Saturday, April 09, 2011

Iowahawk takes on Southron Decency

Posted by at
Labels:

4 comments:

Mr roT said...

In case this post provokes some Steynian bullshit about gallows and Indian widows, let me copy a bit of Burke:

On February 28, 1785 [Burke] made his great speech on The Nabob of Arcot's Debts, where he condemned the damage he believed the East India Company had done to India. In the province of the Carnatic the Indians had constructed a system of reservoirs to make the soil fertile in a naturally dry region, and centred their society on the husbandry of water:

"These are the monuments of real kings, who were the fathers of their people; testators to a posterity which they embraced as their own. These are the grand sepulchres built by ambition; but by the ambition of an insatiable benevolence, which, not contented with reigning in the dispensation of happiness during the contracted term of human life, had strained, with all the reachings and graspings of a vivacious mind, to extend the dominion of their bounty beyond the limits of nature, and to perpetuate themselves through generations of generations, the guardians, the protectors, the nourishers of mankind."

Burke held that the advent of British dominion, and in particular the conduct of the East India Company had destroyed much that was good in these traditions and that, as a consequence of this, and the lack of new customs to replace them, the Indians were suffering. He set about establishing a set of British expectations, whose moral foundation would, in his opinion, warrant the empire.

I should add that Burke, unlike Steyn, knows that one should respect his betters. In this case, I am not referring to Graham, but to Petraeus.

4/09/2011 9:42 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...

What unadulterated Rottian Bullshit.
First; Burke, unlike Petraeus, never called for the censoring of folks in his homeland in order to please the sensibilities of a Raj. He was not so concerned about those "real kings", those "fathers of their people" that he would bind his own people.
Second; with Islam there is no "system of reservoirs to make soil fertile in a naturally dry region" wisdom of native peoples who have long lived in that region thing going on. What is going on is a totalistic version of "suttee burning".
Third: If you read Burke, he had no quarrel whatsoever with what you call "Steynian bullshit about gallows and Indian widows".
If you read Burke you will find nothing there to support your current "We Must Surrender in order to be able to declare Win" riff.
However, to grant you your due, in Burke you will find a deep suspicion of republics and democracies, and an as equally deep admiration of the power of Kings and those who bind society into ancient traditions.
So, just Great, we have a General Petraeus who is so flummoxed by the daily management of a body of a war that has long ago lost its head, that he will call for us to abandon our freedoms in the cause of setting at ease the sensibilities of the Fards for Allah.
Petraeus is a master Metternichian techician. In wargaming a battlefield at the Pentagon I've no doubt he would clean Steyn's clock. But then so would McLellan.
Petraeus has all the clarity as to what is at stake here, and what are the costs of our colossal failure to fight to win here, that Petain brought to 1940.
Why do we even fight? Petraeus and the Rotter have no clue. But they sure are willing to throw away everything just to allow themselves the pretense of victory.
Steyn understands well we should fight, and has every clue as to what we'll sow by our historical failures in this pathetic ten year evasion of the responsibilities of war. And he doesn't give a damn about the pretense.

Now, please go back to genuflecting before your self-annointed "betters".

4/09/2011 11:52 AM
Mr roT said...

Sounds just like another book-burner: The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty.

4/09/2011 6:12 PM
Mr roT said...

1) Certainly Burke would not defend book-burning! He thought little of the rabble...cf. his views of the French Revolution.

2) Islam has plenty of traditions that will outlast the US Constitution. This is obvious and for Burkean reasons. They are the product of millennia of evolution. American jurisprudence isn't.

3) I have no "Surrender To Win" doctrine. Petraeus, who is your better and mine too, for his contributions to this country that we're worried about, has an opinion. I respect his more than I do some fucking theatre critic with a monomania. Burke again: respect your betters or end up with Jacobins in charge.

4) Abandon our freedoms (to burn books)! See Pericles above if Burke isn't a high enough paradigm for what we are.

5) Petraeus has all the clarity you afford him and more. He sees that losing this war is serious business. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you think that a detestable retard like the Rev. Jones is more important than the fate of the US. You are wrong. We are Pericles and Burke more importantly than we are the fucking 1st Amendment, and encouraging the enemy by our speech is equally dangerous to US soldiery whether it be tailored to offend muslims or to stroke fags like Assange's followers.

This is not a moral issue.

You say Petraeus has no clue why we fight.

No. You don't know why. Or how.

Seems you picked up as much Burke as your schoolmate Obama did. Unfortunately, you don't have David Brooks to lick your balls for your equally deep understanding.

4/09/2011 6:27 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)