In this crisis I think I may be pardoned if I do not address the House at any length today, and I hope that any of my friends and colleagues or former colleagues who are affected by the political reconstruction will make all allowances for any lack of ceremony with which it has been necessary to act.I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.
You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.
Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.
I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."
I have been asked to include my email policy here (for some years it has been on the top page of the Spectacle):
Flames will be published with attribution. All other correspondence may be published unless specifically otherwise requested.
In the Guidelines for writing for the Spectacle I elucidate as follows:
I also have a couple of rules about the Spectacle letters column. If you write to me about something you read in the Spectacle, I will assume the letter is for publication. If it is not, please tell me, and I will respect that. If you want the letter published, but without your name attached, I will also respect that. Flames are an exception. They will be published in full, with attribution. I have actually had people follow up on a published flame by complaining that they thought they were insulting my ancestry privately. No dice.
I thrive on your email and can be contacted as always at jw@bway.net.
Jonathan Wallace
American Newspeak: The Mangling of Meaning for Power
and Profit By Wayne Grytting American Newspeak -- The Book-- is now out. You fans of my Newspeak ramblings
can now wrap your hands around a real physical copy of the greatest hits of Orwellian Doublespeak plus
added inciteful commentary, published by New Society Publishers. Needless to say I'm quite excited about it all.
You can see a copy of the cover with a cross-eyed Uncle Sam and read ego enhancing reviews by going to:
"After the tragedy of September 11th, a tiny window opened in America's cultural landscape.
Besides feeling
vulnerable and outraged, many people paused to engage in an activity quite foreign to our customs, an
activity that required journeying into the most infrequently visited regions of the cerebral cortex, an
activity known as -- reflection. And what they reflected about were the complaints that have flooded
in from around the world that Americans are shallow, self-centered and materialistic."
"Let's be
open about this. We are. And we're doing a damn good job of selling it to the rest of the world.
So there. But critics of America's superficiality leave unanswered a lot of really nifty questions,
like just how shallow is America? How shallow can you get if you really try? Can you make
advances in narcissism? Can spiritual aspirations be met with a new toaster oven? Can a
society be united by shared memories of advertising jingles? How long can a TV news
anchor smile? How much of yourself can you sell and still have brain cells
left to tie your shoes? These are the issues you are about to see cracked
wide open as we explore the cutting edge advances being made in one of
our nation's leading industries, Newspeak."
New Society is a wonderful publisher of progressive books. But
a big budget they have not. That's why if you could see your way
to help promote the book, it would sure be appreciated. Besides
going into debt and buying multiple copies, there is:1. Telling
friends 2. Writing short reviews at places like Amazon.com or your
local rag 3. Suggesting to friends in the media that they review it,
etc Anyway, enjoy the book and I look forward to skewering Bush and
Co in the future
Your humble writing friend,
Wayne Grytting wgrytt@scn.org
In response to Capitalism and
the Tragedy of the Commons:
perhaps you could explain why you and several other peoples right to
snorkle five times a year outweighs hundreds of thousands of peoples right
to make an honest living and feed their families?
BTW, If you think shipping corporations can provide safe, well payed jobs
with lots of health insurance for all of us little guys, while
simultaneously operating business with both hands tied behind their backs
in environmental red tape - meanwhile paying their selfless top executives
less than a unionized dock worker, you are living in an alternate reality.
Executives have a damn tough job to do, its a tribute to their intelligence
that any of them can turn a profit for their investors (many small time,
like me) with special interest groups trying to take away their income.
Sure reefs are pretty - I like snorkeling too - but its insulting to
suggest that the rest of us should lock ourselves up in some non-polluting
"human reservation" and never dare to tread out in the vast wild (except,
or course, for you and a couple enlightened friends who would provide the
rest of us with vivid descriptions of the lovely coral reefs)
Take a second look at pollution credits and other free market approaches to
the tragedy of the commons. If you consider them seriously you will be
convinced that they are a logical and viable solution. While I admit that
corporations don't like them either, they are better than inflexible
regulation.
Regards,
Jamie Steiner jvsteiner@comcast.net
Well put. Perhaps, it could just be
required that sites containing explicitly
pornographic material, be labeled as pornographic. This could then be recognized by
browsers, but avoids forcing every web page into a rating system. This is an
extremely grey area, I understand, even the classic 'slippery slope', but it might
work. By making the punishments for not labeling pornographic material stiff enough
it might produce results. However, I don't think any thing can be policed
worldwide, so it's all a little shaky anyway
jon.schrader jon.schrader@attbi.com
I'm replying to certain viewpoints expressed in the Spectacle (1996) articles
"Is There a Right to Revolution?"
and
"The NRA, Taggants and Revolution.".
If I understand your viewpoints correctly, you maintain that private ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens automatically creates an atmosphere of violence that empowers terrorists and other criminals to overthrow the government.
Another idea presented, taken to its logical conclusion, is that since courageous people will always refuse to obey unjust laws, banning guns is "okay for now" because if the government turns tyrannical, these same courageous people won't mind illegally obtaining firearms to fight back.
Here is your own statement regarding the Second Amendment:
The Founding Fathers never assumed that democracy "functions justly." They knew
that democracy is an inherently unstable form of government and that all
governments are by their nature imperfect, tending to go from bad to worse
(more tyrannical) as they grow in size. As a safeguard against the
(very real) threat of tyranny, the Second Amendment was born.
Article writer's words:
A more accurate 'ruler's message' would be this: "Allow me to remain in power
with your consent, unless I disregard the Constitution and trample upon your
rights, at which time you have the authority to peaceably remove me from
office. Should I initiate unlawful force to maintain my power, then
you have a God-given right to stop me from oppressing you." Note this message
does not advocate the unlawful initiation of force on the part of the citizen
that you seem to imply is inherent in all "gun rights people."
The heart and soul of the (very clear) Constitution is that RIGHTS ARE ENDOWED
BY THE CREATOR*, not government officials, who are imperfect and prone to
corruption. We're (still mostly) a nation of laws, not of men. We're not
subject to the whims of tyrants as in other lands and the main reason we're
still (mostly) free is that the people have guns.
(*Feel free to interpret the definition of Creator [Zeus, Mother Nature, etc.] at
your leisure.)
Article writer's words:
Here a fictitious "voice" is used, presumably that of an armed individual,
equating and justifying criminality with the existence of the Second Amendment.
Utter nonsense. What you seem to forget (or have never understood) about history
is that government is typically the entity enforcing unjust laws, not posses,
self-styled militias or warped individuals.
After reading the article, I concluded the following while, of course,
confirming my own prejudices:
* Writer of these articles is a communist or socialist intellectual, living somewhere
safe from the consequences of history-proven failed "-isms."
* Writer displays ignorance (or rather, "pre-enlightenment") of the history
of firearms, not just in the United States but the world.
* Writer harbors a blind allegiance to the goodness of government
and a violent mistrust of individual destiny.
* Writer can't distinguish between a law-abiding citizen and a terrorist.
* The liberal (modern not classical definition) mindset never accepts the
validity of facts that contradict and invalidate its ideology even when
those facts are presented by those sharing the same viewpoints but who
doesn't love a good debate?
The eventual collapse of even the strongest democracy has been due not to revolution by people with guns or swords, but by the apathy and ignorance of the uneducated, supported by the sophistry of an intellectual elite that denies reality and uses emotional propaganda in order to maintain power cough*democrats*cough
Up with liberty and common sense and to hell with the ACLU.
Sincerely,
Ben La Rosa, libertarian
nocotra@yahoo.com
I was reading what your website, The Ethical Spectacle, had to say on
the concept of Altruism this afternoon. In the text of "The Problem of
Altruism", the author
proposed that human behavior could be placed into one
of three buckets:
* I regard you as a means to an end--my own survival and
satisfaction. I will exploit you in any way that suits me, including
killing and eating you if I am starving. I will never help you because
there is no benefit in it for me.
* I regard you as a means to an end, but in a more enlightened,
forward-looking way. Foregoing immediate payoffs, I now understand that
in a series of interactions over time, we can both become richer, safer
and happier if we help one another.
* I regard you as an end in yourself. I will help you in ways that
are of no conceivable benefit to me and which even put me at risk.
Before reading this I was skeptical of the proposition that human
behaviors could be so easily categorized. After reading it, I wish to
propose a fourth "bucket" and to solicit your reaction to this
submission. The fourth "bucket" that I propose is this:
I regard you as an end in yourself. I will not help you in
ways that are of no conceivable benefit to me which may put me at risk.
I will co-operate with you when we both benefit and the risk is
acceptable but I will not ask you to help me in ways that are of no
conceivable benefit to you and may put you at risk.
Believe me, that I asked myself how my proposal stood in relation to the
previous three before I bothered to query you. My first assumption was
that you might say that I merely re-stated the idea of the second
"bucket" but I believe there are differences that I will leave you to
either consider or disregard. Thank you for your time and I am looking
forward to your reply.
Respectfully,
Dan Courtright sqrldan@cox.net
Re Gulfari and the Magic Button:
I apologize if some of these points are irrelevant because of or
refuted by some of the links in your essay, as I have not read them.
First, why don't you consider Clausewitz's rendering of the purpose
of war as advancement of politics, and proceed to dismantle the
ethics of U.S. politics as thoroughly as you dismantle the ethics of
the CIA and military chain of commands?
Second, you seem very convinced that tools do not shape those who
wield them; I presume, therefore, that you are in some form a
conservative progressive, and that you must have, at some point,
realized that even face to face, as one of your examples points out,
soldiers can or will not always make the correct choices that end up
saving the most innocents. What limit on innocent casualties do you
place on remotely operated weaponry to determine when it can be used
in place of soldiers, given that they are not infallible either? The
notion that we must always use soldiers strikes me as hypocritical -
at some level of reliability and intelligence checking, it's
perfectly reasonable to expect that death-from-above/afar warfare
would present significantly less risk to enemy civilians as well as
presenting less risk to our soldiers.
Finally, why do you discount the moral/ethical/psychological power of
"out of sight, out of mind" when discussing these issues? It
certainly becomes much more difficult to deal, either politically or
ethically, with a situation where a terrorist's son is treated in an
emergency room for amputated fingers after his father releases
hostages. The media would be all over it, hospital workers would
relate the story to their friends and family, and such proximity to
the situation makes the moral and ethical problems much more
difficult for people to deal with. It is easy to trivialize
tragedies that occur in foreign countries, and more importantly, it's
almost impossible to get Americans to react with the same intensity
of emotion. The only way to approach it is to initiate the draft and
force young people to realize they may be dying or themselves pushing
the button on innocents in far away lands.
Justin Guyett justin@soze.net
I read your essay I am doing a research paper of the five main camps and i just
ran across your page. I just recently visited the Holocaust Museum in Houston
and I was so touched. I have never really thought about what happened because
I don't like talking about hurtful events. I know understand why people should
learn about The Holocaust. I wish there were words for me to say to make the
hurt go away but I can't because I am lucky and didn't have to go through the
pain. Keep your head up and I am proud of you and I admire you even though I
just read your essay. God Bless You!! Sincerely, Jessica Fancher
Having seen your intersting website on the internet I thought you might be
interested in a conference my university co-organises with two American
universities. Here is the www address with information on the confernce:
http://www.uni.edu/klink/call.htm
Sincerely,
Wladyslaw Witalisz
I read your site, and went through every part of it.
I've written an article about something pertaining to this and referred
to your website. I didn't plan to write the article.
It just happened because of something I saw in a news report about a
sneaker named Zyklon. It upset me and so I wrote the article.<>
Hardly anyone comes
to my site because I don't advertise it but since I link to you and
refer to your site for insight,
and since I comment on something I probably don't know enough about,
I thought you should see it. It offends me that there are still nazis
in the world.
Mari Cuervo cuervo@charter.net
It is clear that you have poured much of your own personal thoughts and
analysis into the content, it is sweeping and I think your conclusions
honest. I would like to thank you for the effort and the honesty, I was both
touched and informed.
I myself am not Jewish in-spite of my name, and was brought up a Catholic,
in England. We were of course exposed to Marx and Engles as well as to the
so called Jewish capitalist conspiracy of world banking. None of which we
were too critical of during those days after the war. Certainly none of the
returning fathers I knew ever took their sons or daughters aside and voice
their horror of what they had seen. Indeed many of them never shared
anything with anyone.
Like you, though I have reached certain conclusions about human beings in
general. I see them rather like a virus on this planet ( Al la Matrix movie
) their ability to do either good or evil so very very well, leads me to
believe that free will must really exists or else something would have
intervened at some time during this century to stop the horrors we, ( mostly
males!) have initiated.
So for me, while I understand your conclusions, I can't agree that God does
not exist, I don't accept the Catholic perspective of course, given the role
of the Vatican during the war! Rather I think of them as different issues, I
don't believe in a personal God but certainly do believe that there is some
sort of Supreme being which: if free-will really exists; would not intervene
anyway, rather like The Prime directive on Star Trek; any other stance would
reduce Mans' accountability.
So perhaps it is the kind of God we need to define for ourselves and that is
what guides our life. In truth, readings have often raised a core question
for me. What would I have done had I been either Jew or Nazi? Would I have
recognized it as a moral test or simply done my job? been a passive victim
or resisted? Am of course afraid of the answer. I hope no one ever has to
face the question this century.
Thanks again for your endeavors. Shalom,
Charles Wiseman Canada
Jonathan,
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Mr. Wallace,
It was illogical and ludicrous to construct a machine that contained
the seeds of its own destruction. In order to survive, the machinery
of a democracy must be based on the assumption that it will always function justly.
The Second Amendment is such an escape clause. The gun rights
people read it to mean, "You may carry arms in case you ever have to shoot
government officials." Read this way, the Constitution communicates a very
confusing message: Obey me unless you have to shoot me; but if you must
shoot me, that's all right too.
This view allows the Second Amendment to trump the First, Fifth
and Fourteenth; after all, I may have to shoot you because you are
protecting some speech that offends me, or because I don't agree
with the procedural due process you have granted someone else,
or I don't believe in equality and integration. And in each case,
the soothing Second Amendment stands in the wings, crooning that I did the right thing.
Dear Mr. Wallace: Following this path, one can place human behavior in three
buckets:
Dear Mr. Wallace:
An Auschwitz Alphabet
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Mr Wallace,
Jagiellonian University
Krakow
Poland
witalisz@vela.filg.uj.edu.pl
Hello,
http://www.bluegrrrl.net/index.cfm?did=13
Johnathan, I was stimulated to seek out
additional information about the Holocaust after reading a review of the
movie The Grey Zone. I have yet to see the film. Any way my search ended up
at your site.(insight?)
cwiseman@primus.ca