There is something odd about wanting to corner the market on calling people other people racists and supremacists and then backing a group who are about as non inclusive racially and religiously as any who have come down the pike. Nobody else can say they were persecuted, Hutus, Armenians, Indians, Greeks, Bangladeshi or Kulaks. It is an exclusive franchise with certain zealots.
I have noticed certain branches of cohesive action are off limits to criticism. In the past certain like minded individuals banded together and excluded other non co-operators from their midst. They formed common philosophies, and in time languages. They called them countries. Few say there is any inherent evil in them. In fact supporting them is supposed to be laudatory. The fact that many of them are racially or at least culturally homogeneous at least after a time, has escaped some people who look at some people at least who support such principles inside these domains or borders as an epithet.
The fact is if you are part of a race or culture, or political group, your group evolved from ethnocentricity of the group and it was always the nice kind. There were battles with others. Even to the point where people thought they had to wipe out the other evil domain. We see groups who swear that they benefit from this. From Jewish to German to Hutu. If their insularism has benign manifestation, few would criticize. But no one is asking them to change their cultural fabric at the expense of someone else's profit solely.
No one is saying that one should extend the principle beyond where it lies today. Or to extend it to some kind of uneeded lengths. On the other hand the reversal of the principle of the freedom of choosing a self determining culture - reductio ad absurdum - is to foster invasion and cultural disruption to the point of risking war.
All culture, race and groups are bad. All nationalism is bad. Only mixing is good. But if mixed groups become new groups this is bad. Only approved dominant cultures are good. All other cultures' persuasion is evil. Individualism or choice of groups is bad. All preference is the worst kind of excess. Group think is good. Certain people should be allowed to throw any kind of stone as their book is the best book.
If during the second world war, they had put it to a plebsicite, that they wanted to kill all the Jews as they thought that they could get away with it and they would win the war, what do you think the vote would have been? The way the propaganda has gone since then, you would think the average German would have said out of hate, sure let's do it. Nobody would have said for one minute, lets stop and think about this, even if we do win, will this be a good thing? Does it guarantee we will not win? Does it seem likely that we will get away with it, lose or win? They cannot think. The culture that produced Geothe, Leibniz and Bach is stupid. They cannot think.
What is really sad is because of people saying it ethics are only a matter of degree that we do not see ourselves being led around by the nose. We can do no wrong. We are not Nazis, we don't have slave camps. We don't kill en masse. We are good. So what is an atomic bomb? The Nazis had unrestricted submarine warfare, they machine gunned survivors (they didn't). They are always cruel. In fact we killed 2 million civilians in West Germany who did not have uniforms and did not resist. They simple disappeared or were found dead. The Russians killed 5 million. 500,000 in Berlin alone. We controlled their press and country for 25 years after the war to hide this. These are fact that the German government has alleged. Not Aryan Nations groups, but sober minded fact finding people. They have proof. We sank German passenger liners that killed perhaps 15,000 civilian people in two torpedoings. The US had unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese that was the most effective of all the nations' military blockages in WWII in stopping merchant shipping and was the single biggest cause of the end of the war with Japan. We bombed civilians in Germany (Britain) and Japan in unrestricted warfare on civilians (Harris' "Morale bombings" SAC was not nearly as bad.) The Germans or Japanese never did this wholesale. The bombing of London at first was a mistake in targetting.
I am not saying that enemy warfare was saintly and we were the bad guys. They did do a lot of bad stuff, no question. And not tidbits of it either. The SS in the Ukraine did the worst kind of idiocy in committing warfare in that they turned a potential ally, the Ukrainians, against them. Butchers don't win friends. But to say we were so good, it hurts to look at us is a big mistake. We have been lied to by experts. From personal recount of people who have no reason to lie who were there, and allegations of reliable individuals since then we can say the the body count between the two sides is about even. To say we retaliated against an evil enemy and they deserved it would be disturbing. We would not have learned anything and there is a real risk of repeating the same mistakes.
EC<:-} |
