scratch-mark

Reisman vs. Pinheads

I don’t claim to know a lot about Pinochet and his history. I suppose I could do a bit more background, but it really wouldn’t matter for the purposes of this entry, because the reason I so enjoyed George Reisman’s post on the Chilean dictator was because of the forest and not the trees, to reference that bit you see up top. I think that unless you are an historian prepared to do years of research, including getting as much first hand information as possible, you’re never going to get the straight context on the crucial events and how they went down.

The whole propaganda apparatus of the time — intent on communism’s firm and permanent planting in South America — just has never been an inch beyond anything but pure and complete lies, ever. Virtually every bit of information that ever came out of those "revolutionaries" and their sycophant bedfellows in the leftist international media was slanted to make the god dammed commies look good and those trying to hold them off like exploitative opportunists. But, you know, hell hath no furry like someone intent on "saving the world," of which you’ll start getting a taste of in the run-up to 2008, here.

So, yes… George Reisman; that post I referenced is important because of how it offers moral clarity to a situation, and situations like it, where material clarity is impossible. The attempted communist takeover was real, and they were damn smart and clever, and you would just never know or be sure about what was going down when and where. So, what do you do? Well, maybe, just maybe, you start killing a lot of people anywhere around the whole rigmarole. And you know what? That has application to a lot of what’s going on today in the Middle East.

You know, there was a day when combatants had the decency to don a uniform and show up at a battlefield. There, with respect to your enemy, both your material and moral clarity are in sync. There was no question what needed to be done; no ambiguity. So, what do you do when your enemy — like commies and radical Islamists — doesn’t "play by the rules?" Do you pacifistically let yourself be overrun because you can not establish material certainty about who your enemy is? Must you sacrifice yourself to your doubts and human fallibility?

Those who wail on about the innocent civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan need to take note. First of all, most are caused by the enemy themselves, who need only stop blowing things up. Second, our moral responsibility is met by being as careful as reasonably possible to avoid civilian casualties that are not necessary to our own defense. Period.

You would need to read that Reisman post referenced above before reading this follow-on, where he duly dispenses of pinheads. I’m not going to quote from it, because it’s too important and you should read and understand the whole thing. You need to understand that the moral right to kill a communist or a terrorist comes virtually the moment they put down their pen or microphone and express any intent to implement their plans with action. Why? Because there is but one way to implement their plans, and that’s the only fact you need to consider.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

1 Comment

  1. Kyle Bennett on December 21, 2006 at 15:20

    moral clarity [..] where material clarity is impossible

    Holy shit, that's good – a very important distinction that I had not considered before, not explicitly, anyway, in any context.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780