The Innocent, yet Somewhat Quixotic, Donna Renee Good de la Minnesota Mancha Tragically Experiences 150 grams of lead (x 4)
Isaiah Berlin 2/13/51 letter to George Kennan (excerpt):
When armies were slaughtered by other armies in the course of history, we might be appalled by the carnage and turn pacifist; but our horror acquires a new dimension when we read about children, or for that matter grown-up men and women, whom the Nazis loaded into trains bound for gas chambers, telling them that they were going to emigrate to some happier place. Why does this deception, which may in fact have diminished the anguish of the victims, arouse a really unutterable kind of horror in us? The spectacle, I mean, of the victims marching off in happy ignorance of their doom amid the smiling faces of their tormentors? Surely because we cannot bear the thought of human beings denied their last rights--of knowing the truth, of acting with at least the freedom of the condemned, of being able to face their destruction with fear or courage, according to their temperaments, but at least as human beings, armed with the power of choice. It is the denial to human beings of the possibility of choice, the getting them into one's power, the twisting them this way and that in accordance with one's whim, the destruction of their personality by creating unequal moral terms between the gaoler and the victim, whereby the gaoler knows what he is doing, and why, and plays upon the victim, i.e. treats him as a mere object and not as a subject whose motives, views, intentions have any intrinsic weight whatever--by destroying the very possibility of his having views, notions of a relevant kind--that is what cannot be borne at all.
What else horrifies us about unscrupulousness if not this? Why is the thought of someone twisting someone else round his little finger, even in innocent contexts, so beastly (for instance in Dostoevsky's Dyadyushkin son [Uncle's Dream, a novella published in 1859], which the Moscow Arts Theatre used to act so well and so cruelly)? After all, the victim may prefer to have no responsibility; the slave be happier in his slavery. Certainly we do not detest this kind of destruction of liberty merely because it denies liberty of action; there is a far greater horror in depriving men of the very capacity for freedom--that is the real sin against the Holy Ghost. Everything else is bearable so long as the possibility of goodness--of a state of affairs in which men freely choose, disinterestedly seek ends for their own sake--is still open, however much suffering they may have gone through. Their souls are destroyed only when this is no longer possible. It is when the desire for choice is broken that what men do thereby loses all moral value, and actions lose all significance (in terms of good and evil) in their own eyes; that is what is meant by destroying people's self-respect, by turning them, in your words, into rags. This is the ultimate horror because in such a situation there are no worthwhile motives left: nothing is worth doing or avoiding, the reasons for existing are gone. We admire Don Quixote, if we do, because he has a pure-hearted desire to do what is good, and he is pathetic because he is mad and his attempts are ludicrous.
The Pied Piper of Hamlin
Fool Around, Find Out...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think happens when you tell our soldiers that they might be justified in refusing orders? You don’t foster moral clarity, you create paralysis. Troops who are trained to act decisively could instead start second-guessing themselves, wondering if their spiritual authority will judge them later. That’s not moral leadership, it’s a de facto disruption of the chain of command.
ReplyDeleteThe message being sent isn’t “follow the law and serve honorably.” It’s “if you think it might be morally questionable, stand down.” That’s a recipe for hesitation in the face of crisis — exactly the opposite of what a fighting force needs.
Well, Let’s be real about it! The message being sent isn’t “follow the law and serve honorably.”
Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Catholic archbishop for the U.S. military services, says this in response to the “potential deployment” orders related to global hotspots like Greenland or domestic deployments. He claims that troops might be morally justified in disobeying orders they personally deem questionable. That’s not pastoral care, that’s seeding fear, uncertainty, and doubt into a system that depends on obedience and cohesion. What has happened to our Military? Has it been taken over by the Lefty Pussies? This isn’t some neutral theological discussion tucked away in a seminary it’s an active attempt to influence how American troops think about obeying lawful orders. And let’s be blunt: the Catholic hierarchy in recent years has made no secret of its Progressive- Socialist- leaning on Communist leanings.These are openly critical of American foreign policy decisions!
From criticizing defense actions in Venezuela to questioning military strikes on alleged drug smuggling vessels, these leaders have increasingly taken Lefty positions that contrast sharply with traditional support for U.S. national interests. What happens when you tell soldiers they might be justified in refusing orders? You don’t foster moral clarity, you create paralysis. Troops who are trained to act decisively could instead start second-guessing themselves, wondering if their spiritual authority will judge them later. That’s not moral leadership, it’s a de facto disruption of the chain of command that is taught to our Troops, and has been Protocol for decades! The message being sent isn’t “follow the law and serve honorably.” It’s “if you think it might be morally questionable, stand down.” That’s a recipe for hesitation in the face of crisis — exactly. This is the opposite of what our fighting force need. And it NEEDS to be STOPPED!
The End of the '68 Hippy era Innocence w/o the Lawfare Lawyers!
ReplyDelete