Men With Guns – small dead animals

… in our history books. We’re not making this up:

“We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.” (George Orwell)

It has always been so. Civilization and the ability to inflict violence go together, are inseparable. Our pampered elites cannot understand this and have no ability to understand this. They look upon men with guns like apes gaping at The Last Supper.
Our venerable history books speak of Western Civilization as beginning with the Greeks somewhere around 700 BC. Not so. It began with the Hebrews pushing into what they called ‘the Promised Land’ 500 years before. We forget that the most influential book in Western Civilization had its origins in the violence spread by the Israelite commander Joshua and his successors. The poetry of Solomon, the beauty of the Psalms, all rest upon the shoulders of Israelites with swords.

56 Replies to “Men With Guns”

Here are some thoughts along similar lines, from Roger Scruton, A Dictionary of Political Thought, “rule of law” (after noting the paradoxes inherent in judicial independence and separation of powers):

In conditions of social collapse, or widespread terror and intimidation, a rule of law will no longer be possible; hence a rule of law also requires laws of sedition and public order through which it may be upheld against the busy subversion of the lawless. This leads to a further paradox, noted by Machiavelli, namely that a law of sedition must be as determined and as violent as the forces which it may need to overcome, and, since these include the extremes of military violence, it must itself be prepared to resort to extremes (although not to the same extremes, since that would be tantamount to permanent civil war). This means, in effect, that the rule of law must be prepared to disregard natural justice and judicial procedure while combating some types of offender. At the same time, it must in other cases give untrammelled freedom to judicial procedure, and to the natural justice which, on one plausible view, is repeatedly invoked in it. So the rule of law is itself indebted to the violence that it seeks to condemn.

“Besides, anon, we’re not in Afghanistan to help the people, we’re there to suck up to Washington.”
Manny
We’re in Afghanistan to suck up to NATO Manny and NATO is a post WW2 Canadian brainchild. Get your facts straight = Stop listening to your Marxist Lenninist teachers for once and seek the truth.
BTW, 24 innocent Canadians died in New York on 9/11 directly caused by people who trained as terrorists in Afghanistan. Any of these 24 civilians relatives of yours?
Did’nt think so.

kill em all and let god sort it out. if you don’t like god let allah sort it out if you don’t like allah let jim lones sort it out. duh. kill your freakin enemies it’s the only way to peace.

As in THE DARK HALF may a bunch of sparrows carry him off AND GET GET HIM MY LITTLE AVIAN BROTHERS SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

To begin this post with someone quoting George Orwell as a basis for justification for the continued senseless killing in the Middle East is absurd.
George Orwell would never have made that statement in this context –I challenge anyone to show me where the quote comes from.
More importantly, Orwell was a democratic solialist who would vehemently oppose the thinly-disguised facism overwhelmingly represented on this blog.
If you people want a poster boy for your war fixation you’d better pass on Orwell. Karl Rove maybe?

That quote about “rough men” is commonly attributed to Orwell but does not occur in any of his writings.
He did express similar sentiments in his essay about Kipling, in which he criticized universal pacifists with the line:
‘Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.’
That said, I quite doubt that Orwell would agree with much of the politics of most of those employing this apocryphal “rough men” quote.

56 Replies to “Men With Guns”

Navigation