October 27, 2023
- Israel has played the role of Sisyphus in Gaza for virtually the entire nearly 2 decades since it left Gaza. The horrific Hamas attacks of 7 October reveal the futility of that “strategy,” and persisting in it will only guarantee a repeat–or worse. Although success is not guaranteed, at least at a price acceptable to Israel, it should now endeavor to push the rock down the other side of the mountain and extirpate Hamas.
- Israel seemed determined to do that in the immediate aftermath of the horrific attacks, but has delayed, apparently due to pressure primarily from the US but also Europe. The claim is that the US needs a delay in order to rush anti-air and anti-missile defenses to protect its troops and facilities in the Middle East. Perhaps, but the mixed messages coming out of Washington suggest that there are elements within the administration who are opposed to Israel eliminating Hamas.
- The US’s and Europe’s interests are not aligned with Israel’s. The “leaders” of other nations do not face the threat from Hamas that Israel does, and would much prefer to kick the can down the road and make the reckoning the problem of future governments. Furthermore, Europe in particular is infested with Arab and Muslim populations who are violently anti-Israel. Feckless Europeans are deathly afraid of mass uprisings among these populations in the event of an overwhelming Israeli invasion of Gaza.
- The 7 October attack obviously represents a colossal intelligence failure by Israel and the United States. Virtually all such intelligence failures reflect not the failure to obtain the necessary information, but instead the failure to interpret the information properly. Such failures are almost always attributable to the dominance of preconceived beliefs that are inconsistent with the information. That is, to an overweighting of prior beliefs and a failure to update them upon receipt of contrary information. In the presence of such beliefs, the information produces, at most, cognitive dissonance that leads to its being dismissed.
- That appears to be the case for 7 October. Israel had been engaging with Hamas for months, and had become convinced that Hamas had become focused on economic development in Gaza, and hence that it would not jeopardize greater access of its population to Israeli labor markets and the like.
- There is no doubt in my mind that Hamas deliberately cultivated such beliefs precisely in order to lull Israel into a false sense of security. This is a staple of Muslim, Koranic war fighting doctrine. Israel and the United States–again–mirror imaged by thinking Hamas was motivated by the kinds of economic considerations that guide policy in their countries, and by ignoring Hamas’s adamant Muslim beliefs and tactics.
- Post-7 October and during the period of threatened a massive Israeli move into Gaza there has been a virtually unanimous outcry for a renewed pursuit of the “Two State Solution.” The Two State Solution is a zombie idea advanced by zombie politicians. It will never live but it won’t die.
- Those who matter in the Palestinian polity–the hardest men with the guns–have no interest whatsoever in the 2SS. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. They are interested only in a One State Solution, with the extermination of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state “from the river [Jordan] to the sea.” And these maximalist goals are supported by a large majority of Palestinians. The refusal of Western politicians to listen to Palestinians’ openly stated goals is precisely why these poltiicans are utterly useless, and why this conflict persists. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt, and it is a disastrous basis for policy.
- To the extent that various Palestinian interests do play along with a 2SS they are just reenacting Mohammed’s hudna with the Quraish–and at times have said that openly (e.g., Arafat). A means to buy time and gather strength for an ultimate resumption of a war of extermination.
- All of the above implies that all of the conventional wisdom and shibboleths that have dominated Western discourse and policy for the past 50 plus years should be eliminated, with extreme prejudice. But the scales still obviously remain over Western eyes–and many Israeli eyes too. Politicians are loath to admit failure or to admit that they were wrong. They are loath to jettison the comforting belief that this is a conflict that can be resolved through some Westphalian negotiation between non-ideological sovereigns, rather than an intractable ideological struggle between implacable foes with utterly incompatible objectives. So the zombies carry on with their zombie policies, meaning that the horrors will carry on as well.
- One wonders what Hamas intended to accomplish on 7 October. Perhaps an orgy of murder and rape was a sufficient end in itself for Hamas, because beyond that it accomplished nothing for Hamas and indeed may have put it in an existential crisis by greatly increasing the likelihood that Israel would respond by attempting to eliminate Hamas.
- But there is no reason to believe that Hamas is primarily an independent actor. Looking at cui bono, the most likely beneficiary is Iran. These events occurred precisely when Israel and Gulf Arab states were on the verge of mutual recognition that would have created an anti-Iran axis. That rapprochement is now in shambles. Thus, one explanation for the Hamas attack, and its timing, is that it was intended to prevent this development.
- If so, it has succeeded admirably–at least on the surface. If the Saudis et al do indeed back away from the normalization of relations with Israel, they will be handing Iran a victory. One can only hope that their public statements are a blind, and that in private they are actually continuing to move forward with Israel.
- Iran is the center of gravity in this conflict. Financially and militarily it is the driving force behind the anti-Israel axis (which includes Hezbollah as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad). Heretofore, Iran has been largely immune from direct attack because it can act powerfully through its proxies. A crucial question is whether Iran will remain merely the puppet master and paymaster if Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas. Its calculation will depend on its perception of the consequences of direct intervention (by, for example, launching missile strikes on Tel Aviv).
- Minimizing this threat requires putting at risk things vital to the Iranian regime. The two most precious things are their own hides, and their nuclear program.
- Russia has come out foursquare behind Hamas and against Israel. (A Hamas delegation is in Moscow as I write this). This despite the fact that Putin has had good relations with Israel historically. But the reason is readily understood–again, it is Iran. Iran is a major supplier of weapons (especially drones) to Russia in its war against Ukraine.
- One would think that since everything and everyone remotely pro-Russian is an anathema in present day DC, the Russian-Iranian alliance would make Iran an anathema. Yet the US has been notably circumspect in its condemnation of Iran despite its obvious central role in fomenting anti-Israel violence. The administration has bent over backwards to say it has no evidence of “direct” Iranian involvement in the Hamas atrocities–although what short of Iranian missiles impacting Tel Aviv would constitute “direct” involvement remains unstated. In his statements Biden has avoided even saying the word “Iran.”
- This is another baleful legacy of Obama’s obsession with treating with Iran and normalizing the Islamic republic. Taking his statements at face value (not that you should), Obama believed he was (and is, via his marionette successor) contributing to stability in the Middle East that would allow the US to pivot to Asia. How’s that working out, genius? Empowering Iran (via monetary payments, reintegrating them into the world oil market, restraining Israeli actions against it, etc.) has instead led to a situation in which substantial American military resources are being sucked back into the region. But the pro-Iran elements in the administration (and the State Department) still seem to be driving policy–yet another zombie policy implemented by zombie politicians and apparatchiks.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
I have been pleased to help you find truth and have rather enjoyed our conversation, I know it was hard for you to follow so I appreciate the effort you put in – I could sense a level of frustation in you but you are now seeing the light. Please have a blessed, post-enlighted weekend!
Comment by [email protected] — November 19, 2023 @ 10:31 am
@101 libte — it wasn’t a conversation.
You avoided response.
You never grasped the point (Enlightenment ethics).
Your concerns were peripheral.
Your thinking (term applied loosely), shallow.
All this you call a conversation. A fantasy-land all your own.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 19, 2023 @ 12:10 pm
But I did educate you, as you implicitly acknowledged. Which is a good thing. Thus my work is done. BtW I am almost certain Herr is a honorific in German, but I am happy to check at my local Goethe Institute to remove any doubts. I can let you know what I find out.
Another thing occurred to me. Your tendency to apply group identities (liberal, leftist, et j’en passe). Are you, by any chance, a member of the new American left? This would explain so much.
Comment by [email protected] — November 19, 2023 @ 12:39 pm
@103 libte — your claim rested in denying the distinction between post-Enlightenment criminal behavior and the behavior of a savage — someone unencumbered with Enlightenment ethics.
Your denial failed the test of critical review. You failed to understand the distinction despite multiple explanatory reiterations, and you further fled providing a rationale for your position.
I’ll give you an example of the behavior of a savage (note the use of the noun, as distinct from using savage as an adjective. You consistently confused the two modes of speech; another example of your inability of mind).
In his (2014) article, ““Dubula ibhunu” (shoot the boer): A psycho-political analysis of farm attacks in South Africa” Jolien Pretorius related this event:
“In one of the farm attacks documented in the 2003 SAPS Report, two men decided to hi-jack a young doctor who lived with her parents on a farm. They stopped her on her way to work. Although they had agreed that they would not kill her, but tie her to a tree and leave her there, when one perpetrator turned around to his surprise his accomplice had strangled the doctor and gouged out her eyes.
“The Report (2003) states: “When he asked his friend why he had killed her, he replied that he had been afraid that she would have been able to identify them. His reason for gouging out her eyes in addition, was that he was afraid he would always see her image before him.”
In their matter-of-fact post-murder post-mutilation discussion, there is no hint of ethical knowledge; the knowledge that they had committed a crime; that they had chosen criminal behavior. That they had murdered and criminally mutilated.
The only response of the murderer and mutilator is fear of being identified, which would open him to revenge.
Anyone growing up in an Enlightenment culture would have the ethical knowledge of criminal offense. Even a psychopath.
Those men did not. That most profound lack of ethics is the very definition of savage. The noun savage, not the adjective.
You, in your emotional way of being, of critical blindness, see “savage” as some sort of pejorative. It’s not. Savages are as human as you or I. But they lack the civility of the Enlightenment. They can commit horrid crimes without conscience.
You thus far lack the ability to see the distinction. Candidly, I expect your education is lacking. Your teachers betrayed you. You have my permission to go back and yell at them for their negligence, because they left you critically disabled and vulnerable to propaganda.
The best thing to do is study the origins and efflorescence of Enlightenment culture, so as to become a consciously functioning member of it.
My tendency to apply group identities? That’s rich. You give every evidence of being a progressive. Judgment by evidence is not application. It’s critical appraisal.
Myself, I have a lifetime aversion to politics, organized groups, and partisan collectives. I try my best to be a freethinker. Rather like Tatyana, actually.
Freethinker a good personal state. It allows one to irritate the maximum number of people. Such as you, for example.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 19, 2023 @ 6:50 pm
Ach my dear Pat Frank, I am happy to hear from you. I do wonder that you profess to want to irritate people. I am not irritated at all, I am rather amused by your sassigassity. I do wonder tho, where does wanting to irritate the maximum number of people sit in a framework of ethical mindfulness?
In any case, back to the subject. I start to understand where the problem lies. Pay attention: In the example you judiciously use, we know the motive, the fact, that the perpetrator (an individual) had been afraid that she (the victim) would have been able to identify them. What we are not able to know, is for what motive, what was this fear based on? Was it, revenge in an old-testamential kind of way (as you believe), or prosecution by the State. This, my precious friend, is also a possibility, which you cannot just discard. You are mixing up what you read (which I commend) with what you believe.
I am glad I could help you further, and I am happy to hear that you consider yourself a freethinker. However, I should caution that with the overuse of banal group identities (you are a heretic! a liberal! a communist!) and your tapestry of moral righteousness (how can you walk thru life like that!) you come across as a medieval monk screaming from the bully pulprit. Who are you going to be, is it the medieval monk or the young cockatoo willing to learn and grow? I, for one, root for the cockatoo!
Comment by [email protected] — November 20, 2023 @ 7:47 am
@105 libte — as usual you fled addressing the impact of Enlightenment ethics on culture. We’ll concede that you are unable to do so.
You’re also unable to explain how you know torture is wrong.
Ethical mindfulness: you’ll have noticed — if you are aware of your own state of being, libte — that most people’s opinions are partisan. Such people, you included, are exercised by reasoned confutation. See your own response to my use of ‘savage.’
Your first post — #54 — was a single expostulation expressing irritation exactly — your irritation. Collectivists such as yourself are always on the lookout for heretics. And are eager to denounce them. You must have felt very righteously irritated.
In any case, irritating partisans of all stripes is the inevitable fate of a freethinker. I see doing so as a kind of unavoidable cultural health-intervention. If you ever do figure out the meaning of this conversation, you may achieve the health of reason, too.
Within the loquacious swamp of your most recent comment, #105, is one critical thought. The one about the fear of the guy who murdered the young doctor. You supposed he might have felt fear of prosecution — an implicit argument for knowledge of criminality.
But once the woman was dead, libte, his fear of identification was resolved. Why, then, the gouging of the eyes? Undoubtedly unmotivated by any fear of capture.
Far more likely is it that both actions — murder and gouging — were singular in impulse. The impulse of a man bereft of Enlightenment ethics. Of a savage.
Another example from South Africa might further clarify the savage/Enlightenment distinction for you.
This from L. Vincent (2008) “New magic for new times: muti murder in democratic South Africa” Tribes and Tribals Special 2, 43-53.
Page 43: “Muti murder refers to killing with the purpose of harvesting body parts for use as traditional medicine or ‘muti’.
“In 2000 a commission of inquiry into witchcraft, violence and ritual murders was set up by the government after a spate of deaths in Soweto in which young boys aged between one and six had been kidnapped and murdered. ‘According to post mortem examination results, the boys were left to bleed to death after having their genitals and thumbs cut off and their eyes gouged out’”
Non-criminal behavior in a non-Enlightenment culture. libte. You should dwell on the meaning of that, and apply it if you ever have travel plans.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 20, 2023 @ 7:04 pm
ah but my dear old Pat Frank, we must continue on this journey of learning. let’s dive right in.
You are still mixing up what you believe to hold true with the facts. You believe these individuals had no compunction and no awareness of the criminality of their actions, but this is not what the text says. Read it carefully and try to understand the difference. You shouldn’t just assume so because it suits your argument!
Young cockatoo, I root for you. Together we can banish that old flatulent medieval monk that lives inside your mind to the outer realms of your beautiful brain.
Comment by [email protected] — November 21, 2023 @ 7:41 am
@107 libte — a riposte with no substance. Very special — even for you.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 21, 2023 @ 11:35 am
Young cockatoo, I did reply and you did not understand.
The examples you assiduously provided, they don’t tell us whether the perpetrators were aware, conscious, of the criminality of their behavior. You think they didn’t, and I commend you for this analysis, but this analysis is not based on the body of facts presented. You base your analysis on the desired outcome you seek to communicate. I have now explained you again why this is wrong.
Young cockatoo, rest assured I do not give up on you. I see a bright future for you.
Comment by [email protected] — November 21, 2023 @ 12:42 pm
@109 libte: “this analysis is not based on the body of facts presented.”
Wrong. And a mere assertion absent reasoning.
“You base your analysis on the desired outcome you seek to communicate.
Wrong. Based on the obvious fact of no observable compunction in two independent cases.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 21, 2023 @ 4:05 pm
Ah my dear friend Pat Frank, we will be learning by repetition.
Again, no observable compunction and/or awareness of criminality is something that you have interpreted. And on top of that, even if you lack compunction you can be aware of the criminality of the act you committed. You again struggle to separate what you believe from the facts presented. You silly bugger, you!
I ask you, I command you to answer: are you the flatulent monk or the fine-feathered cockatoo?
Comment by [email protected] — November 21, 2023 @ 5:26 pm
@111 libte — the negation of no observable compunction — the essence your case — is observable compunction. Which is your implicit claim.
Your obligation: demonstrate it.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 21, 2023 @ 6:04 pm
Ma petite fleur de lotus, you need to read more carefully.
The truth is that we don’t know if there was or there was no compunction. In any case, I see you sidestepped the other question about awareness of criminality.
I read your response, and sadly I smell the old world flatulence of a medieval monk.
Comment by [email protected] — November 21, 2023 @ 7:03 pm
@113 Libte — We know none was observable, neither in a hesitancy of murder and eye-gouging nor in the post-murder conversation.
The Muti magic example provides deep confirmation of the cultural absence of compunction in the murderers.
Your modus operando throughout has been to blandly deny the obvious.
Let’s check the leader board on this conversation.
* You objected to the use of the word savage, but cannot explain why.
* You evidently cannot distinguish between savage used as a noun and savage used as an adjective.
* You cannot explain why torture is ethically wrong and have consistently fled the question.
* You show no awareness of Enlightenment ethics or its clear historical impact on personal conscience.
You also evidence no ability, or willingness, to sustain a reasoned debate.
The worst of it is that you’re apparently blind to your own ineptitude.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 21, 2023 @ 10:53 pm
My little cockatoo, you are confused yet again. Even if none was observable, you cannot discard knowledge of criminality and/or compunction. This is where your reasoning fails.
Your other amusing points are your sassy interpretations of me enlightening you with knowledge but they are not the truth.
Candidly, I expect your education is lacking. Your teachers betrayed you. You have my permission to go back and yell at them for their negligence, because they left you critically disabled and vulnerable to propaganda.
Comment by [email protected] — November 22, 2023 @ 6:23 am
@Pat Frank (and Libte): hope I don’t disturb you argument, that e.g. in 10(=110?, re 109) deteriorated to mere contradiction (compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ ). @Pat Frank: @14/114: savage, whether used as noun or adjective, results quite different meanings in a dictionary. It’s ambiguous. Had tried to make that point before with the quote from ‘Braveheart’, ‘..ego sum homo indomitus’. It seems that you use ‘savage’ as if it would have just one clear specific meaning, but you never gave a definition. Regarding ‘Enlightenment ethics’: to my knowledge the Nazis did not perceive their acts against Jews (and others) as unethical, despite society had went through Enlightenment (had made this point before, also). Your examples: these are horrible acts. But you did not demonstrate that they fit the definition of torture. Your examples are crimes, but not torture. In the example with the young medical doctor: why was one of the ‘savages’ surprised the other had killed the doctor? How could you demonstrate with just the information given, that this does not include a sense of being an unethical act? The gouging of eyes in this example happened after the person was killed, therefore it could not be torture. The person gave a reason why he did so, it was not just a reflex out of custom, for him the explanation was about something that he perceived as real. For me, there is not enough information to clarify the points.
Comment by Mikey — November 22, 2023 @ 8:23 am
@115 libte — a descent into frivolity
@116 Mikey — you should be able to achieve the distinction from usage — a savage man vs. a man who’s a savage. If not, I can’t help you.
Enlightenment societies can abandon Enlightenment ethics and return to their previous emotion — accusation state. Nazi Germany did so. Collectivists are attempting that transformation presently in the US. Even in such events there are ethical holdouts.
However, such dark events do not gainsay the advance that is Enlightenment humanism, or the ethical superiority of societies that embrace it.
George Orwell had a deep insight after a lifetime of experience and thought: the reason for oppression is oppression. The reason for torture is torture.
In that light, torture is the infliction of pain or terror for its own sake.
It appears you haven’t followed the thread in any detail. I’m not going to summarize it.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 10:22 am
@Pat Frank: okay, with this definition, your examples are torture. But then, also the peoples and nation states who went through Enlightenment are ‘savages’ in your sense, when they do not apply Enlightenment ethics, which they frequently don’t. But I doubt that society, the peoples of e.g. Europe, did not have a grasp for torture being unethical before the age of Enlightenment. The problem was the ‘power elite’, state and church, that did not apply Christian ethics and now may abandon Enlightenment ethics and the part of the people that follows them uncritically. What I mean regarding the word ‘savage’ – here the definitions given by Merriam-Webster:
savage
1 of 3
adjective
sav·age ˈsa-vij
Synonyms of savage
1
a
: not domesticated or under human control : UNTAMED
savage beasts
b
: lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings : FIERCE, FEROCIOUS
a savage criminal
2
: WILD, UNCULTIVATED
seldom have I seen such savage scenery
—Douglas Carruthers
3
a
: BOORISH, RUDE
the savage bad manners of most motorists
—M. P. O’Connor
b
: MALICIOUS
4
old-fashioned + offensive : lacking complex or advanced culture : UNCIVILIZED
savagely adverb
savageness noun
savage
2 of 3
noun
pluralsavages
1
old-fashioned + offensive : a person belonging to a primitive society
2
: a brutal person
3
: a rude or unmannerly person
-> Savage, the noun as well as the adjective, does have different meanings and connotations, it’s not limited to your use of the word. It does not exclude having an ethical sense the same as enlightened societies.
Comment by Mikey — November 22, 2023 @ 10:51 am
What impertinence Herr Frank!
I seem to have struck a nerve and you are learning. Do not confuse what you interpret with the written word. And you would be best suited to carefully study what Mikey has helpfully provided. There are many definitions of savages, both the noun and adjective. I also feel our discussion (me educating you) is now sidetracked from an aspect you have numerously failed to address (I command you to do so immediately!) – you cannot exclude the possibility of the perpetrators’ knowledge of the criminality of their acts.
The example you gave is faulty, and so is your reasoning. The young Cacatua galerita has much to learn.
Comment by [email protected] — November 22, 2023 @ 12:17 pm
@18 Mikey — you wrote, “But then, also the peoples and nation states who went through Enlightenment are ‘savages’ in your sense, when they do not apply Enlightenment ethics,
No, they are not savages (the noun) because they have knowledge of ethical criminality. Perhaps worse than savages, they behave in a savage manner all the while knowing they are committing a violation.
“it’s not limited to your use of the word.
It’s dominated by my use of the word.
“It does not exclude having an ethical sense the same as enlightened societies.”
1a, 1b, 2, and 4 all exclude Enlightenment ethics.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 3:38 pm
@19 libte — thank-you for continuing to display a notably shallow fatuity. You provide a full measure rationale for non-response.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 3:44 pm
@120, Pat Frank: ‘Perhaps worse than savages, they behave in a savage manner all the while knowing they are committing a violation.’
That’s what I was thinking: if you mean to say a ‘savage’ (in your use of the word) does not know that what he does is unethical, then he could be enlightened and change his behaviour. But somebody from an ‘Enlightenment society’ would either be also then a savage (in another sense), more so, or we’d need another word for it…maybe ‘fiend’ (pls compare #12 in ‘A dozen more observations…’).
Comment by Mikey — November 22, 2023 @ 3:59 pm
Young cockatoo, I observe your feistiness.
Let me put on my psychoanalytic glasses and reason with you, if you let me. You understand your cause is lost. The knowledge of criminality of the assaillants cannot be proven, or indeed unproven, beyond any doubt. With this in mind, you have lost the argument oh-so carefully constructed. Knowledge of criminality will make your red line in the sand, your enlightenment, an obsolete artefact of your febrile mind wandering astray down the dark corridors of the monastery where our well-acquainted flatulent monk resides. Thus your confusion and refusal to engage.
I understand what is going through you.
Comment by [email protected] — November 22, 2023 @ 4:11 pm
a) sharing my favourite version of the ‘noble savage’ – Rameau, 1736, from ‘Les Indes galantes’, les Sauvages, rondeau Forêts paisibles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWbm1CMX5f8
b) Did you see who was born and died on the 22.11., apart from JFK, Mae West etc. Jack London, according to Wiki DE:
‘In line with the general attitude of his time, Jack London was convinced of the superiority of whites in the colonial powers over indigenous ethnic groups, for example in North America or the South Seas…London questioned the progress of industrialization. He compared modern, humane society with indigenous civilizations. He stated that there had been no improvement. “Man as an individual has made no moral progress in the last ten thousand years, that I assert with certainty.” One of the reasons he gave for this was the high and reprehensible amount of child labor, which did not exist in the early days of man.’
Comment by Mikey — November 22, 2023 @ 5:07 pm
@120 — Mikey behave with savagery, or in a savage manner might describe it.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 5:27 pm
@23 libte — “refusal to engage”
Your ability for inadvertent irony is as special as your addiction to fatuity.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 5:29 pm
@124 Mikey — We’re all wild-type humans. We have all the inner attributes to return to a previous state. Which is why conscious attention to our civilization is so necessary.
I’d surmise that Jack London had no idea of the division of labor in the early days of man. That’s because we don’t today, either.
That thought led me to do a bit of Google scholar searching. Pretty much nothing on Cro-magnon adolescent labor or Cro-magnon child labor.
We do know that children worked at farming during Medieval times. We also know that children were massacred during ancient warfare, both in the old world and in the new.
The bottom line is there is unlikely to ever have been an Edenic existence.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 5:43 pm
Pat Frank I demand your answer: Are you a cockatoo or a medieval monk?
Comment by [email protected] — November 22, 2023 @ 5:47 pm
@128 libte — have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 6:09 pm
The impertinence! I am unmarried. Now answer me: who are you?
Comment by [email protected] — November 22, 2023 @ 8:59 pm
@130 libte — perhaps I should have known. An incel. After all, who’d have you?
Comment by Pat Frank — November 22, 2023 @ 10:46 pm
What unmannerliness on display on a blessed day such as today! Again, you jump to conclusions in a fit of moral absolutism and sanctimonious righteousness. The medieval monk has shown his ugly face, but I know that nearby is a beautiful member of the Psittaciforme order, and I root for this fine-feathered bird. I do not give up on you.
Comment by [email protected] — November 23, 2023 @ 7:31 am
@132 — libte, gotta hand it to you. Every time I think you can’t make yourself look more foolish, you find a way to exceed expectations.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 23, 2023 @ 8:38 am
I am in a magnanimous mood and forgive your transgressions. But be not mistaken, I shan’t forget.
Comment by [email protected] — November 23, 2023 @ 9:27 am
@134 libte – tough.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 24, 2023 @ 9:06 am
My intrepid avian companion! Our socratic dialogue shall continue. Tough in what sense? is it tough as in strong enough to withstand adverse conditions or rough or careless handling or tough in the sense to be able to endure hardship or pain? I order you to respond, but be precise.
Comment by [email protected] — November 24, 2023 @ 12:32 pm
@136 libte — you’ve lost the debate but are evidently unaware of that fact.
You’ve not been able to justify by reason a single one of your declarations.
Your continued posts here merely reflect your own refractory blindness.
Whether such foolishness is innate (feeble-mindedness) or assumed (psychological weakness) is indeterminable here. But whichever, the inanity resulting is evident.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 24, 2023 @ 2:28 pm
Ah but I did comrade Frank! To cite one of a million examples, you said that the apartheid regime did not engage in practices such as eyegouging, a mistaken notion on your part which I was able to disprove quickly. I have thus proven you wrong, something which seems to bother you quite much.
Comment by [email protected] — November 24, 2023 @ 5:54 pm
@138 libte – You wrote, “you said that the apartheid regime did not engage in practices such as eyegouging”
Here’s the comment (#53) that brought you into wroth: “Apartheid culture did not permit necklacing or gouging the eyes of prisoners; savage practices committed by savage people.
You substituted regime for culture, in your example, didn’t you. Naughty naughty. You manufactured a self-serving straw man, didn’t you.
You discovered an instance of eye-gouging that is criminal under Apartheid culture, nominally referenced to Dutch-English common law, as it was.
Eye-gouging is not criminal within Zulu culture however,
You ialso nsist on applying action terms to regime as though some discrete corporate entity exists, that commits specific crimes; a mistake common to reflexive collectivists.
So your one shining example, picked out of your exemplary millions of failures, is yet another failure.
You never get the point, libte, and it seems you never will do.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 25, 2023 @ 7:14 pm
Ah my dear Patrick Frank, you are missing the forest for the trees. But I rejoice for your continuous engagement and willingness to learn.
I cannot look up the quote you gave exactly so I paraphrased what you said, since I have an excellent memory. Excellent but not infallible. So I misquoted you, my cockatoo; and yet, my point is exactly the same, and here it is: you said that apartheid culture did not permit eyegouging, and yet I showed you an example where it occurred.
The other points you try to raise in such audacious manner are either irrelevant or products of your feverish imagination.
I order you to repent and do better.
Comment by [email protected] — November 26, 2023 @ 6:18 am
@140 libte — “you said that apartheid culture did not permit eyegouging, and yet I showed you an example where it occurred.”
So what?
American culture does not permit murder, and yet it occurs.
One is led to wonder whether you ever think before you write.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 26, 2023 @ 9:48 am
You are so close to getting it. Thus your statement is meaningless because precisely it doesn’t make any difference.
Comment by [email protected] — November 26, 2023 @ 10:39 am
@142 libte — the difference is that eye-gouging is a criminal act in Apartheid culture but not in Zulu culture.
The one perpetrator is a criminal, the latter a savage.
You’ll never get it. Because your mind, such as it is, only serves your feelings.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 26, 2023 @ 1:55 pm
My sweet dilettante; you are precisely making my point. A “culture” doesn’t criminalize acts, a book of law does. Under the Apartheid rule of law, the acts of torture were permitted, and therefore the perpetrators were not criminals under local jurisdiction at that point in time. This point you find hard to grasp.
In other words:
In a realm where choices unfold,
A tale of Pat, a story to be told.
A crossroads beckons, a choice to make,
Cokatoo’s flight or a medieval monk’s path to take.
Feathers vibrant, a dream to soar,
Spread your wings, embrace the shore.
Yet, in medieval halls of yore,
A monk with humor, flatulence galore.
Pat, the soul at the crossroads’ sway,
Laughter unites both paths today.
To fly with feathers or in silence dwell,
In humor’s embrace, where medieval tales swell.
Comment by [email protected] — November 26, 2023 @ 3:48 pm
@144 libte – “A “culture” doesn’t criminalize acts,” Yes, it does.
“a book of law does.” No, it does not.
Universal human rights supervenes sovereign-state legalisms in the recognition of crime.
Universal human rights derives solely from Enlightenment ethics. It is the ground substance of Western civic culture.
Regarding South Africa, S. Ellman (2015-2016) ‘The Struggle for the Rule of Law in South Africa 60 N.Y.L. SCH. L. Rev. 57-104
“[P]erhaps because South Africa aspired to membership in the Western rule of law world, and because the legal system for whites was in large part a rule of law modeled on British principles, the struggle against South Africa’s lawlessness was waged, in part, in South Africa’s courts, where anti-apartheid lawyers could invoke South Africa’s notional liberties to sometimes undercut its actual injustices.”
In South Africa and the Rule of Law (Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Africa) April 1968, the South African government, in defending Apartheid, claimed that the Rule of Law is fully operative within its territory. In doing so it defined the Rule of Law as follows: The rule of law may mean different things to different people, but there is general agreement that it requires that a person on trial be accused in open court; be given an opportunity of denying the charge
and of defending himself and that he be given the choice of a counsel.
Officials and police in Apartheid South Africa violated their own culture of, “rule of law modeled on British principles.” In honoring the form but violating the substance of law based on Enlightenment ethics they were consciously criminal.
Savage acts by criminal people, libte, are distinguished by culture from savage acts by a savage people.
You continue unable to think your way over that modest stile of reason.
Regarding your poesy, don’t quit your day job.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 26, 2023 @ 9:38 pm
First of all, I don’t have a day job, or rather a job at all, so I can’t quit it – your last statement is therefore vacuous and incorrect. You should at least try to appreciate my poesy.
Regarding your stile of reason it is rather you that seem to have problems climbing atop of it. I can only repeat that under the Apartheid rule of law, the acts of torture were permitted, and therefore the perpetrators were not criminals under local jurisdiction at that point in time. You don’t understand this point and use your usual smoke and mirror tactics of dragging universal human rights, “honoring the form” but “violating the substance” distraction into the discussion. And yet, despite all this, my point is still the same, and where you are mistaken. I’ll repeat for emphasis: Under Apartheid, the culture, the law, the regime, state actors committed LEGAL acts of torture against their population. Anything else you wrote is meaningless, a distraction from a simple truth you have a hard time to comprehend.
I do not give up on you, young cockatoo. Your continuous engagement gives me hope.
Comment by [email protected] — November 27, 2023 @ 9:42 am
@146 libte – no job, self-admittedly not self-supporting. Your mom’s basement is it?
Your poesy is artless.
Also, your prose is poorly fashioned, your mind shows no power of insight, your morality evidently wants ethical principle.
You plain don’t understand that law does not make activities legal under Enlightenment ethics. To suppose otherwise is to claim that the Nuremberg trials after WWII had no grounds for prosecution. After all, everything the Nazis did was legal under German law. And yet, they were found to be criminals.
German law abandoned Enlightenment ethics, and became a criminal scheme. A minority of Germans retained their sanity and knew this. Hence their non-compliance.
Likewise South African law and some South Africans.
South African officials knew they were violating their own foundational principles of Enlightenment culture. They kept the forms and composed apologetics, pretending to adhere to the principles they had consciously betrayed.
The Enlightenment is everything that makes our civil culture unique.
You push it aside as though it were meaningless. Like the Nazis did, libte, like officials of the South African Apartheid, and the Communists everywhere; mass murderers all because they jettisoned their ethical anchor and flew into perdition on wings emotion.
The anchor you likewise disdain. The wings you likewise spread.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 27, 2023 @ 7:28 pm
@Pat Frank: was enjoying your exchange with libte. First of all, I’m really fond of Enlightenment ethics as you describe them and how they relate to law.
What the age of enlightenment is I knew, but from a German perspective. The German word already is ‘Aufklärung’ as in ‘clarification’, ‘elucidation’, ‘information”, ‘intelligence’, ‘reconnaissance’, the dictionary also says as in ‘sex-education’, but that’s already difficult. ‘Aufklärung’ in German just implies to get to know some knowledge that is already there and is made available. Education will normally be translated into ‘Erziehung’, but’sex-education’ is ‘information’ in German. Erziehung may have aspects of information, but mainly is related to values, behaviours, traits. So, you esp. talk about ‘Enlightenment ethics’, but in the German word ‘Aufklärung’ the ‘ehtics’ part is already not addressed. Furthermore, from a historical perspective, it’s probably understandable we are not too convinced about the effect it did have on society, when it’s about ethics and not just information.
You wrote: ‘Because your mind, such as it is, only serves your feelings.’ Well, I’d say it’s one of the shortcomings of enlightenment, to emphasize ‘mind’ but just in the sense of thinking and disconnected from feeling. This is outdated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error : ‘Damásio refers to René Descartes’ separation of the mind from the body (the mind/body dualism) as an error because reasoning requires the guidance of emotions and feelings conveyed from the body.’
By the way, the German language does not know a 1:1 word/expression for ‘mind’…in English language use ‘mind’ seems to be a container word for different ideas, pls compare: https://rethinkingreligion-book.info/mind-and-buddhism-lost-in-translation/
Eye-Gouging: I’m not familiar with Zulu and South African society. Found this article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4709886/Men-eyes-gouged-gang-linked-witch-doctors.html But here just crimes happened and the inhabitants of a town ship did see it as such and where angry the police failed to protect them, so they took to self-justice. Also, a local shaman said to use body parts was no native trait. But then, it seems the people in this township may not be Zulu…
Also enjoyed the writing style of lipte. Now, I don’t like to emphasize the question whether Pat you are creating a distinction in your mind that guides your perception and whether starting with perception one would wonder how to arrive at this distinction. In Germany, because you are referring to communism also, there was the term ‘real existing communism’ and it meant that there was a difference between the idea of the ideology/ethics and it’s real existing form in society, and maybe not just in case of communism. For me the very problem of the current geopolitical situation is, that the West and the US does not stand for Enlightenment ethics, it’s rule of law and rule based order is meant it seems to exactly get around Enlightenment ethics. There is no enlightened example for the rest of the world…personally I wished there would be such United States of America that you could believe in that would stand for such Enlightenment ethics as you described them.
Comment by Mikey — November 29, 2023 @ 6:58 am
@pat Frank, Libte: Well, today in the shower I was thinking, ‘we were e.g. getting Freud, Reich, Jung, Frankl, because we were not through with Aufklärung/Enlightenment’…and was having a quick look again, German Wiki reads (just copied into DeepL:
‘Since 1945, the European Enlightenment has also been interpreted as an unfinished and ambivalent project in view of its late consequences, for example in the Frankfurt School; more recently, the Enlightenment has also been seen as an unfinished social emancipation process that needs to be continued in the 21st century, for example by the Giordano Bruno Foundation. Analogous emancipation processes, their absence or their necessity are also discussed in other cultures. The assumptions of the Enlightenment are at the center of criticism by postmodern theorists, while most humanities scholars and social scientists continue to see themselves as rooted in modernity and refer positively to the ideas of the Enlightenment…
…Giordano-Bruno-Foundation: ‘The closer one examines the relationship between the Enlightenment and totalitarianism, the clearer it becomes that the emergence of totalitarian regimes is not due to the supposed ‘dual character of the Enlightenment’, but rather to the problem of the ‘halved Enlightenment’, which is still virulent today. For centuries, the only aspect of the Enlightenment that had an impact on society was that which could be described as ‘instrumental reason’, while the practical, ethical and ideologically positive impulses of the Enlightenment were largely ignored.”
That was probably reflected in the discussion here…
Comment by Mikey — November 30, 2023 @ 4:18 am
Hi Pat Frank! First of all your first assertion is wrong. I am self-supporting indeed, as I am independently wealthy (I am thought leader/futurist/DEI consultant, but currently I am mainly engaged in receiving disability benefits, as are most of my family members). I also do not live in my mother’s basement, I live in my mom’s boyfriend guestroom, so the joke is on you. As a gesture of goodwill, I will leave the other insults you hurl towards me uncommented. After all, what does an emperor on horseback care about a caged monkey trying to throw excrements at him.
I see where your thinking is leading you astray. My friend, the Nazis accused in the Nueremberg trials were not found to be criminal under such imprecise thing as “enlightenment ethics”, it was customary international law that was applied.
Both these statements can be true at the same time: statement a) actors of the Apartheid regime tortured people, which was legal under the local rule of law (this is what I am saying), statement b) these acts were immoral, unethical, contrary to the principles of Enlightenment and morality (what you are saying). There is no contradiction here. I propose that for better clarity, you should rather use the word immoral or unethical in this context, rather than criminal. You are judged to be a criminal against a book of law, not against an ethical school-of-thought. This is why a synonym for criminal is lawbreaker, not ethical-principle-breaker.
Another element you are missing here, the Nueremberg trials were most important not because of the reasons you try to defend here. It is rather for holding individuals responsible for crimes of war that they are relevant, even (especially) today.
Mikey thanks for your comments, I will read and respond to these tomorrow!
Comment by [email protected] — November 30, 2023 @ 5:12 pm