20080205

that was nuremberg; this is now

strange how easily most people can slide directly into supporting something they also condemn, so long as the language is shifted — sometimes no more than to change the team names:
Councilwoman Dona Spring said the council should not be cowed by the volume of hate mail and threats.

"I still oppose the Marines recruiting in Berkeley because it's one way of protesting this wasteful war," she said. "Our military policy is a shambles. But we're not in opposition to the Marines, we oppose the policy that directs the Marines."
wonder if that fantasy-embracing child's ever accused someone of "cognitive dissonance".

"'tweren't the gang rapists. it was the guy they worship at the bar telling them to rape her. i support the rapists!"

where else but in state worship does that construction get by? the blind obedient are treated not as guilty for their obedience to murderous and — merely by chance — illegal orders (as in violating the US constitution, not "internationa law" or the UN powermad), but as victims of it. ultimately it's the great circuit breaker allowing people to feel no guilt for actions they initiated via mob spirit. in their tortured attempts to find a guilt barrier, you're watching the implosion of any grip on sanity.

fuck. the. troops. — those murdering, dishonorable, traitorous, paycheck-worshiping scum.

i remember. i was in DC at the middle of the post-9/11 hoowah horse shit. i was arguing with strangers who overheard me talking antiwar reason with friends. the majority of "adults" in america openly and loudly supported the horrible actions now generally repudiated. the repudiation rarely extends to the personal level, however. as usual, there are plenty of targets where fingers may be aimed — all of them away from the most important party in the world.

the nuremberg defense has merit or not. make up your fucking minds, guilty children. what principle, if any, do you hold?

Labels: , , ,

posted by saltypig @ 01:49