Monday, October 1, 2007

Forget "What If?", The John Podhoretz Wish List


07.25.2006 | New York Post

July 25, 2006 -- WHAT if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?

What if the universalist idea of liberal democracy - the idea that all people are created equal - has sunk in so deeply that we no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people as opposed to those in other countries?

What if this triumph of universalism is demonstrated by the Left's insistence that American and Israeli military actions marked by an extraordinary concern for preventing civilian casualties are in fact unacceptably brutal? And is also apparent in the Right's claim that a war against a country has nothing to do with the people but only with that country's leaders?

Can any war be won when this is the nature of the discussion in the countries fighting the war? Can any war be won when one of the combatants voluntarily limits itself in this manner?

Could World War II have been won by Britain and the United States if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Didn't the willingness of their leaders to inflict mass casualties on civilians indicate a cold-eyed singleness of purpose that helped break the will and the back of their enemies? Didn't that singleness of purpose extend down to the populations in those countries in those days, who would have and did support almost any action at any time that would lead to the deaths of Germans and Japanese?

What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?

And if America can't do it, can Israel? Could Israel - even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel - possibly stomach the bloodshed that would accompany the total destruction of Hezbollah?

If Lebanon's 300-plus civilian casualties are already rocking the world, what if it would take 10,000 civilian casualties to finish off Hezbollah? Could Israel inflict that kind of damage on Lebanon - not because of world opinion, but because of its own modern sensibilities and its understanding of the value of every human life?

Where do these questions lead us?

What if Israel's caution about casualties among its own soldiers and Lebanese civilians has demonstrated to Hezbollah and Hamas that as long as they can duck and cover when the missiles fly and the bombs fall, they can survive and possibly even thrive?

What if Israel has every capability of achieving its aim, but cannot unleash itself against a foe more dangerous, more unscrupulous, more unprincipled and more barbaric than even the monstrous leaders of the Intifada it managed to quell after years of suicide attacks?

And as for the United States, what if we have every tool at our disposal to win a war - every weapons system we could want manned by the most superbly trained military in history - except the ability to match or exceed our antagonists in ruthlessness?

Is this the horrifying paradox of 21st century warfare? If Israel and the United States cannot be defeated militarily in any conventional sense, have our foes discovered a new way to win? Are they seeking victory through demoralization alone - by daring us to match them in barbarity and knowing we will fail?

Are we becoming unwitting participants in their victory and our defeat? Can it be that the moral greatness of our civilization - its astonishing focus on the value of the individual above all - is endangering the future of our civilization as well?

jpodhoretz [at]


Atkinson's Sick Take On "A Declining Society", Pt III

Pt 1 is HERE, Part II is HERE-the same link works for Atkinson's name. Definitely hit the link for this Atkinson effort showcased here, at this time, it takes the reader to more of Atkinson's pearls of wisdom

How Can A Declining Civilization Be Saved?
by Philip Atkinson

Mental Decay Has Already Occurred

If you were to observe your aging mother attempt to boil water by placing an electric kettle on a gas cooker, you would immediately know that she was losing her mind. And that it would be futile to try and remedy her mistake by instruction or demonstration. The act would be unmistakable evidence of mental decay for which there is no possible treatment (the loss of memory means loss of brain tissue), and her condition would only get worse. And what is true for the individual is also true for the community. The behaviour that reveals social decline is undeniable evidence that the communal mind has already decayed.

Decline Is Communal Senility

Social decline is the impact of a growing deterioration in the understanding of the community; the community is losing its mind along with its strength and becoming senile:

1. Growing Communal Dementia is because of increasing public confusion as a result of the widespread abandonment of the community's founding morality along with its associated beliefs, which are the wisdom of society.

2. Faltering Communal Strength is a direct result of the growth of selfishness among its citizens, for a community's strength is built upon its members' willingness to make private sacrifice for the common good.

Impossibility of repair

A senile community is like a senile person, though the mind is rotten the body may appear intact, still have strength and vitality, and so lend itself to the notion of being able to be cured. But the simple truth is the understanding that occupied the body is now dead. Nothing can bring it back. It is possible in theory for a diseased brain to be repaired by replacement of some or all of that organ, but this would not return the lost memory or lost personality and would create a new understanding; a treatment that could only be done by another intact understanding. Though such an option may be open to a senile person among friends and relatives, it is unavailable to a senile community.

Wisdom and strength permanently lost

The impact of senility, increasing mental confusion and decreasing strength, which must become fatal to the community, are impossible to repair:

1. Wisdom cannot be restored because it has to be founded upon a morality, which no longer exists. And inspiring a people with a morality can only be the accidental work of events because it must precede understanding. This means that just as a man cannot choose his morality nor can a community, so once lost a morality can never be regained.

2. Strength cannot be restored because it needs a pool of unselfish citizens who no longer exist, and it is impossible to change the existing selfish into unselfish people.

Nothing Left To Save

When the symptoms of social decline appear the people who gave the civilization energy, intelligence and made it an asset to humanity, no longer exist in any numbers. Their place has been taken by a race of foolish cowards, who can only dissipate the accumulated wealth and wisdom they have inherited. Though the true character of these new citizens will initially be disguised by the restraints imposed by their inheritance of customs, manners and beliefs, these will be rapidly discarded by the impatience of subsequent generations.

Can Only Promote Lies And Injustice

To attempt to assist such a community is to aid and abet people who hate truth and justice. Those citizens, who feel their duty impels them to try, are taking grave risks for no purpose. Their individual efforts cannot make up for the shortcomings of their society, but they will be punished for their attempts, and this is demonstrated in no uncertain manner by contemporary and historical examples.

By 2000 Most Citizens Of Western Civilization Are Fools

Our civilization has been declining since the late Eighteenth century (see "A Study Of History" by Professor Arnold Toynbee), which means that since then the majority of citizens of western civilization have been selfish — for selfishness is the influence that rejects moral restraint, along with its associated beliefs. In place of the guide of tradition the selfish rely upon feelings to recognise right from wrong and fact from fancy. Now, after more than two centuries of discarding and reversing traditions, most citizens are fools who can neither tell right from wrong nor fact from fancy.

Only Changes For the Worse Accepted

Naturally it is possible to persuade contemporary citizens to accept change, but all such change must appeal to an understanding guided by feelings not reason. So regardless of any claim the public may make to the contrary, they will be unable to resist the compulsions of their instincts; the terrors of the fearful are beyond appeals to reason, which is why the threat of Global Warming is so popular and withstands all attempts at debunking. Any citizen who persists in denying that Global Warming is a real threat is either ignored or persecuted. So any attempt to curtail the unnecessary costs and limitations imposed in the name of Global Warming will be resisted, whereas further increases to such costs, or extension of restrictions, will be accepted as a required imposition to save the world.

In the same way, those parents who indulge their offspring, and so create odious citizens, are also impossible to change, except for the worse. Anyone who dares point out to a modern guardian the inadequacies of their child raising technique, or that their progeny are spoilt brats, risks unpleasant repercussions for no good reason. The proud parent will remain an adoring parent regardless of any argument advanced to the contrary. Modern parents will reject any imposition of discipline upon their favourites that could improve their child's character, but will accept any and every move that panders to their charges, even though it further weakens their offspring's character.

Nowhere is the urge to self-destruction more obvious than in the way the general public respond to unemployment. Despite the fact that our community is being slowly impoverished by unemployment enforced by an irresistible tide of automation, the public resist any attempt to alleviate the problem. Politicians still find it increases their popularity by increasing the restrictions on paying the dole, even though this must make everything worse for everybody. Whereas the notion of paying the dole to every citizen without a wage is treated as an anathema, despite the fact that this could only benefit everyone. The unemployed do not eat money but hand it on to others by spending it. An act that is repeated throughout the community so supplying extra money to everyone. This simple effect is ignored because of the feelings of the community towards the unemployed. Regardless of the truth, the community will only accept changes that punish the unemployed even though this makes everybody poorer and further accelerates the plunge into communal poverty.

This means that the decaying understanding that is impoverishing and deluding our community is beyond the ability of its citizens to repair, for they will insist upon making things worse.


Gushing W -Lackey Supreme Philip Atkinson In His Own Words Part II

Pt 1 Of Atkinson's repellent mindset is HERE, this is much more entertaining as a result of Atkinson's complete clueless, self-defeating nature, posting it here in case he decides to yank this autobiographical profile

Philip Atkinson
Author of A Study Of Our Decline
Send a comment or E-mail

Philip Atkinson was born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, on the 7th June 1947, the result of a wartime marriage between a state registered nurse and a Captain in the Royal Army Ordinance Corps. His father had been educated at Cambridge University before working for some years for the foreign office in Africa; he was an ardent supporter of George Orwell and a socialist, so after being demobbed and winning the position as lecturer in History at Kings College, Newcastle, he decided to plant his family among the proletariat, the heroes of Nineteen Eighty-Four. This meant his middle-class wife and three children lived for the next fourteen years on a new council estate in the company of resettled slum dwellers. And this action, inspired by inverted snobbery, had a lasting impact upon his spouse and offspring, especially his middle-child.

Like all children I wanted to be accepted by my peers and be part of the gang of small boys who lived in the street. They were my heroes, I hung on every word they said, and I did everything I could to win their approval. Their contemptuous treatment of me I accepted as only natural because I was the youngest and weakest. They were tough and clever while I was puny and inexperienced. But one day this all changed. To my delight, a boy who was smaller and younger than me, moved into the street, and I knew that it would only be a matter of time before I could demonstrate my superiority to the newcomer. And when the gang resolved to have a boxing competition, I felt that this was my chance. Previously I would have been omitted from such a competition as being too weak to match in a fight, but now there was a possible partner, and as the gang split up into matched pairs I was pitted against the new boy. And when it was our turn to box, I gently, but firmly, displayed my clear superiority. Alas, when the judges, the oldest boys, declared the result, it was not me, but the new boy, who was deemed the winner. I was stunned.

For some time afterwards I struggled to understand this decision. I knew that I had won the fight, but this was not enough; it was not my stature nor strength but some innate personal quality that condemned me. It was clear that regardless of what I did, I would never win the respect of my peers, so I stopped trying. But I also knew the judges had lied, so to understand their motive I started to look closely at my erstwhile heroes and began to see their undeniable flaws. They were not rational; they had rejected me out of prejudice. While they were all larger than me, I found they only presented a threat as a group. Alone, they not only left me in peace, but seemed a little nervous at my presence. And in games that required strategy, I found it was easy to best them. My esteem for my peers became replaced by contempt, and planted the seed of suspicion in my mind that my whole community was of the same calibre —foolish cowards. A notion that experience rarely confounded but often confirmed, so insensibly I became a social exile.

This was just as well, for in a declining community any citizen who retains respect for the truth must become alienated from the majority of his fellow citizens because they hate the truth. Inevitably I could only ever be a social outcast, but being freed from the need to win social approval also meant being freed from social prejudices, and being able to see my community more clearly; a detachment that is essential for any student of society.

As an adult it is easy to understand why the other boys in the street hated me, I was from a different class. My father was an honest, educated man, who didn't smoke or drink, and would never dream of striking his wife, but he was surrounded by drunks, thieves and wife-beaters. Our family enjoyed money, comfort and stability, unlike many of those around us. Not only were we the only family in the street to have a car, but also we were the only family in the whole suburb to have tea on the lawn. Everything about us was different, and we were naturally resented. While the neighbouring adults never confronted my father, their children were delighted to bully his children. My siblings and myself became social half-castes, accepted by no class and despised by all. The result in my case was an initial bitter resentment of my community, along with the traditional notions that I should pursue a university education then a career; so I dropped out of school to take a job as a bus conductor. And to escape this dead-end job, I emigrated, arriving in Australia in 1969, aged 22, with a pregnant wife, two small children, 30 pounds sterling, no job and no qualifications other than an incomplete public school education.

With determination, skill and a little luck I forged a career in computers before being forced into retirement in 1991; a fate that brought as much relief as anxiety. No more salary, little chance of ever getting a job, but no longer having to pretend that the community and its administration were sane. And I was fortunate that my second wife, an Australian by birth, was happy to work so her husband did not, and for the first time in my life I was blessed with leisure. Not only did I not have to toil, but also I did not have to worry about paying the bills, which is another essential qualification for any student of the community.

Of course I could have restarted the education that I abandoned in my teens, but by then the true nature of universities had become obvious; they were no longer centres of learning pursuing truth but centres of profit pursuing customers. Inevitably striving for popularity with youth has made universities bastions of Political Correctness, and full of the kind of people who wanted to burn Galileo for daring to question that the sun circled the earth. So I spent my enforced idleness applying the skills acquired as a system's analyst to discover why my society is disintegrating into delusion and impotence. An effort resulting in a simple theory which outlines the process of communal rise then decline, an explanation that seems to have eluded mankind despite the regular and inevitable cycle that has always been present.

In January 2000 I became an Internet publisher, placing a variety of books 'online' at my own expense, in an attempt to preserve some of the vanishing wisdom of humanity.

Early in 2004 I realized that not only did my theory clarify the subject of civilization, but it also clarified that of Philosophy, so ever since then I have considered myself a philosopher.