I have always believed that any political sentiment that would fit on a bumper sticker is likely too oversimplified to be correct or useful. Thus, politicians who demand “Change” (Bill Clinton in 1992, but not in 1996), or “Hope and Change” (Obama in 2008 but not in 2012) are deliberately concealing their real agenda or the possibility that they don’t have a clue about actually holding office, only getting into it.
Thus, I approach the concept of the news coverage of the killing of satirist magazine writers in France with some modest hesitancy. This is something that requires deeper thinking. The sort of thinking that most Americans are unaccustomed to and are incapable of following.
So lets pull on a few threads.
1. Here in America, our own ADHD new cycle is most directly concerned with using the right terminology and playing “gotcha” with the president’s press secretary, trying to get him to use the “T” word, when clearly he doesn’t want to. Once again, This is an important aspect, but not at all for the reasons the press thinks. For example:
Earnest replied: “Based on what we know right now it does seem that’s what we’re confronting here. And this is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn, and if based on this investigation it turns out to be an act of terrorism, then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms, too.”
In other words: If it is not terrorism, we strongly condemn it. if it IS terrorism, we will do exactly the same thing. Thus, for our purposes, it doesn’t matter. The whole point, as I have pointed out before, over and over, is the connection between the attackers and larger organized groups. If they are acting alone (NOT TERRORISTS) then you go after the attackers themselves as a law enforcement action. If they are terrorists, then you go after the organizations and support structures as well as the individuals. So, the designation “Terrorist” ought to matter as is will lead you to a rational response. But the only response American government officials are willing to take is “cower in place” and “strongly worded hot air”.
2. I am seeing several political cartoons about a pen being mightier than a sword. This is on it’s face one of the more stupid things I am seeing. Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight and certainly don’t bring a pen. In a gunfight, the guy with the pen ALWAYS loses. The pen is only mightier than the sword in societies where everyone agrees to use pens. As soon as ONE guy decides he isn’t getting satisfactory results with his pen and brings his sword, the whole dynamic changes. This is elementary and only ignorant journalists (redundant, I know) could be so stupid as to apply the pen/sword metaphor to a situation where there are 12 dead guys with pens and two living guys with “swords”.
3. And so it goes. When civil society degrades to the point where those who hold the pens institute tyranny over the pen-less, that the pen-less remember that swords are easy to make and bargain-rate AK-47’s are even easier to buy. here in America, the communist-progressive-elitists-aristocracy believes it has a permanent grip on power and can do whatever it wants “for the greater good”. And it’s docile flock of pen-less serfs will lick their Pradas and thank them for their benevolence. But the way to violence is always open when more civilized ways are closed. This is exactly the case in France today. The Islamic community asked the journalistic community to refrain from blasphemy. The Journalistic community, holding a monopoly of pens, extended their middle finger to the Islamic community on this issue. What was the Islamic community expected to do? Sit there and take it? Yes. That is exactly what they were expected to do.
4. Am I defending murdering terrorists? Nope. Think deeper. Think. I am explaining the rational basis for war between pen wielders and gun wielders. Rational people seek to resolve grievances without violence. When effective avenues are closed for peaceful resolution, they resort to other means. The Islamic community is not alone in this regard. In America today, our aristocracy intend all sorts of tyranny for the serfs. They will compel compliance with pens and swords. A clear supermajority of Americans do not want any more immigration. Our elites disagree. Guess what we will get. A clear majority do not want gay “marriage”. The elites disagree. A clear majority do not want Obamacare. Guess what we got.
5. There is a rational middle ground. There is a place for live and let live. And only when one party stands and says, “NO” we find that unacceptable do we find ourselves back to using swords. The situation with Islam is already at that point. It’s not just the radical Islamists. It is all of Islam. It is the way it is constructed and how they see the world. It is incompatible with Western civilisation. It is incompatible with free speech. It is incompatible with the free expression of ideas. And so is the “left” political wing in America.
6. What we are seeing happening in Europe with Islam will be coming to America. But it won’t be about Islam. Is will be about our own pen-less majority getting tired of being outgunned in pen-fight after pen-fight and remembering that there is another way to resolve differences. When the Pen monopolists understand that well enough, they are more likely to share pen power. But right now, they use their pen power to entrench and advocate for the destruction of swords.
I am NOT defending Islam or violent murder. I am explaining that this is a very clear example of conflict resolution and redistribution of power.
How do you prevent war? The classical methods still work. Either segregation or the formation of a society where the rights of individuals are enforced and uniform. We have neither one. America is more splintered along ideological, nationalistic and religious lines than ever before. Our national leaders created this situation intentionally and continue to foster it for their personal gain.
7. Inappropriate sarcasm: But they could have killed twice as many cartoonists if they had been armed with an AR-15.