NP Rank:
The "Brutal" World
657 views | 15 Recommendations | 14 comments
How did Western 'Civilization' get a monopoly on "moral conscience" when it proves again and again that it has no morality? As the fanatic generals of NATO ruminate in the press about the necessity of nuking any nation that is part of the "brutal" world, read any country not towing the Western line, we should all stop and look very carefully before agreeing with these nut-cases, as they attempt to push the globe toward armageddon.
“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” -Five Western military leadersI read the statement three times trying to figure out the typo. Then it hit me, the West has now out-Owellled Orwell: The West must nuke other countries in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction! In Westernspeak, the West nuking other countries does not qualify as the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The astounding statement comes from a paper prepared for a Nato summit in April by five top military leaders--an American, a German, a Dutchman, a Frenchman, and a Brit. It can be found here.
The paper, prepared by men regarded as distinguished leaders and not as escapees from insane asylums, argues that “the West’s values and way of life are under threat, but the West is struggling to summon the will to defend them.” The leaders find that the UN is in the way of the West’s will, as is the European Union which is obstructing NATO and “NATO’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan.”
And that’s a serious matter. If NATO loses its credibility in Afghanistan, Western civilization will collapse just like the Soviet Union. The West just doesn’t realize how weak it is. To strengthen itself, it needs to drop more and larger bombs.
The German military leader blames the Merkel government for contributing to the West’s inability to defend its values by standing in the way of a revival of German militarism. How can Germany be “a reliable partner” for America, he asks, if the German government insists on “special rules” limiting the combat use of its forces in Afghanistan?
Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund and a former US State Department official, welcomed the paper as “a wake-up call.” Asmus means a call to wake-up to the threats from the brutal world, not to the lunacy of Western leaders.
Who, what is threatening the West’s values and way of life? Political fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, and the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, answer the five asylum escapees.
By political fanaticism, do they mean the neoconservatives who believe that the future of humanity depends on the US establishing its hegemony over the world? By religious fundamentalism, do they mean “rapture evangelicals” agitating for armageddon or Christian and Israeli Zionists demanding a nuclear attack on Iran? By spread of nuclear weapons, do they mean Israel’s undeclared and illegal possession of several hundred nuclear weapons?
No. The paranoid military leaders see all the fanaticism, religious and otherwise, and all the threats to humanity as residing outside Western civilization (Israel is inside). The “increasingly brutal world,” of which the leaders warn, is “over there.” Only Muslims are fanatics. All us white guys are rational and sane.
There is nothing brutal about the US/Nato bombing of Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, or the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, or the genocide Israel hopes to commit against Palestinians in Gaza.
All of this, as well as America’s bombing of Somalia, America’s torture dungeons, show trials of “detainees,” and overthrow of elected governments and installation of puppet rulers, is the West’s necessary response to keep the brutal world at bay.
Brutal things happen in the “brutal world” and are entirely the fault of those in the brutal world. None of this would happen if the inhabitants of the brutal world would just do as they are told. How can the civilized world with its monopoly on morality allow people in the brutal world to behave independently? I mean, really! God forbid, they might attack some innocent country.
The “brutal world” consists of those immoral fanatics who object to being marginalized by the West and who reply to mass bombings from the air and to the death and destruction inflicted on them through myriad ways by strapping on a suicide bomb.
Unable to impose its will on countries it has invaded with conventional arms, the West’s military leaders are now prepared to force compliance with the moral world’s will by threatening to nuke those who resist. You see, since the West has the monopoly on morality, truth, and justice, those in the outside world are obviously evil, wicked and brutal. Therefore, as President Bush tells us, it is a simple choice between good and evil, and there’s no better candidate than evil for being nuked. The sooner we can get rid of the brutal world, the sooner we will have “freedom and democracy” everywhere that’s left.
Meanwhile, the United States, the great moral light unto the world, has just prevented the United Nations from censuring Israel, the world’s other great moral light, for cutting off food supplies, medical supplies, and electric power to Gaza. You see, Gaza is in the outside world and is a home of the bad guys. Moreover, the wicked Palestinians there tricked the US when the US allowed them to hold a free election. Instead of electing the US candidate, the wicked voters elected a government that would represent them. The US and Israel overturned the Palestinian election in the West Bank, but those in Gaza clung to the government that they had elected. Now they are going to suffer and die until they elect the government that the US and Israel wants. I mean, how can we expect people in the brutal world to know what’s best for them?
The fact that the UN tried to stop Israel’s just punishment of the Gazans shows how right the five leaders’ report is about the UN being a threat to Western values and way of life. The UN is really against us. This puts the UN in the outside world and makes it a candidate for being nuked if not an outright terrorist organization. As our president said, “you are with us or against us.”
The US and Israel need a puppet government in Palestine so that a ghettoized remnant of Palestine can be turned into a “two state solution.” The two states will be Israel incorporating the stolen West Bank and a Palestinian ghetto without an economy, water, or contiguous borders.
This is necessary in order to protect Israel from the brutal outside world.
Inhabitants of the brutal world are confused about the “self-determination” advocated by Western leaders. It doesn’t mean that those outside Western civilization and Israel should decide for themselves. “Self” means American. The term, so familiar to us, means “American-determination.” The US determines and others obey.
It is the brutal world that causes all the trouble by not obeying.
Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration. He is credited with curing stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost by the worst economic mismanagement in US history.
January 24, 2008 at 11:45 am by moonwolf, 657 views, 14 comments



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 12:22 on January 24th, 2008
I'm glad my mushroom cloud is getting used.
at 12:28 on January 24th, 2008
I'm also glad that you highlighted a piece that, even though it was all mocking, called America the moral center of the world (paraphrased by me). It's nice to get credit when credit is due.
at 12:32 on January 24th, 2008
"Mocking" is an understatement. Try dripping with sarcasm.
at 12:35 on January 24th, 2008
One last thing, if that's all right. The generals weren't saying nuking was necessary but, rather, the threat of nuking another nation would prevent a nuclear war. This is also known as "mutually assured destruction" or MAD for short. Basically, if you try to nuke us we'll nuke you.
at 12:44 on January 24th, 2008
Once again I disagree. They are saying they would use pre-emptive nukes to stop a nation from getting nuclear weapons, such as Iran. Thus a state of MAD would never even get a chance to occur.
at 12:52 on January 24th, 2008
The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation. Not being an archer I might be wrong in my assessment but the way I read it I think it means we keep the option open to nuke first. The threat of nuking, again, the way I understand the concept of MAD, means that we will nuke you if we get nuked and/or we think you're going to nuke us (I guess I should have included that latter part in my previous comment, sorry for that lapse).
I personally think that the threat of a major strike, i.e. nuclear, will prevent renegade nations like Iran and North Korea from getting a bit too frisky with their weapons. But don't worry, I don't think the president is going to give Iran a nuclear goodbye before he leaves office.
at 13:14 on January 24th, 2008
Hopefully it will prevent renegade nations like the USA and Britain from getting a bit to frisky with their weapons.
No Bush certainly won't attack Iran now that Russia has warned him not to. Thank goodness the bear is back!
at 13:17 on January 24th, 2008
The hammer and sickle are back too! YEAH!
at 13:09 on January 24th, 2008
Very sobering stuff, Moonwolf, if plans are fleshed out and acted upon toward implementation.
at 15:26 on January 24th, 2008
Thanks Karen.
Regardless of where one falls in this discussion this would seem to be a very important editorial.
at 15:26 on January 24th, 2008
Here is another article which clarifies this situation even further and identifies the looney-toons passing themselves off as authorities who wrote this original report.
Imagine threatening to nuke China if it calls in the debt owed to it by the USA! That's what we're talking about here folks.
At the very least get ready for a new arms race that makes the cold war look like a trip in the park. Worst case scenario these morons get to do what they can't do in their own bedrooms, shoot off the BIG GUNS. Driven by their own pathetic inadequacy they will risk it all.
Scarey stuff!
at 15:29 on January 24th, 2008
The only thing I can think about when I read stuff you link to is that it's a good thing that people with the mindset of these authors don't ever come to power. They, not the generals, are the "spoiled children" that don't understand why they are able to live like they do. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and many other nations don't just want to be left alone - they want to spread their philosophies all over the world.
Some do it covertly (like Iran and its support of terrorist organizations all over the world) and some do it overtly (like Venezuela). Unfortunately, there are weapons that can utterly destroy countries the size of America and because that is the world we live in we have to take certain defensive and offensive postures to protect ourselves.
And if anyone is worried about America using the Bomb then they should vote for the major party that hasn't dropped one yet; the republican party.
at 16:12 on January 24th, 2008
Only one word can summarize any sane person's response to that little flight of paranoid fancy and it is "bullshit".
Time to get out of the States and do some travelling I think.
And just a reminder, the original post which I "linked to" was written by a Republican of some standing:
"Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic
Policy in the Reagan administration. He is credited with curing
stagflation and eliminating “Phillips curve” trade-offs between
employment and inflation, an achievement now on the verge of being lost
by the worst economic mismanagement in US history."
No offense, but I'll take Dr. Robert's analysis and opinion over yours anytime.
at 10:30 on January 25th, 2008
Hey Moon, good story, certainly shows how little we have advanced in treating others as human beings