The imbecility of moderation in war

Even an aging frontman can speak sense at times:

Then again, that’s a bit unfair because Won’t Get Fooled Again was pretty clear in its sentiments. May I start with a quote about war:

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.

That was said by John Arbuthnot Fisher in lecture notes at the turn of the century [the old one].

There is a young lady who continues to follow my Twitter account [and I’m devoted to her], despite her being Labour or LibDem or Remoaner Tory in every way – Parveen Agnihotri – and she is impervious to reason. Sometimes I show her a tweet which has counter-information and she just ignores it.

Next day, out she comes with the exact same fallacy yet again, never altered, quite hard-wired, straight from the Narrative. An example would be showing her an act of violence on behalf of Islam. You know the way it goes – she’ll put it down to an individual nutter, which is true to a point and that’s the grip the narrative has on people – it does start with a self-evident ‘mini-truth’ but then deviates from that via the new lexicon and deliberately misinterprets.

Not saying she deliberately created this Narrative herself but the Narrative does appeal to her ‘love all’, bird with a broken wing, female mentality. She sees herself as a ‘world citizen’, which on the face of it is a noble ideal, except for one thing, as we know.

That one thing is well illustrated by Lara Logan, the blonde female reporter from the US who went to Egypt with a crew and was nearly raped. She went on and on about it, failing to take any lessons whatever from it, just as women in Sweden, women in Germany, are taking no lessons whatever.

Years earlier, on TV, Michael Palin had an episode of Ripping Yarns, Roger of the Raj, in which the wonderful Richard Vernon played Lord Bartlesham, head of the Regiment, having all these crusty ideas according to Palin. One of those was that when hundreds of Pathan warriors rose up to murder every white man they could find, and he was asked how he would deal with them, he said, ‘I’d be kind to them.’ Provide them with tea and biscuits.

Tea and biscuits is fine as a general rule but not when hundreds of Pathan warriors are storming your house and trying to wipe you out. Lara Logan eat yer heart out. Moderation in war is imbecility.

Now, which one would be better able to protect you from jihadi nutters – Parveen or a military-trained person who would sum up the situation and shoot first? We’re not speaking here of legalities, just about meeting an immediate or extant threat and preserving the lives of those around.

Widening this to the national scene, which would be more effective in culling the jihadi threat, which is very real and depends heavily on the complicity and passivity of the natives in the land they’re taking over – deporting and/or terminating, or ‘being kind’ to them?

What I’m saying here is that the extremist in this is actually the so-called moderate, utterly incapable of perceiving a threat, let alone addressing it but misinterpreting summary measures as ‘extremism’.

Teddy Roosevelt had it right in saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’. Max Ehrmann wrote:

As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others,
even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.

I’d always thought it was Kahlil Gibran but there you go. ‘Without surrender.’

Parveen’s ‘world citizen’ simply does not work, cannot work because:

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion. [William Ralph Inge]

And there it is. There is a vast difference between warmongering neo-con-ism and having adequate defences.

And let’s look at this World Citizen – far from free people of all races and creeds happily getting on with each other, this is about enslavement by a politburo – UN, EU, whatever they call themselves, everyone reduced to a slave in his own land. It’s a trick and 52% of people in this country at least have seen through that trick.

Parveen is no doubt a lovely lady, kind and loving. At the same time, she’d be horrified to think anyone could say she is part of the problem which is abetting the destruction of our society which preserved the freedoms we once had. In ignoring that, she is abetting the trampling on those freedoms, abetting the killings and rape. Those are what I and millions of others oppose, not some idealistic idea of World Citizenry.

3 comments for “The imbecility of moderation in war

  1. Hereward Unbowed.
    March 31, 2017 at 7:58 am

    The thing is, times change but human nature is stuck in about a million years before the Neolithic and where the limbic system its reptilian amygdala rules the instinct, we of course attempt to rise above but primal are subliminal fears, territorially conditioned and loathing are still hotwired.

    Thus, and speaking all analogous, when the shepherd opens the gate and lets the wolves walk in and dwell among the lambs, you don’t need a doctorate thesis in psychology of Sociological outcomes to predict what is going to happen.

  2. mona
    March 31, 2017 at 9:03 pm

    You seem to have a problem with that Parveen chick, what you are really saying you would like to ride her, what other reason would you to talk to a moron ?.

  3. March 31, 2017 at 9:34 pm

    I say nutting.

Comments are closed.