Harry’s Place and the Pinochet Coup discussion

July 21, 2010

I’m being rather pleased with myself as I’ve just written a rather good comment on the discussion.
I’ll reproduce it here for my vanity!
I’ve also removed the first line but you can still see it on Harry’s Place. I will also add that Michael Rosen is as foolish as ever (though well-spoken).

*

Taking a historian’s perspective, what the pattern of events in Chile remind me of is the period before and during the Nationalist coup in Spain July 1936. Also, it would help if those here knew more about the previous period before 1970.
Looking also at the numbers murdered by the Pinochet regime, one is struck by two elements: one of similarity and dissimilarity to the Nationalist repression both during and after the Spanish Civil War.
The first is to notice that following the coup, the military regime carried out a purge of its real and potential opponents. This is the motive behind the ‘limpiezia’ (sp?) or “cleansing” of Spanish society of the “red contagtion”.
The second is to notice that the killings were nothing like as extensive as in Spain. I do not mean to excuse the killings or that which followed the coup but this is also about perspective. Other regimes, notably but not exclusively, Soviet backed regimes were guilty of much greater bloodletting than the military regime in Chile.

A question that should be asked of those declaring their conviction in US guilt is as follows: should the protagonist ascribe unlimited power to the CIA dirty tricks division and risk removing historical agency from those who carried out or opposed the coup in Chile?
I would argue that as the coup was carried out by the Chilean military, the argument regarding smuggled weapons is irrelevant. The potential for a coup existed and the military of Chile was then very conservative and hostile to the socialist/left-wing groups in the country. One would also ask all here to look at who SUPPORTED the coup in Chile. This wasn’t a vicious little group murdering a secular saint and being sustained by the Great Satan: as in Spain in 1936 there was a substantial, traditional and middle class group in Chilean society who openly backed and acquiesced in the coup.
The reality is more complex than argued by others in here, not least because as in Spain 1936, the left-wing government of the day was guilty of not respecting the constitution of the country, ignoring Chilean Supreme Court rulings (that a number of acts including land redistribution were illegal) and was accused on 22nd August 1973 by the Chamber of Deputies of repeated violations of constitutional limitations and freedoms.
You should at least discuss this.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile’s_Democracy

Michael Ezra’s original complaint against Wikipedia was and remains sound: that the article lent a political bias, not supported by the evidence available.


Fudging

March 15, 2009

From this article by the deputy editor of the Sunday Times, a paper that I regard as broadly representing the sensible view in British politics.

The idea that we can a political settlement with the Taliban is such nonsense. In the end the author states how difficult it would be to find an agreement with the Taliban, The mullah is not one to compromise; it was his regime that banned kites, chess, cosmetics (women with painted nails had their fingers cut off), laughing in public, toothbrushes (too modern) and anything else that was fun or smacked of the post-medieval world.
But he precedes this (in the same paragraph) with Now it looks as if David Miliband, our foreign secretary, and perhaps the US administration are beginning to accept that reconciliation means talking to Mullah Omar, the one-eyed zealot, and other hardline Taliban leaders.

How on earth do you put these two together? I don’t believe that John Witherow is suggesting that we actually just write off the last seven years as a mistake and hope that craven surrender will somehow appease the Islamists. But then what else could he mean other than talking to the Taliban (and thereby discrediting the Karzai government in the eyes of the world and its own citizens) in the vague hope of reaching a sort of fudging agreement?
This argument is indicative of the stupidity of refusing to link Al-Qaeda and the Taliban by their common thread – Islamism. Islamism is the ideology that pushes for the complete subjugation of the world to their version of Islam.

Islamism is the ideology that drove the September 11th hijackers. It is the ideology that saws the heads off of aid workers and informants alike. It is the ideology that supports honour killings and proposes only death or conversion for dealings with non-subjected Muslims and Jews and pagans (Hindus and the like).

This is as if people were seriously arguing about talking to the moderates in the Nazi regime in 1942 with the exception here to this analogy that it was obvious then and now that the deciding force was Hitler and that the policies of Nazi Germany were identified with the policies and ideas of Adolf Hitler.

There is NO fudge to be made as regards the Taliban. We should put a lot more troops down, we should force the fucking Europeans (outside of Holland, Denmark and Estonia) to pull their fucking weight – especially the fucking Germans.


Was I right?

February 20, 2009

Apologies for my absence (well, to my two or three readers), work has been a bugger and have been too tired to blog. Let’s hope this picks things up.

Charles Krauthammer (and others) warned of this and have been reporting on the Obama administrations slide into lunacy. Jimmy Carter Mark II is well and truely back.


Pearl Harbor was NOT the result of US high-handedness

December 8, 2008

The Grauniad is at it again. Now Pearl Harbor is implicitly the fault of the US for being too hostile…Via LGF.

The article effectively begins by marking its target: Pearl Harbor as a patriotic rallying moment in US history. In the article by Eri Hotta, the wife of liberal Anglo-Dutch intellectual, Ian Buruma, the usual PC demons are brought out against the US to condemn it for provoking Japan into war. (Credit to David T at Harry’s Place for placing EH).
The author fails to understand the basic racism and cruelty in the Japanese political system of the time, nor its part in the reasons for Japanese imperial aggression.
The decision to attack Pearl Harbor was reached after five months of deliberations that included numerous official conferences. It was a gradual process in which more sympathetic, albeit firm, US engagement might have helped sway Japan in a different direction.”  It is not difficult to begin dissecting the prejudices shown here: by the absence of any reference to the murderous war Japan was waging in China, the author shows no regard for the victims of that war or towards China itself. The author displays no understanding of the balance of power issues that would have ultimately been the motives behind the US diplomatic stance, instead blaming the US in the classic PC attack fashion for “aggravating” the Japanese political scene by not being more friendly.
One wonders what the US should have done? Offered to divide up China? These PC idiots do not understand that weakness would have been presented as opportunity by the war-party, giving all the more reason to carve up the European empires in the far East.
Rather than telling Japan that the US was determined to search for a diplomatic solution, America’s categorical reaction confirmed it to the Japanese as an arrogant and conceited enemy. ” What diplomatic solution? Japan had just seized Indochina and Dutch Borneo in addition to continuing to murder thousands in China! What solution could have been presented? Hand over a certain proportion of French and Dutch territory to Japan? Ask the Imperial Japanese Army to withdraw – please?
Moreover, by transferring its Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, the US encouraged the Japanese understanding that the US fully anticipated war with Japan.” Again, the American response is blamed for the original Japanese aggression and subsequent aggression. The US move to Pearl Harbour would have been a warning to Japan that if these attacks on sovereign and independent nations did not cease that  – yes – the US would consider war to recover other states territorial integrity? Isn’t that called being the good guy in international affairs? The author is again paying no regard for the territorial rights of other powers and clearly dismissing all concern about the civilians subjected to the horrors of Japanese rule. In any case, the Roosevelt administration was far from decided on war, hoping that military build-up (what little there was) would deter further aggression.
A cornerstone of PC international theory is that diplomacy possesses magical powers, “The high-handed tone of the Hull Note of November 26, demanding Japan’s withdrawal of all its troops from China, was a final blow to the moderates in Japan’s government, who still hoped for diplomatic negotiations.” Wouldn’t this actually demonstrate how out of touch the “moderates” really were? That the US was not ultimately going to accept the imperial conquest of China and the Pacific? Who were the “moderates” fooling? Only themselves.
It was ultimately in the name of saving Asia for all Asians from what was regarded as western arrogance that the government united to wage war.” Are you really sure that those were the reasons for the Japanese attack? Or the certainty in the military and war-parties that the US stood in the way of “the rising sun” of Japanese imperial greatness? The war plan focused on the destruction of the immediate means of obstruction (the USN) and the errection of an fortified island barrier, backed by the mobile power of the IJN, protecting a zone of economic exploitation in which the natives would be treated as slaves to be used for the glory of the Emperor. One would think that arrogant of the Japanese.
The gunboat diplomacy that resulted in the opening of Japan and unequal treaties in the mid-19th century was but a beginning.” So preventing the carve-up of China and the destabilization of the balance of power was unjust to Japan? “Coupled with the economic hardship of the interwar years were instances of racial prejudice in the US that aimed at preventing Japanese immigration. United by this long-simmering and humiliating sense of exclusion, Japanese policymakers, whatever their differences, stumbled toward the December 1 decision to go to war.” No, the sense that the US was blocking their plans for regional domination (via the invasion of other states and the exploitation of their populaces) was the central factor in the arrogant decision to go war. That the Japanese military realised instictively that they were weaker than the US was a spur to try the attack on Pearl Harbor – knock the US out of the war for two years and become strong enough to deter a counter-attack: it might have worked had the strike gone according to plan.
But no matter how strong and historically justified such grievances may be, those who resort to murderous tactics must be condemned.” But the author goes on to say, “However, high-handedness and tough talk alone are an inadequate response, for this approach further humiliates those who already feel humiliated, and alienates those who might otherwise proffer a more moderate voice.” Clearly she feels that standing up to aggression is wrong because it..does…not work? No, sorry that is nonsense. By this logic, Poland should have been compelled to give up its industrial centres and only port to prevent war with Germany, rather than tell Germany that war with Poland meant war with Britain and France. “Diplomacy no longer works with terrorism,” did it ever work?
With global expectations mounting for a fresh start in US foreign policy, it is vital not just to remember, but to understand the attack on Pearl Harbor.” Yes, if you mean that declaring that aggression will meet force is inherently stupid and flawed, and if you believe in the magical power of diplomacy to solve all problems – because there are always moderates in every camp? Like in al-Qaeda? (We’ll only kill some of the Jews and not directly export terrorism into your nations? Our price?) Or in Russia’s attack on Georgia? (We’ll be content with half of the nation…and control over its politics).

No, I rather think Eri Hotta is a deluded PC idiot, who cannot see beyond the end of her anti-Americanism and I also have doubts about her attitude towards the victims of imperial and genocidal aggression  – so long as the attackers are not American.

Sorry, but the Guardian and CiF are just completely amoral and prove the truth of George Orwell’s assertation that all self-professed pacifists are secretly in love with tyrannical power. You lot are disgusting.

Update

Kudos to Oliver Kamm. He’s bang on the money.


On that UN speech…

September 28, 2008

I haven’t posted much on Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN. Why? Because it is all so familiar; as Meryl Yourish says, we’ve heard this before from Adolf Hitler.

What will it take for the West to act? Open evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme? (Wait. We’ve already got that). Open declarations of genocidal intent? (Got that one too…) How about…IAEA evidence of ballistic missiles being retrofitted to carry nuclear warheads? (That one too…)
Okay, how about Israel being attacked with nuclear weapons? Honestly. If Obama is president…nothing but words; if McCain is president, then at least the US and perhaps Britain under Cameron will go to war to disarm Iran. But I doubt the rest of the world will shed any tears for Israel – much better to blame the victims for bringing it upon themselves.
So when will the West act? Probably when Rome is bombed by Iranian nuclear terrorists…and the reaction? War, right?

Nah. They’ll try and surrender.


What is worse than war?

August 18, 2008

Watching your country (and fellow citizens) being raped by an aggresive foreign power. Of whom do I speak? Russia raping Georgia. Don’t worry! The EU has arranged for a surrender akin to marrying a rape victim to her psychotic rapist. It will bring peace, honest!

Right, repeat magic word to get peace…”what do you want and I surrender”. Imagine if this lot had been in charge against Hitler…


They went and surrendered

August 15, 2008

Excellent article by Gerard Baker in today’s Times, explaining precisely what the EU achieve through “soft power” during the Georgia-Russia war… They went to Moscow and gave the tyrants everything they wanted. And called it peace.
No, John McCain is right. That is not peace. It is surrender.


What can be done?

July 14, 2008

Perhaps it is tiredness at 01:23 in the morning, but I feel hopeless and depressed about the situation in which the West finds itself. We are at war with jihadi Islam, in particular with Iran. Yet the vast majority of (especially) the political elite will not face up to that fact and I don’t know if they even recognise that in 1979 fundamentalist Iran declared war on the West and that in 2001 Al-Qaeda declared war on the West. They don’t want to recognise that we’re not the villains but the victims of a reawakened aggression from our distant past.

In 1683, Vienna was besieged by the Ottoman Empire. That siege was no mere act of statecraft – it was a Jihadi war, a holy war aimed at the permanent conquest and conversion of non-Muslim states.
What puzzles me is what do we do? How can we fight this? The best answer that I have is democracy, secularism and the Enlightenment. We have the first functioning Arab democracy in Iraq – ok, I don’t like the inclusion of Sharia in the constitution but it can theoretically be removed and history is full of surprises. Afghanistan is not lost though it is on a knife-edge long term at the moment but that can be solved by a number of ways, more troops, better coordination and a more sustained political and financial effort here but above all by taking the war into Pakistan. The tribal areas have been turned into Islamist havens and we owe a duty to the inhabitants to free them from these medieval barbarians (and I use that word in the most bestial of senses).
But for the long term this starts with being honest. We have a fundamentally dishonest governing Labour Party, which will not make the sacrifices (moral or intellectual) that are required. And I don’t believe the Tories under Cameron will make those sacrifices – but I am open to being surprised. I believe that the best we small band of believers can do is to keep on saying and writing the truth that we are in a war and that these barbarians are our enemies. We cannot bargain with them or “understand” them because their objectives are the destruction of our society. We did not bargain with the Nazis in the last resort and we said then and will say again, “Thank goodness that we did not.”


Defeatism in the West

July 13, 2008

At this moment, Israel is about to cave into Hezbollah and Hamas on virtually every demand made by those two groups in return for the bodies of two soldiers (and probably Gilad Schalit’s body too). There is a malaise of defeatism in the West that has been spread by the left-leaning intelligensia and sourced back to the religious pacifists, the collaspe of cultural identities (see Natan Sharansky) and the continued efforts of the communist and fellow-traveller groups in western academia to demoralize and disempower the west in favour of an assumed “revolutionary” movement from Islam.
The model for the current time can be found in the late 1970s and the collaspe of Iran from a forward looking state (admittedly a tyranny) to a backwards, anti-progressive Islamist tyranny that outdid the Shah’s regime for physical and mental butchery. At the time the western elites refused to believe what the Islamists led by Khomenei were both writing and proclaiming in public speeches, prefering the safety of their own assumptions and wishes. Michel Foucault slobbered over a man who would have put him to death faster than if one could say “Jack Robinson” if he had been an Iranian subject. Why? Because they were following what they wanted to see, not what was in front of them.

Now we find the same path being trodden again. We have a growing Islamist movement in the west that is emboldened by appeasement and accomadation, a left-leaning intelligensia whose imagined enemies are the working class, the right wing and apostates from a pseudo-communist correct line of thought (mulitcultural political correctness) and who see virtue as inherently located outside of their own culture. A negative, plaintive attitude has emasculated and embarressed the west and left it soft and weak.
We need a new idea of ourselves and the best people saying what this might be are the left-wing apostates such as Christopher Hitchens, Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch. We need to mobilise the huge economic potential in the west and reawaken our shared values of equality before the law, the importance of the individual against the group and the humanisation of our society. What I mean by the last statement is that throughout history, we as human beings, as a species have slowly in parts and places moved from a tribal and group based identity that excluded, punished and was demarcated by taboo, towards a state of awareness that comes out of the fallout from the European religious wars and the Enlightenment.
Today, the Enlightment is under attack and accused of being the root of 20th Century fascism and 19th Century racist ideologies, ignoring the fact that the values at the centre of the fascist and communist movements were anti-modernanti-intellectual and anti-individual (as opposed to the group). These were movements against the Enlightment and modernity – and today, so is Islamism.
Islamism and it’s left-wing fellow travellers in the west seeks to impose a new order of racism, genocide and tyranny on the world. There is no place in Islamist philosophy for free-thought, free-speech, or the mere existence of difference beyond that mandated in a collection of thoughts and sayings from the 7th and 8th Centuries AD. Why do the left-wing affect to believe more in the virtue of this fascist creed than in their own culture?
Because they have abandoned reason and logic as their own beliefs have attained the trappings of religion, since reason and logic (those gifts of radical Christianity, but above all the Greeks) can be used to question and dismantle those beliefs. By finding nothing but fault in the west for the last half-century, by despising the working classes of the west for not being good revolutionaries or humble new-age serfs, the left-wing intelligensia (and here I use the word in a derogotary sense) have been left with nothing of value inside themselves, excepting their own sense of absolute virtue. They recognise the wickedness of the Islamists, but fool themselves into believing that the wickedness is a product of western mistakes, rather than a poison nutured outside of themselves. Far easier to blame the west for being attacked than to defend it.
So we now have winter solstice festivals, instead of Christmas. We now no longer teach our history, except for those bits where our ancestors can be painted as devils attacking angels out of spite or greed. We blame assaults on us as the result of our political opponants or yesteryear, or increasingly the result of wicked and greed machinations by secret elites, which leads rapidly into conspiracy theories and the revival of anti-Jewish rhetoric.
We have an intellectual culture that is so anti-militarist, that it would deprive us of the means to defend ourselves or prevent harm against others in the world, while the BBC tells us to weep crocodile tears as one tyrant or movement massacres the helpless in the name of fascist ideologies – or sometimes out of greed.
We have become complacent, self-loathing and corpulent. Our intellectual culture has been labelled as worthless by its’ own practitioners and instead of treating the ideas of our enemies as anything like better, we opt for a standard of “difference” that implicitly makes them better while seeming “equal”.
As Lord Lawson put it in another context, I leave the last words with Euripides (or rather his 19th Century admirers). “Those whom the gods wished to destroy, they first made mad.”


Liberty and the Islamists

July 13, 2008

Has anyone noticed the open alliance between that British group of lunatics (sorry, liberals) known as Liberty, headed by Miss Smarmy Marxist (sorry, Shami Chakrabati) and the Islamists (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood)?
Liberty and the British Muslim Initiative (headed and organised by Hamas operatives) have co-hosted an event campaigning against various issues (guess, go on, guess)…(alright, Islamophobia and anti-terrorism measures).
That’s right! Liberty are now endorsing Hamas, sorry, BMI, sorry, the British Muslim Association, sorry, the Muslim Brotherhood! So how much can we rely on Liberty’s principles? None, because they have none. I suspect these are bloody marxists aiming at undermining the British state. After the Islamic revolution here, at least I will have the satisfaction of seeing them shot by the Hamas “resistance” fighters.