Summary: This is the first post in a series. The next is 4GW in India – more people who want to watch the world burn. It’s not about India, or specific religions. This is the dark side of humanity, a battle that has to be fought each generation. Sometimes the battle goes poorly, as these killers find homes in both sides of the many non-trinitarian (or 4th generation wars) that rage across the globe.
.
Many people who have neither traveled through the third world nor read Martin van Creveld’s new book, Culture of War, did not take this seriously:
“He can’t be bought, bullied or negotiated with… some people just want to see the world burn.”
— Alfred (Michael Caine) speaking of the Joker, in The Dark Knight (2008)
What would they make of this insight in the CIA? Perhaps their reaction would be like that of critic James Bowman:
Are there such men? Conceivably. But history affords no example of them, outside of comic books and the movies, attaining the sort of power it would take actually to burn the world, or even any very significant part of it.
Reality seems to provide a natural check upon such people in the form of a shortage of those who both (a) share their psychosis and (b) are willing to play the part of humble assistant — rather than starring as the evil genius themselves — in accomplishing their purposes. This problem for the would-be evil geniuses — a reassurance to the rest of us — is what creates the distinctive unreality of Mr Nolan’s movie.
How wonderful it would be to live in Mr. Bowman’s world. A world in which there would be no people like Babu Bajrangi, who says in this interview published on 3 November 2007 in the Indian newspaper Tehelka (Wikipedia entry). These people flourish in our world, finding homes in all sides of all 4GW conflicts. These are our enemies. The practitioners of real-politics who ally with them betray our civilisation and do us no good.
Not so, as we see in the thread and on sites like Bill Quick — who just require that kills have a good excuse. See the update at the end of this post.
Back to the interview:
Bajrangi: My role was as follows: I was the first to start the [Naroda] Patiya operation… We and the local residents were all together. Patiya is just half a kilometre away from my home… I had gone to Godhra when it happened… I could not bear what I saw… The next day, we gave them a fitting reply…
TEHELKA: What were you unable to tolerate in Godhra?
Bajrangi: Any person who saw the Godhra kaand [massacre] would have felt like just killing them at once, hacking them apart… that’s how it was…
TEHELKA: You were there?
Bajrangi: Yes, yes, I was with them… So the Godhra kaand happened and after what I saw, I just came back to Naroda and we took revenge. … We and the Chharas carried out the Patiya massacre… After that, we all went to jail… People gave us a lot of money after we were jailed.
… TEHELKA: The day the Muslims were killed…
Bajrangi: I spoke to Jaideepbhai 11 or 12 times… aur humne tabiyat se kaata… Haldighati bana di thi [and we killed at will, turned the place into Haldighati]… And I am proud of it, if I get another chance, I will kill even more.
TEHELKA: Where was Jaideepbhai camping then?
Bajrangi: Jaideepbhai was sitting at Dhanwantri, which is Pravinbhai’s dispensary, he was there… in Bapunagar… There he was and I didn’t even tell him that we were going to do this… In Naroda and Naroda Patiya, we didn’t spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on fire, we set them on fire and killed them… That’s what we did… Up till then, they didn’t know what was happening; when they got to hear of how many had been killed, they got scared • • • There is a distance of about half a kilometre between Naroda [Patiya] and Naroda Gaon… We did a lot at both places… must have butchered not less than… Then we dumped the corpses into a well…
TEHELKA: Tell us how it was all done… revolvers… cylinders…
Bajrangi: The cylinders were theirs [the Muslims’]… Whichever house we entered, we just grabbed the cylinder and fired at it, and, dhadak, they exploded… We had guns in any case… I can’t tell you what a good time it was… But four of our activists died in it… No hearing took place even in that…
TEHELKA: Did you climb to the top of a masjid and tie a pig there?
Bajrangi:We rammed an entire tanker into it… the tanker was fully laden… We rammed that tanker inside…
TEHELKA: It was a petrol tanker, no?
Bajrangi: It was diesel… We drove a whole diesel tanker in and then set [the mosque] on fire…
TEHELKA: Meaning, it was the tanker explosion which set Patiya on fire?
Bajrangi: In the masjid…
TEHELKA: In the masjid…
Bajrangi: As for the rest of it, I was in charge at the time… Whatever I wanted to do, I did…
TEHELKA: At the pit, was oil… Those people had gathered there…
Bajrangi: It was a huge pit… You could enter it from one side but you couldn’t climb out at the other end… They were all there together… They started clinging to each other… Even while they were dying, they told each other, you die too, what are you going to be saved for, you die too… so the number of deaths increased.
TEHELKA: Then people poured oil in…
Bajrangi: Oil and burning tyres…
TEHELKA: Where did the oil come from?
Bajrangi: Oh that… We had lots of material with us… we filled lots of jerrycans in advance… From the petrol pump, the night before… Petrol pump owners gave us petrol and diesel for free…
• • • TEHELKA: Muslims were hacked to pieces…
Bajrangi: Hacked, burnt, set on fire, many things were done… many… We believe in setting them on fire because these bastards say they don’t want to be cremated, they’re afraid of it, they say this and that will happen to them… I have just one wish… one last wish…. Let me be sentenced to death… I don’t want to be incarcerated… I don’t care if I’m hanged… Give me two days before my hanging and I will go and have a field day in Juhapura [a Muslim dominated are], where seven or eight lakh of these people stay… I will finish them off … Let a few more of them die… At least 25-50,000 should die…
TEHELKA: How many witnesses have testified against you?
Bajrangi: Fourteen Muslims and 16 policemen… Out of the 14 Muslims, some have moved to Juhapura… They’ve left Patiya, they don’t have the guts to stay there, defying us… The rest have gone to Karnataka… They got money after all, Rs 7 lakheach… Narendrabhai never said how much they would be given… He announced [the compensation package] then gave out cheques of Rs 20,000 each and that’s where things got stuck… Afterwards, he gave nothing to anyone… But then the Central government supported them…
• • • TEHELKA: In other words, the way [you] have killed will go down in history.
Bajrangi: Arrey hamari FIR me likha gaya hai… ek woh pregnant thi, usko to humne chir diya thha b*******d sala… Unko dikhaya ki kya hota hai… ki hum log ko tumne maara to hum tumko kya pratikaar de sakte hain… hum khichdi kadhi wale nahin hai [It has been written in my FIR… there was this pregnant woman, I slit her open, sisterf****r… Showed them what’s what… what kind of revenge we can take if our people are killed… I am no feeble rice-eater]… didn’t spare anyone… they shouldn’t even be allowed to breed… I say that even today… Whoever they are, women, children, whoever… Nothing to be done with them but cut them down. Thrash them, slash them, burn the bastards… Hindus can be bad… Hindus can be bad, and I’m saying that because, as I see it, Hindus are as wicked as those people are… Many of them wasted time looting… Arrey, [the idea is] don’t keep them alive at all, after that everything is ours…
TEHELKA: And some people also raped…
Bajrangi: No, there were no rapes…
TEHELKA: One or two Chharas may have…
Bajrangi: If some Chharas took some women, that’s a different matter… We were marching in groups… There was no place to rape anyone there… Everyone was on a killing spree… we were killing, hacking… There were lanes where we had to face Muslims… there would be a confrontation, they’d fight back with all their strength…The moment we’d killed a few, we’d move on… In this melée, if some girl was trying to run away and if a Chhara caught her, then that’s another matter… That day, it was like what happened between Pakistan and India… There were bodies everywhere… it was a sight to be seen, but it wasn’t something to be filmed, in case it got into someone’s hands… There was a video-wala there, some mediawala, we set him on fire too… Lots of those miyas [Muslims] deceived us… They’d chant Jai Mata Di and get away… that happened too… they’d put tilaks on their foreheads and shout Jai Shri Ram, Jai Mata Di….
… Today too I am fighting against Muslims and will continue to do so… I have nothing to do with politics… What I say is this: the VHP is an organisation… a Hindu organisation… Our politics should be limited to killing Muslims, beating them up…
TEHELKA: How do you feel after you have killed Muslims…
Bajrangi: Maza aata hai na, saheb [I enjoy it]… I came back after I killed them them, called up the home minister and went to sleep… I felt like Rana Pratap, that I had done something like Maharana Pratap… I’d heard stories about him, but that day I did what he did myself.
Forgiveness
Many people forgive these killers if they have a good excuse. For example Bill Quick at the Daily Pundit says {change notice: Quick says that the original excerpt did not fairly represent his comments; so I have changed this to show his entire entry}:
Since the specific example chosen is a retaliatory massacre of Muslims, I’d agree this wouldn’t be my first choice for nihilistic evil, either.
In fact, I think it is quite wrong-headed. As reported, it’s not even a good example of what Fabius thinks he is talking about. His example of “Joker-style” evil says (in repeated variations):
Bajrangi: My role was as follows: I was the first to start the [Naroda] Patiya operation… We and the local residents were all together. Patiya is just half a kilometre away from my home… I had gone to Godhra when it happened… I could not bear what I saw… The next day, we gave them a fitting reply…
TEHELKA: What were you unable to tolerate in Godhra?
Bajrangi: Any person who saw the Godhra kaand [massacre] would have felt like just killing them at once, hacking them apart… that’s how it was…
In other words, the villain of Fabus’ piece makes it clear the massacre he led was in response to a previous massacre committed on his people by Muslims.
Fabius seems most upset by the savagery of the response, and the lack of contrition on the part of the leader of the respondees. But that is not Joker-style “let the world burn” evil. That is human-style “let the enemy burn for what he has done to us.” And that response is what such savagery as practiced by Islamofascist terror eventually pushes even highly civilized peoples to do.
If your god tells you that you must slaughter innocents, don’t be surprised if the god of the innocents tells them they must reply in kind. Or, less irrationally, a millennia-deep form of common sense – kill them lest they kill us again.
I think Fabius, normally a perspicacious observer of the world, is confused here.
Well I guess the killing was OK then, since it was in response to a previous massacre! I thought it was just soft-headed liberals who excused crimes on the basis of such things. Perhaps Quick will write a similar note about “human-style desire to have nice things” when his house is burgled, or “human-style desire to spread his genes” when his daughter is raped.
M Simon says something similar in comment #41:
The Islamics did unspeakable things to India. I suppose that could all be left in the past if the Islamics gave up the sword. So far no sign of that. Before forgiveness must come repentance.
So massacre follows massacre, each justified by the previous round. I have a different theory about these things:
- These “killers for the sake of killing” are with us always.
- They join causes that give them the opportunity to kill.
- They are the enemies of civilization, no matter under what flag they.
The enthusiasm with which their killing is greeted — as seen on this thread and in Quick’s comment — shows that they need not worry about their welcome in the 21st century.
Warm up your pens to excuse the next tide of bodies washing up on the headlines! So long as we forgive these killers, they will always find a new “reason” to kill.
Bill Quick responds:
My goodness, these pompous puffheads scream when you poke them, don’t they? And then, as such folks often do, resort to mischaracterizations and outright lies.
A repeat, for those keeping score: Fabius wrote a post that purported to talk about Joker-style “let the world burn” nihilistic violence – in other words, violence for the sake of violence. If he had any other meaning, it certainly wasn’t obvious to any fair-minded reader, or so it seems to me.
Then, as an example of such nihilistic violence, he coughs up a bloody massacre that occurred in response to another bloody massacre. This is hardly “nihilistic” violence, or violence simply for the sake of violence. This is violence with a cause and an intended effect.
And when I point this out – in tone that are for me quite muted and reasonable – Fabius responds by claiming that I excuse the second massacre, that I think it was “okay.” No, but I do understand why it happened, and that as an example of Joker-style, let the world burn, nihilistic violence, it was a real flub.
And despite Fabius’ even more wrong-headed response to me, it still is.
Note: I think my original excerpt gave a fair summary of Quick’s statement. Quick sees massacre as a response that he “understands”, because “that response is what such savagery as practiced by Islamofascist terror eventually pushes even highly civilized peoples to do. That he sees no other alternatives shows why history has so many rivers of blood. There are people who like to kill, and they find people who produce word salads justifying their actions.
Simon’s comment is similar. A reprisal massacre was needed because “Before forgiveness must come repentance.” As a justification for reprisal in kind, it is bizarre. Forgiveness and repentance come later in the process of conflict and its resolution. Before them comes use of force, which can be applied in ways other than massacres.
For more information
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp interest these days:
Some posts on the FM site about India and Pakistan:
- Is Pakistan’s Musharraf like the Shah of Iran? (if so, bad news for us), 8 November 2007
- Terrorism in India, a roster of incidents, 16 May 2008
- NPR tells us more about America’s newest war, in Pakistan, 14 September 2008
- Pakistan warns America about their borders, and their sovereignty, 14 September 2008
- Weekend reading about … foreign affairs, 19 October 2008
- To good a story to die: eliminate legitimate grievances to eliminate terrorism, 9 December 2008
- About the 4GW between India and Pakistan, 6 January 2009
.
.
.
There was something our Indian friend left out of his story. There was a Muslim ruler of India who every year killed 100,000 Hindus. I don’t remember for how many decades but it was at least two.
The Islamics did unspeakable things to India. I suppose that could all be left in the past if the Islamics gave up the sword. So far no sign of that. Before forgiveness must come repentance. See any sign of Islamic repentance yet? Mumbai?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I believe Simon refers to the story that the the “Bahmani Sultans (1347 – 1480) in Central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus every year.” Does anyone have any references to support this? Don’t tell us what you believe, or give a link to a blog. Authoritative sources only.
The swedes have a king, so do the norwegians. That leaves one country in scandinavia with a monarchy, figure the rest out yourself. And you are a pathetique native speaker. It is indeed ‘queens’ as the possesive suffix is -s and not -‘s. -‘s is a contraction of the noun and the verb is. Your serve.
41: wtf? Show that to a native English speaking friend, if you have any, and have him translate it into English for you. I really can’t be bothered to try to get sense out of you anymore.
that is perfectly normal english when discussing linguistics {snip}. As to my handle – it comes of being multilingual. You know, there are actually people in the world who can speak more than one language, I for one can speak four to a varying degree of mastery. {snip}
I am back on-line, and the comment policy will be (as usual) brutally enforced. Please re-read it, either the brief version at the end of the post or the longer version here.
Most of the above comments deserve to be deleted as uncivil or not topical (as in “related to this post”). I will leave them as an example of what happens in unmoderated threads.
Fabius Maximus replies: Perhaps you should read about western history before forecasting about likelihood of elephants flying.
I could say the same of you. I guess you haven’t been paying attention to history since the Crusades, and the 30 years war. Ever heard of the modern problems in Ireland? Ever heard of the Christian treatment of Jews in Germany during WWII?
Are you aware of the Christian beliefs promoted about Jews that lead to German views of them as worthy of extermination? Aware of the fact that the “final solution” was discussed in Christian circles, openly, long before Nazi was even an ideology. You see, Germans were having a problem converting Jews and some suggested that it might just be better to kill them all. After all they were Christ killers, and the blood libel was a common theme in Europe, along with the Christian hatred of money changers, and interest.
Oh, you thought I was some Christian. Sorry, I’m not a communist either. So I’m free to criticize any and all vile beliefs. Problem Islam has that Christianity doesn’t is that it was founded by a mass-murdering maniac, and not a semi-pacifist. That’s why it’s much less likely to get off the ground and fly to peace, among many other reasons.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Let’s take this by the numbers.
(1) Few of the post-Westphalia wars, and none of the ones you mention, are explicitly religious — which was the piont of your original post. (Ethnic conflicts continued, until perhaps largely burnt out in the fires of WWII. The record is clear that Hitler did not consider himself a Christian, nor was the NAZI party based on religious identity).
That’s not to say that the West has become heaven, but merely that Christian religions have become more pacifist over time. My point was that predictions about such things should not be expressed as certainties.
(2) “Oh, you thought I was some Christian.”
My comment made no assumptions, implicit or explicit, about your religion.
(3) That digression out of the way, we return to our standard rules. Posts only about this post. There are hundreds or thousands of site on which to debate religion.
Fabius Maximus note: You can see nekulturny’s comment in full here.
It was snipped and moved, as not remotely relevant to the subject of this post. My notice in comment #45 was clear. The Comment Policy is not complex: “brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post.” At 340 words the length of this comment was tolerable. As for the other two criteria, it was not even close.
These are not open threads.
Maybe you would like to correct his English for me, since no doubt you would do a better job. It would be a service to this individual. Regrettably since you wiped what I wrote, I cannot readily edit it to your satisfaction. Do you understand what he meant? Do you agree with what he said?
I think that’s under 250 (you should provide a word counter if you feel thus), civil, and not sure what you consider relevant…if you think you can write such a post and keep everybody down to a tut-tut level of passion, well, I guess you can try; but I’d like to know where they made you and what your serial number is.
Also – on #38: this passes for civil?
.
Fabius Maximus replies: As I said above: the length of your comment was over the max but OK; but your comment was not even remotely related to the subject of this post.
(2) Look at the threads about climate science if you want to see passion! However, insults are a waste of space IMO. Please channel the passion into something other than schoolyard taunts. This site has long and useful discussions (often dozens of comments long) perhaps because it is moderated — civil and focused.
(4) “Maybe you would like to correct his English for me, since no doubt you would do a better job. ”
Ask for his email address and send him a note. Why should we care about such things?
(5) “if you think you can write such a post and keep everybody down to a tut-tut level of passion, well, I guess you can try; but I’d like to know where they made you and what your serial number is.”
This goes to the heart of the matter. This is a proprietary site. It takes a bizarre amount of effort to run. I do the work, so I get to set the rules. You don’t pay for it, and therefore have no say in the matter.
(6) “Also on #38: this passes for civil?”
Please see the subsequent announcement in bold at comment #45, the 2nd paragraph of which says:
(7) “Do you agree with what he said?”
Due to the number of comments (6,511 in the past year), I seldom reply. I thank people making esp interesting or informative comments (irrespective of whether I agree), and moderate discussions.
Update
Many people forgive these killers if they have a good excuse. For example Bill Quick at the Daily Pundit says:
Well I guess the killing was OK then, since it was in response to a previous massacre! I thought it was just soft-headed liberals who excused crimes on the basis of such things. Perhaps Quick will write a similar note about “human-style desire to have nice things” when his house is burgled, or “human-style desire to spread his genes” when his daughter is raped.
M Simon says something similar in comment #41:
So massacre follows massacre, each justified by the previous round. I have a different theory about these things:
* These ”killers for the sake of killing” are with us always.
* They join causes that give them the opportunity to kill.
* They are the enemies of civilization, no matter under what flag they.
The enthusiasm with which their killing is greeted –as seen on this thread and in Quick’s comment — shows that they need not worry about their welcome in the 21st century.
Warm up your pens to excuse the next tide of bodies washing up on the headlines! So long as we forgive such killers, they will always find a good “reason” to kill again.
#48 Your (6): Fine. But
a) why censor me and not him – I am IMHO no more offensive and have better arguments;
b) you had just said earlier that you would leave the above comments alone as bad examples, so why censor any posts prev. to #45 at all? You are just destroying context, ripping the thread apart. At a guess, none of the participants here are virgins.
(Of course as you say you are the Arbiter Elegantiae of the blog. I trust we may nonetheless ask you to explain yourself?)
I don’t recall having ever come here before so just as I am expendable to you, you are expendable to me. I can play nice and usu. do so esp. on threads/blogs where this seems merited or is otherwise clear in rules and/or practice. Will do so next time Instalanche draws me here, or if otherwise I see anything interesting here.
(7) You’re replying a lot this thread. Oh and (2), you think “dozens” is big? See Althouse (let alone LGF).
#5 (1) Rejected. You wanna work for that guy? Not the same as “Do you sonsabitches wanna live forever” IMHO.
#9 (3) Reject premise of Afghan resistance = OBL. Some unintended consequences.
#10. Yes, but Islamic dissidents are hunted few.
#11. Ever heard of “the Chicago way?” 1 of yours to hospital = 2 theirs to morgue? One must fight back! Should Hindus wait for UN? Ha! Excess of zeal, seemingly, but try on his shoes.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: At aprox 4000 pageviews/day, this is (I believe) a medium-active blog. Of WordPress’ 5 billion blogs, only 1.5 million got a visitor in October.
As for superstars like Althouse or LGF — I don’t use Bill Gates as the comparison when I consider how much money I have. And IMO the discussions here are of higher quality than those (which are by comparison IMO a collection of sound bites).
Back to my remark: “#9 (3) Reject premise of Afghan resistance = OBL. Some unintended consequences.”
“Re: Ricardo Montalban” (Mark Steyn, National Review Online, 14 January 2009) tells us that Sayyad Qutb went to a perfectly sedate dance, a church social in fact, in 1949 Colorado and went nutso – damned the West, ignited Muslim Brotherhood. Do we blame Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalban? Or just Frank Loesser?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This story comes from “Sayyid Qutb in America,” ISIM Review (newsletter of the International Institute for the Study of Islam), March 2001 (PDF here). I discuss it in “How America can survive and even prosper in the 21st Century – part I” (originally posted 19 March 2007).
Excuse me, you think this blog is better than Althouse? Based on this one thread, LOL. And no, you have not improved it with your edits, though I suppose I thank you for cleaning up my cite in 51.
I appreciate your response – but I think it’s pretty d–d relevant, what I said; and your response is to point to another thread of yours, 6 mos old? You won’t deign to repeat or synopsize yourself here for our benefit? How do you think THAT makes the thread read? How does that do anything but cut off discussion? What, do I post followups to that thread? A July 08 thread in this day and age is dead as Julius Caesar.
Haven’t read the About You section of this site, but I wonder what your background is (this is not an ad hominem). You must be some sort of academic or other formalist.
As for eating soup with a knife, pick up the damned bowl and sip from it. Use the knife to stir, bring solids to the rim, possibly use as a heat shield for your fingers if the bowl is too hot. You could also perhaps punch the knife into the side of the bowl and use it as the handle of a mug…
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: (1) I said “IMO the discussions here are of higher quality than” on her side. That is not the same as saying I “think this blog is better than Althouse.” (2) Your last paragraph suggests that you did not read the post about “soup”, which makes commenting on it pretty silly IMO.
Anyway, now you know I condescended to go to your link. What did you contribute? You did not “discuss” the Qutb anecdote, you mention it. What was your point, AS RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD?
What I took from it is, there is no satisfying such people. There is no compromise, they have to be defeated. The good Muslims you point to are, as I said above if you didn’t censor me, essentially hunted for pelts by such as Qutb, whose ossified notions are in the ascendancy.
Heinlein dropped a few allusions here and there – oh yes, Stranger in a Strange Land – to ‘good Muslims’ who could appreciate ‘a loaf of bread, a jug of wine and Thou.’ Go ahead and send that fellow to meet with OBL, Zawahiri, etc. Expect him back in at least two pieces.
Let me put it another way: What do you suggest was the Joker’s excuse/rationale? You’re saying that Batman was just as bad.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Who is saying “Batman is just as bad”? I dont’ see this is the post or any comment. In my view, Batman is the antidote. To use a bad medical analogy, he is the immune system of Gotham City at work.
FM : This site has just evolved into a schoolyard full of bullies & TROLLS. Much suckapunchin’… I’d suggest that you cease discussin’ ’bout “jus ad bellum” or anythin’ moral in future. Not appreciated by this lot.
theoworkshop : السلام عليكم
ほんと : Dude, that’s cool. I’m not of Anglo – Saxon descent, but I dare say that my mastery of their tongue SURPASSES most of ’em d***head trolls here. What languages do you speak?
FM : I’m seem to be trollin’ as well, apologies.
@Yours Truly: In descending order of proficiency – Danish (native speaker), English, German, Japanese.
ほんと : Suberashi! Can’t read your nom de guerre. What’s it mean?
@Yours Truly: honto = truth; fact; reality (informal form of hontoo)
I think Quick has a point. There’s a difference between “wanting to see the world burn” and ugly vengeance, and identifying the difference isn’t forgiveness. I agree with your general point but also think that the choice of example, while colorful, doesn’t support the argument.
I also think Quick has a point in this case, and agree with Chap. Quick was pointing out why this wasn’t a Joker-style evil, not trying to excuse or even really defend it.
Though Fabius’ point is a good one. There were probably individuals involved that used this as a convenient way to do what they wanted…I’m guessing there are individuals like that in the US Army, too. I’m guessing the senior military guys have a tough time weeding out the applications for special forces, because that’s probably where people like that want to get assigned, so they can be more…active.
Pingback: Daily Pundit » Fabius Responds - Badly
Update
Quick posted a reply, stating that he believes my excerpt from his post did not accurately represent his view.
I posted an apology on his site, and have changed this post to show both his original post and his reply in full.
–1) What do you do with all those nits you pick, Fabio? IMHO the comments make the blog – would have said so before if not sweating your word limit. Your discussions are not better than her discussions. 2) I’m not impressed with your ability at taking suggestion, I did read the post. This is just passive-aggressive behavior on your part. You ignore my post #53 which presumably is because you cannot answer it.
–Right, and stabby Hindus are by analogy the cure to the disease of Islam in India. Fixed!
honto = truth; fact; reality
–All this and humble too! I would have understood “honto,” romanized; and rightly sneered at it; but now we have to play nice, so…Thanks for clearing that up!
…I’m guessing the senior military guys have a tough time weeding out the applications for special forces, because that’s probably where people like that want to get assigned, so they can be more…active…
–Plumber, in discussions with my high school friend in the Special Forces, this is indeed something they look for and reject. Let me say in the kindest way – really – that you don’t know what you are talking about.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Anyone have thoughts about “the comments make the blog”? It’s not a view I share. Some top sites — the Instapundit, James Fallows — do not allow comments.
It would be an interesting experiment to turn off comments and see the effect on traffic. Does anyone know of someone who has do so?
Okay…you have said
a) the discussions are better here than at Althouse, LGF, etc.
b) you don’t agree that the comments make the blog.
How do you have a discussion without comments? What do you define as a discussion? You talk, we listen? Surely you understand how foolish that sounds. Insty is Insty and among other things, comments given HIS traffic base would be strictly off the hook. Fallows I don’t much read but a man sharing so much of himself might be best off hearing back from people.
And as you have said, don’t compare yourself to those not in your class. As I said above (AND AS YOU CENSORED? IT’S NOT THERE! WTF?!?!?!), Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi. You’re an anonymous poster. You have no credentials to say “This is why you should be listening to me.”
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I did a search of the comment archive, and there are no comments received containing the words “licet” or “quod”. Your comment may have gone into the spam trap (whose workings are a mystery to me). I did not see it there; but the trap produces no archive).
Note for readers: “quod licet Jovi non licet bovi” means “what is permitted Jupiter is not permitted a cow.”
Very well, I’ll take your word for it (though of course this is another peril of censorship); now please explain how you talking and us listening is a discussion.
Pingback: tdaxp » Blog Archive » The Heritability of Criminal Behavior
Re 67. Rape, polygomy, incest, murder, theft and pillage all are genetically hardwired human behaviors that will spread and become norms in the absence of a strong set of scoial values to preclude them. It could be why Camus had John Baptiste Clemence refer to the respectable bourgois of Amsterdam as a salacious monkeys in his novellete The Fall.
It’s all still there, a part of both of our essential natures. It’s our religious practices, our social norms and our willingness to punish that which makes our lives more chaotic that sets us apart from the cannibals.
From FM: “Of course statistics apply. Most will die unknown; only a few will kill on a scale sufficient to attract notice; only a tiny tiny number will gain control of large movements or even nation-states. But the latter group, like an extraordinarily virulent plague virus, can do awesome damage.”
And note that in these days (and increasingly in the future)one doesn’t necessarily need a large number of people to inflict serious damage. Consider how many people would have been required to sack a city and make it uninhabitable 10 centuries ago–not just the king giving the order, but all the troops and the logistics involved. Compare that to the number required to do the job sixty years ago, or today, and imagine how few it would take to do it tomorrow.
Then assume that a small number–a very, very small fraction–of people have as their end the inflection of megadeaths (with or without cause, since one who wants to kill will find a reason to do so). How many? One in a million? There are 6.7 billion people in the world. If one in a milliion want to commit megamurder, thats 6700 “jokers” (or worse).
When the spread of technology empowers more and more people, it empowers more and more people to kill. The vast majority will not. Most on those who will kill will probably see it as a rational tactic (see Pape’s “Dying to Win” on the rationality of suicide bombing). But there will be a few who just don’t care, and for any particular case it may only take one.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: For more on this see “Empowered individuals — and super-empowered ones!” (13 November 2007).
FM note: I strongly recommend reading this comment
Here is a sorry fact, we are all potential killers, descended from successful killers or a small number of survivors of murder and genocide. The Anglo Saxon commentators here have a majority religion that worships genocide (read your Bible folks it gets pretty ugly at times). This is the official religion of many countries (e.g. the UK).
When group norms break down we eat each other, we kill the other guy to take his woman, or food or land. Or, more sinister, we happily industrialise murder. The death camps (the first recent history mass ones were the British ones, Hitler didn’t innovate just learned from the masters), mass starvation, shelling, bombing, or our new ones like mass gassing, biological weapons or nuclear bombs. The British were happy to use gas on Iraqis in the 1920’s, we are so much more civilised now ..we used uranium (the 2 headed children of Iraq salute the US/UK/etc).
We like to kill, we worship killing and given a chance, and of course with zero risk (we are all cowards at heart, explains most hunting for example .. I mean killing something you cannot eat…), a majority, or at least a large minority will happily kill .. just for the fun of it.
That’s why in, any conflict, children always get the brunt of it, firstly because they are easy to kill (we are cowards of course) and it is a good way to kill or terrorise a race …. plus it is fun to see a mother cry.
Killing, terrorism and torture: The ultimate Schadenfreude. This is backed up by:
(1) History, very, very bloody. Peace is an interlude between wars.
(2) Killing is fun, we would all do it if there were no consequences (well not all 0.001% won’t). See, for example “Congo Warrior Nkunda Is Nkool“, Gary Brecher (the War Nerd), The Exile Online, 11 November 2008.
(3) Research, e.g. the Milgram Experiment* and “The Lucifer Effect. How good people turn to evil”.
(4) Experience, once saw riots in London over an imagined food shortage, even saw some ‘nice’ middle class people steal food from a pensioner (quite happy to kill her by starvation so they were potential murderers). Saw the ‘bloodlust’ by supposedly intelligent and sane UK people during the Falkland war.
There is hope, but it is called CHOICE. The Enlightenment showed us another way out of our genetic heritage of barbarism, unfortunately we seem to be regressing … more than seem, we are regressing.
Now a famous person said: “ yes I know we are killers, but we can choose not to kill today”**. So we can choose not to kill or torture .. or we fall back to our genetic heritage = descedents of successful murderers and rapists and basically become worse than animals (much worse actually, my dogs have far better ethics than the majority of humans I know).
Notes:
* Part of the Milgram experiments which were never publicly released was how they got relatives to torture each other. Brother torturing sister, father against son and so on.
** From a speech by Captain James T. Kirk in the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“. The full text is instructive:
I believe the gist of James T. Kirk’s comment is that those who can kill and not kill are stronger than those who can simply kill or those who cannot kill at all. They will ultimately win.
(70) Speak for yourself. I have no doubt all that’s true of you.
OldSkeptic, find me a 2-headed Iraqi child and we’ll talk. You see, such wild claims make it easy to blow you off as a hysteric. As with “Killing is fun” – I wonder if you’ve ever tried it. BS meter in the red again.
nekulturny: Killing is fun, a lot of us have done it, some do every day… even if just in our heads, watching movies, playing computer games, or even just wishing. Heck, I’ve often said I’d love to have a 20mm cannon fitted to my car, so I can blow away caravans (like the Top Gear crowd, it is a pet hate) … I’m joking .. sort of (hmmmm any surplus out there?).
Yes I’ve hunted – shot & fished and even scuba dived for lobsters, but I’m programmed (by my father) to only kill what I can eat and never to allow suffering. The first rabbit I shot, at 5 years of age, was not killed outright. So my father walked me into the earth following it to put it out of its misery … he was making a point. A very tired and very much wiser child got home very late that night.
But say I didn’t have that programming, overcoming my natural barbaric genetic programming, I’d have happily slaughtered heaps. It was fun. The same fun as killing the Klingon Empire in a computer game … only better.
But this is a simple personal example showing we can overcome our natural barbaric impulses, with the right training, without losing anything of our humanity or our drive. BS, I think not.
Talisker: No you miss the point of the episode, it was an Enlightenment point of view. Those who do not kill are the best of us that we aspire to, but we are cursed with a killers heritage. But we can overcome it and aspire to those heights. Plus, let us not forget Asimov’s great saying ” violence is the last resort of the incompetent”. And he didn’t mean that it was the first resort of the competent (duh). The smarter person (this is all basic Suz Tze) wins (or at least does not lose) by using other smarter methods.
Starting violence is very risky and does not always turn out the way you think (e.g WW1, Iraq 1920, WW2, Iraq 2003, Lebanon 1982 through to 2006, Afghanistan how many times? And so, so, many other examples).
Fabius Maximus replies: Who is saying “Batman is just as bad”? I dont’ see this is the post or any comment. {FM note: See comment #54 by nekulturny.}
In my view, Batman is the antidote. To use a bad medical analogy, he is the immune system of Gotham City at work.
Yes, but he’s being destroyed by the moral AIDS virus of altruism. For that is why he’s willing to accept a lie and vilification, in order to continue “serving” Gotham. Were he fully functional as an “immune system”, the Joker dies almost immediately (which admittedly makes for a much shorter and less satisfying film).
It’s all still there, a part of both of our essential natures. It’s our religious practices, our social norms and our willingness to punish that which makes our lives more chaotic that sets us apart from the cannibals.
So you are telling us that, without some powerful entity telling you what to do — that is, left to your own devices — you will become a cannibal? To you, and everyone else espousing such vile, anti-moral ideas, there is only one proper response: speak for yourself, buster.
This “we are all cannibals” idea is an age-old religious/conservative falsehood (the “Original sin” premise), and as I wrote above, has historically served not as a constraint upon the wolves, but instead serves to disarm the masses, sheepifying them in the face of those who seeks to rule and/or eat them — the nihilists. That is a key aspect of feudal European culture, which sustained it and made it as brutal as it was. after all, if we are all such depraved creatures by nature, on what moral grounds should we rise and defend ourselves against God’s minions?
Until this notion was rejected in that rebellion of the mind against religious hegemony we call the Enlightenment, we didn’t.
The error in genetic determinism is that genetics determines the nature of man — but not the character of *a* man. An individual character consists of the choices that one makes makes over his or her lifetime — and that is where the notions of good and evil apply.
The notion that one can be guilty of something before making a single choice, undercuts and destroys the very concept of morality — something which nihilists find very handy. There was once and old saying that expressed this idea, and it went like this:
This saying finds its origins amongst the members of the most destructive nihilist movements in human history: National Socialism. The connection there is direct and causal; National Socialism was a species of collectivism, and so is racism in general.
The Enlightenment is indeed the antidote here. However, its does not do so by suppressing mankind’s alleged “baser instincts”; it works by rejecting the very ideas of “baser instincts” (or any other “innate” content of one’s character) in man. Rather, it takes human nature as a metaphysical given, and seats morality where it belongs: in the evaluation of individual character.
FM note: SFCMAC’s comment is an interesting example of “do it yourself propaganda.” Skillfully done, and hence worth a look. At 400 words it is both over the FM sitet’s Comment Policy max of 250 words, also somewhat off topic. As an example of its type the full comment has been lifted into a post here. An excerpt appears below.
@ ほんと
Don’t make you laugh? What have you done beside regurgitate anti-US bullshit on a website? I spent 30 years serving this country and protecting ingrates like you. When you’ve humped a ruck instead of Obama’s leg, then you can talk.
@ ramses — comment #31 (18 January 2009 @ 9:28 am)
The justification for Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the Islamic terrorist nation-states in the Middle East are justified by all the AMERICAN LIVES they took. 9/11 didn’t hit close enough to your own back yard, did it? That’s okay, you just sit tight, enjoy your freedom to spew crap while others–people far better than you–do the heavy lifting.
@theoworkshop (comment #29):
“If the WMD’s were indeed discovered then we all wud have known them.”
YOU ALL WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD THE COGNITIVE SKILLS REQUIRED FOR READING. Since you didn’t bother to actually go to the link I provided, I’ll spell it out: {FM note: SFCMAC gives 7 points; see the post for this section.}
… For anyone who thinks we should agressively persue an end to the Islamofascist quest for a world Caliphate, take a moment to scan the New York City skyline. See anything missing?
PS: When it comes to the Middle East; BURN,BABY,BURN. Cheers, SFC MAC
FM note: SFCMAC replies with a 1400 word rant. He ignores my comments, dismissing the detailed excerpts from US government reports as “snark.” Click here to read the full text. An excerpt appears below.
Hey “FM”, Nice snark job…”do it yourself propaganda”. right.
… In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting. “Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says“, New York Times, 13 March 2005.
… And this: It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.
“‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’“, Spectator, 18 April 2007 — “Melanie Phillips talks to Dave Gaubatz, a former US Air Force special agent, who passed on vital intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group — and is dismayed that nothing happened.”
… Muslims, on the other hand, would like to put you nose first, on a prayer mat facing Mecca six times a day….or else.
Europe is becoming more Dhimmified by the day. So much so, that it’s starting to resemble a Middle Eastern satelite. Maybe we WILL pick up where we left off after WWII, and end up bombing the crap out of them.
Notice how I didn’t call you ‘asshat’ this time? I figure by now, everyone knows it fits.
@ thebiga: To answer your question:
Just the “peace-loving” muslim nations who bomb, behead, and fly planes filled with innocent people into people-filled skyscrappers, military buildings, and over fields in Pennsylvania. In the name of ‘allah’, of course.
FM note: On the Internet there is no way to identify the source of comments. This comment is from a different IP address and email and header than the previous comments by “SFCMAC.” It might be the same person; it might not be.
It’s worth a look as an example of what passes as thinking among some Americans. This mish-mash of facts and delusions — coupled with deranged certainty and fondness for violence — makes such people dangerous to any society.
ALSO: breaking comments up does not meet the 250 word max.
I’m a female by the way. Sorry for the confusion. sfcmac is short for SFC Cheryl McElroy, US ARMY (RET). I will comply with the “250 word comment policy” by dividing the comment into 250 word (or less) separate comments. Okay? Just one more “rant” before I leave this thread.
I dissmissed your response as “snark”. The government reports did not dispute the discovery of WMDs, ie: cyclosarin. The NGIC report verified the discovery. Those weapons “sat” in Saddam’s arsenal for 20 years. Why was he keeping them? Why didn’t he simply hand them over to the U.N. inspectors? Whether you like it or not, his duplicitous behavior clearly indicated his intent to continue with his WMD progam. That is a fact. Saddam himself stated that unequivocally:
“The factories are present,” an Iraqi aide tells Saddam on one of the tapes, made by the dictator in the mid-1990s while U.N. weapons inspectors were searching for Baghdad’s remaining stocks of weapons of mass destruction.
“The factories remain, in the mind they remain. Our spirit is with us, based solely on the time period,” the aide says, according to the documents. “And [inspectors] take note of the time period, they can’t account for our will.”
My experience with the Arab “culture” shattered my uninitiated romanticized ‘Midnight at the Oasis’ ideas. Just a few things: They don’t have the same ideas of warfare and honor that Americans do. We tend not to target kids. They use them as human shields. They kill wives and girlfriends to ‘save face’ and ‘protect family honor’.
They have two things Americans have been lacking; patience and resolve. They understand us better than we understand them. We (Clinton, in particular) were complacent and totally ignored the Islamic threats, which grew increasingly closer in proximity to our soil. What happened in 1993 with the first World Trade Center attack should have served as a wake up call, but instead, we turned over and went back to sleep. Mark my words: It will take another attack that makes 9/11 look like a backyard bar-b-que, before even the most brain dead people like “theoworkshop” and “ほんと” (whatever the hell that is) understands that there is an Islamic ‘culture’ on this planet who wants us dead.
Terrorists would like nothing better than to get their hands on a ‘dirty bomb’ and give it a test run in a neighborhood near you. They’re working on it.
I’ve sometimes heard the point that there are ‘billions of muslims’ and ‘all of them don’t agree with the extremists’…blah…blah…blah… Well, in that case, where in the hell are all the ‘billions’ of muslims who disagree with the atrocities being carried out in the name of Islam? I’ve yet to see masses of ‘moderate muslims’ take to the streets in protest, raise voices, and mount a counter offensive. Tacit disapproval doesn’t count.
I do remember thousands of practitioners of the ‘religion of peace’ dancing in the streets after 9/11, and praising ‘allah’ for the carnage.
Just another point about the Iraq/Afghanistan war: If you think it would have been possible to limit our effort in Afghanistan without expanding to other surrounding Islamic states, you’re foolish. Enemies can and do cross borders. (They sure as hell crossed ours, didn’t they?) That’s what happens when you take the fight they started back to their turf. It happens in every war ever fought.
With a few exceptions, Christians and Jews have evolved past the point of killing masses of people over religion. If they did, the Left would have fits. Notice how radical muslims usually get a pass in the media? Israel has been putting up with deaths and injuries from rockets being lobbed into their territory from Palestinians for months. Israel got fed up, warned them to stop, and retaliated when they didn’t. How is it portrayed in the Al Jazeera wing aka The New York Times? Bush’s fault. Israel’s fault. The fault of Jews for existing. Ad nauseum.
See this war for what it is: A war of survival; Islam versus Western Civilization. That’s not ‘propaganda’ Fabius, those are facts.
“The Anglo Saxon commentators here have a majority religion that worships genocide “
I’m not a Christian but I think this statement is a little overblown. Do they “worship genocide.” I don’t think so. They certainly worship a god that has committed genocide. What your god does and what he allows of you are two different things. There are no commandments that I’m aware of in the bible that call for genocide of any living ethic group, or an general call for extermination or subjegation of non-believers. The same cannot be said for Islam. That’s a big difference.
In Christianity much of the religious violence can be blamed on religious leaders, and a lack of literacy among Christians. In fact, the religiously motivated Christian wars subsided and Christianity became more peaceful with the spread of the printing press. This way people could read the pacifist nature of Christ for themselves, and question their leaders.
This is not an effect you’d see with Islam because the violence preached from mosques, and committed by Islamic leaders is fully backed by the Qur’an.
To argue that these religious beliefs have no effect is to put ones head in the sand. Atheists don’t go to church specifically because they don’t believe. Belief does have an influence on action.