud strategy of a politician's wildest dreams, and nothing else comes close to it. Billions of dollars just get to disappear off the accounting radar, and nobody knows where they are, when there's a war on.

So that's just a crazy thing to say...even if we forget about the billions being stolen from the poor and needy, to say nothing of the honest working folks in America and elsewhere, what it's going to, what it's being used for, is horrendous. And the poor people of Ukraine...what a horrible price they're paying for a tax-grab scheme run in other countries.

I cannot imagine how you could even write a line like that...

I can because there wouldn't be at this point a banking system without strong international blocs. Everyone would be very poor. Irradiated as well. You don't comprehend the gravity of the philosophical commonwealth we used to speak of in the 1700s and 1800s shifted to transnational blocs, not the nation state. Only reason the US remains rich is because it finally grasped this in the second World War. It's a system that forces multinational integration and trade pacts. If it has no military strength behind it, like what Germany did to NATO allowing Russia to invade Ukraine, Or ECOWAS not having a trained standby rapid reaction force, it falls apart. Cargo currently can't ship out of Ukraine, and grain is stuck in Benin due to these consequences.

You have to spend on breaking the tactical synthesis of your enemy (the one likely to break your bloc) and spend on making sure your collective militaries are used to each other, can fight and take objectives. That's the brutal honesty machiavellian truth. You owe your wealth and sense of peace to this rationalization made a few generations back. Whenever we turn against it, war happens. People ignorant of it are war mongers.

If you put enough effort in, and it's alot, war either doesn't happen or is rare. It allows for a abundance of idiots on philosophy forums who never study up on these essential issues unfortunately. It's much better to live in a strong bloc like NATO than to find yourself needing one, without. Life can be very brutal and quick, as half the world is still living in the 19th and early 20th century with the mode of warfare and politics present then.

Two of the top warmonger on this forum:

Gary and Veggie.... extreme reckless ignorance, getting people needlessly killed.

Your not much better. I have no desire to head back to WW1 ideals. Disband a standing army and let drone carriers from China expand across the pacific, overwhelming south Korea and Japan while Russia smashes europe..... all for tax relief? We won't have trade with Europe or Asia then. We will be collectively poorer. Australia and New Zealand will be cut off. India isolated. Each nation on their own. The countries most enthusiastically encouraging this stupidity (Russia and China) would smash everything. Nukes would go off from multiple parties. Absolutely no.

We invest in DARPA or we die. We invest in allies or we collectively fall. As 13 colonies on the Atlantic seaboard we once made the decision to band together and federalize. It made us stronger. We wanted trade and security and a place amongst the nations. We have that place now. Many others like us, and we get along peacefully. I'm not interested in a bunch of clueless people, neonates or Marxists trying to tear it all down. I rather like the good world we are increasingly living in.

The tax is simple. You pay for a strong military, and the cost of diplomacy and international integration. You mix your intellectuals, expand the debate. You train each other up. You make damn sure predators like Russia and China can't kill you. And you try to convince as many of the unaligned to join your cause, or set up a similar defensive bloc and try something similar. It's a mohist philosophy in the end.

Fuck off you warmongering ghoul.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Comments? Additions? Objections? Criticisms? Cream pies in the face? Anything?

The analysis, overall, was quite accurate. And quite useful.

If there was silence on my part it is because 1) you never deal fulsomely with the entirety of an idea presented to you — especially if it challenges your Christian religious fanaticism. 2) Because on the whole this forum seems incapable of discussing topical issues. It is as if the external world does not exist.

In regard to you I often stand in startled awe that, in one category you reason very well, while in another all — literally all! — reasonableness is totally abandoned.

In my case the analysis you expounded is understood, so no confirmation (from me) is needed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh. So you get to slander people, and if they don't bother to refute your absurd, false and downright anachronistic charge, you think that makes them guilty?

No, I think you are probably a Neo-Nazi, but I recognise there is still some room for doubt. What there is no doubt about is that you behave exactly like one. If you really aren't a Neo-Nazi you can stop behaving like one anytime you like.

This is an absurd, indeed an hallucinated claim. There is nothing remotely Nazi or neo-Nazi in anything IC has said or says. And nothing that comes remotely close.

The accusation is invented. Because it is invented it leads me to wonder about your state of mind as one inclined to projection.

Post please any post or paragraph of IC’s that you believe supports Nazism. You cannot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I doubt he's a Neo-Nazi. ... He just seems to empathize with them

QED

Gary: you need to prove this assertion. Which neo-Nazi does IC ‘empathize with’.

Demonstrate this. Or retract the accusation.

[Gary Childress]

I doubt he's a Neo-Nazi. ... He just seems to empathize with them

QED

Gary: you need to prove this assertion. Which neo-Nazi does IC ‘empathize with’.

Demonstrate this. Or retract the accusation.

This is the whole "accusation" I gave which is not fully quoted by Mick.

I doubt he's a Neo-Nazi. We're all human, after all. He just seems to empathize with them more so than he does with gay people.

So far I've seen IC ask me "where are the Neo-Nazis" when I asked him what we ought to call someone who attends a rally waving the flag of a regime that is probably most infamous for exterminating human beings deemed 'undesirable' in order to "solve" societal "problems". I told him I saw news clips of people at conservative rallies waving those flags. He says it's just some sort of show of "edginess". Apparently, people marching in "pride" parades aren't displaying "edginess". No, unlike "edgy" people they're just not tolerable. They're going to bring about the fall of decent society (or whatever).

If I've got that wrong, then I will be happy to hear the clarification of the admitted interpretations I have given the phenomenon of the sinister forces driving homosexuality and sexual impropriety that perhaps aren't present in those waving the flags of regimes that seem to have given life to genocidal policies and events.