Fred Thompson, on the anti-war movement’s adoption of Mahatma Gandhi as one of its more pointed symbols:
At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?
It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. “The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife,†he said. “They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.†“Collective suicide,†he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.â€Â
The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
Gandhi probably wouldn’t approve, but I can live with that.
Reached for comment, Sir Ben Kingsley hadn’t the slightest idea what I was “prattling on about”—though he did agree to sign one of my sandals for $50 and half of my Quizno’s cheese steak.
(h/t AA at IP)
Ghandi, quite frankly, is an idiot.
There is reason to believe that he is one of those people that necessarily sees all of materiality as illusion – and thus the only ‘real’ solution is to throw it away.
It is a common and difficult error; distinguishing maya from brahman – Or rather, discovering that ‘the image of God’ is as real as he is, despite the fracturing caused by and of Maya.
It takes severe brainwashing to get rid of one’s desire to live – that is, to die for no real purpose at all.
But systematically denying reality will do the trick.
Jeff,
I know you normally don’t do requests, but I’m curious about what you think of Fred running.
We here in Tennessee are subjected to the All-Fred-All-The-Time news network over the last few weeks, and at this point if he doesn’t run he could probably just declare himself Generalissimo of Nashville or something.
I personally think he would stomp the field in terms of the GOP, but he is a STRONG proponent of reversing RoevWade, and once you bring that up any crossover appeal starts to sink.
He has been a breath of fresh air with his honesty and lord knows we could use a guy like him to at least run and make people answer the questions the way he does-
-with an answer.
Thoughts?
“I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.”
Uhm. No thanks.
Makes “drinking the Kool-Aid” a more apt metaphor than I had initially realized, now that I consider it.
You got ripped Jeff.
Now, if he’d dipped his head in oil and rubbed it all over your body, that would have been worth the whole damn sub.
I can’t help but think that trying to swiftboat Mahatma Gandhi is a bad idea.
Isn’t there some committee that reviews these things before the public sees them?
Swiftboating Gandhi, Alpo?
Is that kinda like quoting him?
Because no one should pay attention to what he actually said, should they?
Tman —
I’d like to see Thompson on a ticket w/ Guiliani as VP, honestly. I think he has broader appeal than Gingrich—and, while neither he nor Rudy could really affect a repeal of Roe v Wade (both would appoint conservative jurists), Giuliani’s stance is likely to garner more moderates.
swiftboating: quoting someone truthfully or pointing out their prior deeds that are indeed true.
The left has really departed reality when they start whining about someone telling the truth about them.
“HEY, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID! THAT’S NOT FAIR!!”
I agree with RiverCoyctus. As far as I can tell, Ghandi was a deathworshipper: only his own death or that of others would validate his “ethics”, which obviously did not include self-defense or a right to life.
[Alphie, you are not in Faux Liberal “Group” here.]
You can’t swift boat anybody unless they’ve served in Vietnam like John Kerry, genius.
And aren’t progressive all about “speaking truth to flowers” or whatever ? Well, Thompson’s speaking truth to Gandhi and most people with a brain agree with him. Sorry if I’ll take a battle over surrender any day of the week- I’m a warmonger, sue me.
Or let me put it another way – if you were Jew during the Holocaust, would you throw yourself into the gas chamber rather than resist, as Gandhi is apparently advocating ?
No, Matt, but I wouldn’t have spent my time blowing up British soldiers while Britain was trying to help in the liberation of Europe during WWII, either.
alphie is so perfect, I’m starting to suspect that he’s an example of performance art created by some well-meaning anti-idiotarian.
alphie, are you real, or are you a piece of hosiery with a whinger’s hand up your asterisk?
— The court34 is out on this one…
Considering the fact that ‘very red state’ N. Carolina’s recent 2006 election results on an abortion proposition, it turns out that the citizens voted to limit abortion not ban it.
I would imagine that the only reason Roe vs Wade has not been overturn is Planned Parenthood would no longer be in control of a billion dollar a year abortion industry. SInce Roe vs Wade is a terrible law based on lies and distortions about females and the abortion industry, PP knows one day that law will be overturned. Perhaps this is the reason why ‘embryonic stem cell’ cure is advocated as the end-all to curing all disease.
Got to keep the money rolling in somehow.
If we could just overturn Roe vs Wade then much of the political insanity would have no place to go and we may just get out Republic back.
I can’t help but think that trying to swiftboat Mahatma Gandhi is a bad idea.
Really, who do we think we are? Pointing out the ridiculousness of Gandhi’s words? BLASPHEMERS.
Thanks Jeff.
A Guiliani/Thompson ticket would be pretty sweet, IMO.
I can already think of a few slogans-
“Guiliani/Thompson’08-Let’s Put Some Grown Ups In Charge”
“Guiliani/Thompson’08-They Aren’t Faggots”
“Guiliani/Thompson’08-I Mean Seriously-You Want Hillary In Charge?”
“Guiliani/Thompson’08-Watch The Left Spontaneously Combust!”
If there is anybody, anywhere, who could deciper this for me, I’d be much obliged.
‘cause frankly, it looks like electronic fingerpainting to me.
An Indian (subcontinent) once remarked to me that Ghandi is far more revered in the West than he is India.
He wasn’t saying that they don’t appreciate the guy, but that there were a lot of things that Ghandi screwed up, like being unable to prevent the eventual partitioning of India into Hindu India and Muslim Bangaledesh and Pakistan.
Some guys in India threw themselves in with the Germans. An Indian unit fought in alliance with Japan. Germany had their own Indian army unit, too.
Actually, I was talking about the Irgun, JAA.
’Cause it’s always about the Jews, even when it isn’t!
No alfie, you were talking about swiftboating.
but since that dinghy is quickly taking on water, you’re changing the subject.
So, alphie, can you do it? Can you actually address the topic at hand (which is Gandhi and his advice to the Jews and his pacifism) without redirection or trying to make it about the Jews or Vietnam?
Can you alphie?
Color me doubtful.
Gandhi is overrated. Although Edwina Mountbatten felt that he was hung like a donkey, her terms of reference were necessarily constrained.
From the first fucking page of alphies link:
Apparently there are no bottom limits on stupidity.
Meaning, she’d never visited Tijuana?
Actually, B Moe, it’s not stupidity, it’s dishonesty.
alphie has no problem throwing links up that disprove his own point, b/c the whole purpose of providing those links is to make it appear that he is supported in his arguments (and he’s betting no one’s going to actually read them).
It’s like alphie’s claim that the mullahs winning 98% of the vote in the Iranian referendum in March 1979 was somehow an actual vote on governance, rather than an up-or-down vote on establishing “an Islamic Republic, details to follow,” likely held without even a secret ballot.
alphie throws crap around, fully expecting not to be called on his falsehoods, misinterpretations, and deliberate obfuscations.
Arguing with him is worse than arguing with a blank wall, b/c his purpose isn’t to persuade (except the utterly uninformed) or even to argue, but to “win” the fight. If that means declaring black is white, North Korean nuclear weapons are the result of the US opening of Japan in 1853, or the UK was cowering in fear of Germany in 1938, well, all’s fair to make alphie appear intelligent.
Put differently, alphie sock-puppets, not with alternate personalities, but with false arguments and bad faith claims.
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” – Gandhi.
So, in essence Jews should accept self slaughter but Indians? Fight to the death dude!
This is why I view Gandhi right up there with Kermit the Frog and Emo Phillips when it comes to entertainment / philosophy value.
Fred Thompson really kicks Gandhi’s ass. He sure isn’t like those fake politicians who try to look tough by knocking down straw men. He’s the real deal.
Jon, if you’re going to do sarcasm, try adding some funny. It might work then.
Seriously, it is true their is a fine line between clever and stupid, but you don’t need to be that wary of it.
TomB,
I looked into the swiftboaters claims and couldn’t find an ounce of truth to them.
B Moe,
I’d say we’re dredging the depths of self-deception here.
The Irgun was somehow helping liberate European Jews by blowing British soldiers in Palestine?
Gandhi has his own style, that’s for sure. I can’t see any profit in trying to tarnish his reputation now, though. Unless the neocons want to become less popular than the Libertarian party for some reason.
The problem with holding up MLK and Gandhi as examplars of how we ought to act is that both of these leaders – great as they were – faced enemies who in essence were civilized. They did not call these governments to change, they called these governments to live up to the principles they espoused. It was shame that led these governments to give up, not a change of heart. These governments – the US and British – were founded on concepts of equality, freedom, and virtue.
Such tactics can work against that kind of foe. They won’t work against scum like Hitler or Islamofascists. Anyone who thinks that one tool should be used on every single task is a bit too simplistic to be heeded.
Well, Gandhi was kinda asking for it.
So why did you bring them into this discussion? Are you disputing that those are actually Ghandi’s quotes?
Christmas in Cambodia? And there was no “truth” to Kerry going before Congress and publicly calling his “band of brothers” war criminals of the worst kind? I mean, that’s on film, dude.
As for Gandhi, he was no saint. If the peaceniks take up his mantle, it should be weighed down with what he REALLY THOUGHT about peace, which was to accept genocide without complaint.
But then, you could be standing in the middle of a golf course, unable to find so much as a single blade of grass.
That’s because you couldn’t find your own ass with a map and a guide dog, despite the fact that your head has been up their for so long that your teeth look like chocolate chips.
Really, my point is not that Ghandi is a fake, but that he is both not ‘of this world’ nor ‘in this world’. He really is a spiritual person, but like so many in the eastern traditions, abandons the world to be with God (or whatever they are seeking.)
The problem is, of course, anyone can find God at the top of a frozen mountain or in a monastery with poverty, diligence and peace—but it takes a real mystic, a real saint, a real sage to live those things in daily life and build a family and a nation through them.
In other words, all of Ghandi’s spiritualizing is wasted if he cannot defend his life and remain devoted to God at the same time. His spirituality will mean nothing when he is clubbed to death by the first person to get violent on him.
Because honestly, there are people who will kill you just for your clothes, or just to see you bleed. Mostly we keep them in prisons, but that situation is mostly a consequence of practical spirituality, I.E, law.
Something that Ghandi would be unable to write– because Governance by default means controlled use of the sword.
Alphie:
Please clear up one thing if you would. Are you skeptical that Ghandi did hold these positions? Or are you arguing that even if he did it’s bad taste to bring them up, because that’s trying to tarnish his reputation?
JAA,
Kerry was just repeating testomony given by his fellow soldiers, not accusing them.
Only two of the swiftboaters actually served in combat with Kerry, and neither of them was in a position to see what Kerry was up to during the battles.
As for Gandhi’s words, he said a lot of things.
Which ones do you have a problem with?
Well, the ones where he tells Jews to simply allow the Germans to slaughter them is a good place to start. Anyone who says things like that is a complete and worthless idiot. So, given a chance yes, yes I will slander Stick Boy and his idiotic notion of what “Peace” is.
Lotsa folks on here think you’re a shit-eating dog, alphie. But I’m not accsusing you or anything.
Probably the ones that were quoted, shit-eating dog.
Then how do you reconcile that with claiming that directly quoting Ghandi is ‘swiftboating’ him?
Well, yes, but don’t you think you’re the one doing that?
Good lord. They were? What makes you say that?
So then you agree that the peace movement is making a mistake co-opting Ghandi’s statements?
WTF? Seriously, WTFF?
You gotta admit it is great for morale.
alphie math: Twelve equals two.
Yow.
Now that’s a typo!
Alphie – I suggest you take your sophistry somewhere else.
I would say you’re off the deep end, but that implies depth.
Pablo,
How many of those people in that picture served alongside Kerry in an actual battle and later badmouthed him?
Welcome to Alphieworld: The same six (or seven) memes all day, every day.
Threads hijacked: priceless!
Well, no, the battles in question were in full view of all the participants. Oh, you mean the affair behind the hut that none of the swiftboat veterans have disputed?
Don’t you think it’s a safe assumption that they are the ones Fred Thompson is quoting?
If only that were true.
I didn’t realize it was the guy from Law & Order. I thought his name sounded familiar.
Are we forgetting that during WWII, India was a British colony and Gandhi and his fellow countrymen preferred to govern themselves?
Are you guys actually saying that Gandhi should have a good little subject and supported Britain?
Is Alphie a distant relative of Actus? Inquiring minds want to know!
Notice alphie’s heightened spinning.
We have Gandhi’s words, but alphie is wondering “which words” are in dispute. Never mind that Gandhi’s discussion about how the Jews should have behaved are well-documented.
A red herring about Swiftboating draws some folks off.
An attempt to bring it back to the JOOOOOOSSSS finds little traction.
But, alphie won’t allow himself to be nailed down on the issue of Gandhi’s words (even though, as many people have noted, it’s the ones about what the Jews should have done, according to Gandhi) because then his sophistry would be exposed for what it is—bad faith arguments and deliberate wrongheadedness.
Which brings me back to a question that I’ve wondered about before—what is it in these threads that is soooooo dangerous that the trolls want to avoid the discussion?
Is it the sledge-hammer blow to their self-righteousness? (“I can quote Gandhi, who can you neocons quote?”)
Is it the historical illiteracy? (“Gandhi’s great, I saw the movie.”)
Is the lack of understanding of the actual philosophies underlying their freely thrown pejoratives and claims? (“Bush is a fascist (a really cool pejorative). Liberals believe in satyagraha (a real cool term that Gandhi used).”)
Every time a thread might develop traction, alphie and his ilk try to derail it. Why?
alphie:
Whether India was a colony or a Dominion is irrelevant to the thread at hand, which is about Gandhi’s recommendations to the Jews of Germany.
Where do you stand on that, alphie?
Answer up, or be proven to be the bad-faith sophist most folks here have long suspected you to be.
Show, for once in your miserable electronic existence, that you can actually string syllables together into a coherent on-topic comment.
Can’t do it, can you?
Pathetic.
Well, LO,
Gandhi was saying if the European Jews would have committed mass suicide instead of dying in the concentration camps, the world and maybe some Germans, too, might have gotten more upset about their treatment.
I mentioned the subject to Gandhi in 1946 when Hitler was dead. “Hitler,†Gandhi said, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.â€Â
You can disagree with him, but he may have been right.
The Automated Alphie©
1. Read Topic.
2. Post invidious comparison related to some spurious fact.
3. When comment is shown to be irrelevant or inaccurate, respond with sarcastic remark highlighting the MyDD/Kos talking point of the day.
4. Bask in attention.
Repeat ad nauseam
And what do you think, alphie?
Do you agree with Gandhi’s prescription, set out in the 1938 letter (at the link you yourself provided):
No sophistry, alphie, where do you stand on this recommendation?
I’ve suspected that Alphie and Actus are indeed the same guy.
Are you guys actually saying that Gandhi should have a good little subject and supported Britain?
Unreal. That’s the weirdest spin I could ever imagine for this statement:
What do you want me to say, LO?
Gandhi sure seems to have twigged to what a butcher Hitler was going to turn out to be long before anyone else did.
I’m an atheist, I can’t really comment on Gandhi’s religious views.
I think if I were a Jew living in Germany before the start of WWII, I would have gotten out of the country any way I could have.
George Orwell rejected Gandhi’s way, too. See Rejecting Gandhi’s way.
It’s really very simple, alphie.
Gandhi had a recommendation.
Option 1: Agree with Gandhi.
Option 2: Disagree with Gandhi.
No one’s telling you what to say at all, alphie. We just want you to tell us where you stand.
NO ONE is asking you about Gandhi’s religious beliefs, about the veracity of Hinduism or whether it is more or less coherent than Christianity. NO ONE is asking you what you would do as a Jew in Germany or Austria or the Netherlands.
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT WHAT GANDHI WROTE. Do you, not “History” not “Who knows”, but you, alphie/Neville/monkyboy, agree w/ Mohandas Gandhi’s suggestion for the course of action that the Jews should have undertaken, as Gandhi himself wrote in the link you provided?
Ah. The Raspberry Effect.
Maybe they could have all left Europe with that JewMoney that Cartman caught Kyle carrying around.
TomB,
I looked into the swiftboaters claims and couldn’t find an ounce of truth to them.
B Moe,
I’d say we’re dredging the depths of self-deception here.
<blockquote>The Irgun was somehow helping liberate European Jews by blowing British soldiers in Palestine?
Gandhi has his own style, that’s for sure. I can’t see any profit in trying to tarnish his reputation now, though. Unless the neocons want to become less popular than the Libertarian party for some reason.
Posted by alphie | permalink
Alphie –
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of the Irgun being accused of blowing British soldiers.
And we are all in awe of your ability to ignore facts, and go with the Hollywood version. How scary is it that your amigos are likely to win the next election?
At least we will have the pleasure of calling our new president “My Favorite Marxian”.
Maybe so, Richard,
But Gadhi succeeded in freeing India from Britain’s control.
What works in one place won’t necessarily work in another.
We had to fight the British to win our freedom.
Gandhi went another way and won freedom for his country.
It’s hard to argue with success.
I think the issue at hand is that quite simply Ghandi’s morality – which only works in the conception that the world, physical reality is illusory – is defunct.
He makes statements and assumptions that are extremely naive and monstrous – which make perfect sense in his personal worldview but do not hold up to the test of reality.
Jews committing mass suicide? Look, it may or may not have made a statement- I.E. that Hitler was a mass murderer- but in the end it still is advocating mass suicide. That’s the thing people can’t seem to get.
Its like, if you advocate war you are advocating war. Its not a ‘policing action’ its f’in war.
In Ghandi’s world of illusions, things can be what you will them to be (or almost so.)
It matches with the left’s unconsciousness regarding real truth versus feeling.
Alphie: Simple aphorism, remember it well:
What’s true works,
but what works isn’t necessarily true.
You can argue with success, it just requires the proper information.
Alphie,
Where are you going to set those goalposts down?
Hey, alphie’s forte isn’t substance.
You can’t ask an empty fishbowl to contain fish.
It just ain’t gonna happen.
Did you really forgot that?
Well, no. That doesn’t come into the debate at all. Didn’t you read the Thompson quote?
Well, no. The quote in the post said “…They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs” Collective suicide,†he told his biographer, “would have been heroism.â€Â
Didn’t you read the Thompson quote?
Well, don’t you think that the Jews might have preferred living over dying?
He did? What makes you say that?
Well, yes. But that doesn’t come into the debate at all. Didn’t you read the Thompson quote?
Ah, then you do agree that it wasn’t the best move for the Jews?
Are you saying that we should have thrown ourselves into the sea from cliffs instead?
Are you saying that it would have been better if the Indians had thrown ourselves into the sea from cliffs instead?
Are you saying that the Jews wouldn’t argue against throwing themselves into the sea from cliffs?
Pablo,
I think if you were honest, you’d admit that it was you who “moved the goalposts”.
I wrote:
Only two of the swiftboaters actually served in combat with Kerry, and neither of them was in a position to see what Kerry was up to during the battles.
You show a picture of some people who didn’t actually fight with Kerry in combat and consider it some kind of refutation of my statement.
Getting back to the subject —
“Pacifism” is fending off a shark attack by stuffing its mouth with your leg. It might work if the shark is small enough or not very hungry, but no matter what you’ll be worse off afterward.
Regards,
Ric
Alphie’s goal is simple:
Get us to agree with his lies (illusions) or commit some kind of violence against him, hopefully proving (at least to him) his point… like banning him.
Its nice to have a commenter who actually argues substance even if they disagree.
Alphie– not so much.
Ric – this is of course the problem with pacifism – (perennially) it only accords with ideality, which naturally doesn’t exist. (Or not in the material realm.)
Ghandi has a big issue with what is known as the ‘messiah complex’. It is common with teenagers and other callow sorts.
As for swiftboating—out of well over two hundred people who knew John Kerry at one of the most critical moments of his life, all but five (or was it three?) were willing to stand up in the public arena and say he’s an asshole not fit to associate with humanity. And you can spin that until it’s useful as a uranium-enrichment centrifuge without making it any less prominent.
Regards,
Ric
<blockqutoe>>fered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.â€Â
You can disagree with him, but he may have been right.</blockquote>
I can disagree with him, because he probably was wrong.
Christopher Taylor hit the nail on the head up-thread when he said:
The problem with holding up MLK and Gandhi as examplars of how we ought to act is that both of these leaders – great as they were – faced enemies who in essence were civilized…
Are you sayng the colonial British and the Klu Klux Klan were “civilized,” Carin?
The colonial British? Yeah, mostly.
The Klan? Um, alpo, MLK didn’t have to convince the Klan. He had to convince the rest of the country. The militant wing of the Democrats could be controlled by the rest of the country.
Not that you’ll comprehend this. Or at least, not that you’ll let on that you comprehend it. To do so would be do dissipate the smokescreen you’re trying to lay.
Well, Robert got there first, but violent though the Kluckers may have at times been, they weren’t actually what you might consider MLKs primary audience. Had he caused mass conversions within the ranks of the KKK, it still wouldn’t have furthered the cause of civil rights one iota.
Are you saying they were not? If so, how do you explain Gandhi’s survival? How do the colonial British figure into Fred Thompson’s quote? Did you read the quote?
Are you saying that MLK’s intent was to secure more civil rights from the Klu Klux Klan? How do the Klu Klux Klan figure into Fred Thompson’s quote? Did you read the quote?
I read what Gandhi said in its entirety, not just the snippet Thompson (college, law school and political hackery during Vietnam, natch) quoted for his little screed, JPT.
Do you know how many civil rights leaders the Klan killed? Are you honestly saying the Klan was not one of King’s opponents?
I think alpo has goalposts permanently shoved up his ass. Easier than picking them up every five minutes.
Are you saying that Fred Thompson intended to imply that everything Gandhi said in it’s entirety was relevant to his point? Did you understand the quote?
Are you saying that civil rights leaders should also have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs instead? Is that how you work them into Fred Thompson’s quote? Did you understand the quote?
What do King’s opponents have to do with the Jews in Nazi Germany? How you work them into Fred Thompson’s point? Did you understand the quote?
Rousing quotes from Ghandi-land for aphid’s inspiration:
I have not yet begun to quit.
I only regret that you have but one life to give for my country.
Give me liberty, or give him death.
Tis better to live on one’s knees than to die on one’s feet.
I understood Gandhi was saying that if you are going to killed by thugs anyway, it’s better to take your own life in a manner that weakens them instead.
At least, thats what I think Gandhi was saying.
How Fred Thompson, a guy whose closest brush with war came when he played a key role in bringing down then-Decider and President In A Time Of War Richard Nixon, is tryng to interpret the quote, I can’t be sure.
Is it Stay the Course?
Then you don’t understand anything. What a surprise. Let me clear it for you.
Stickboy thought that fighting back was immoral. A rape victim should just lay down and take it and not raise a hand against her attacker. If someone douses you with gasoline, you should offer him a match. If someone is beating your 1 year old daughter to death with his bare hands, you should give him a hammer to save his knuckles from harm.
In otherwords, the human toothpick was a complete and total idiot.
I should also add that the last part of that sentence applies to you too, Alph.
“Stick boy” freed his country from colonial occupation on a rather small budget.
He also served in war as a medic with some distinction.
He also died for his beliefs.
Anyonw who calls him an idiot has some very odd standards.
Alphie is officially the cheapest man in the universe. Every issue comes back to cold hard cash for him.
I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed anything like this before – the Alphster is sliding ever further, ever faster down the cliff face, clutching more and more desperately at talking point after talking point as each crumbles away. When we’re at the “Fred Thompson-Chicken Hawk” stage, the final release into free fall can’t be too far away.
What Robb said.
Plus this: Ghandi thought that if you submitted to violence without striking back, it would make you more holy. Being on the “high moral ground” of absolute non-violence was more important than being alive. Although I can say that there are some principles I’d rather die than violate, I can’t get on board with absolute non-violence.
Because then the only guys left are the bad guys, and the only children born from then on will be to them. Great way to run the world, that.
What Gandhi thought was that if a large enough number of oppressed people rose up in unison against their oppressor, they could take back their country.
He thought correctly.
Trying to argue he was wrong is not exactly a winning position.
Alphie –
You are no more, no less than a greased pig. Or do I mean “piglet”?
Ahhh. How I miss the days when I could comfortably live completely inside my own head. When I lived there, it was easy to convince myself that I was the smarterst and most compassionate human being who ever lived.
EVER!!!
Every one of the billions of people who lived before me were complete dumbasses, and were just too fucking stupid to know it. And then, I came along!
Jeebus! How stupid was the whole of the Human race? I mean, c’mon!
It was so obvious to me. What was the matter with all those people, and why shoud I ever pay any attention to what they discovered when it was so obviouys to me that I knew what the world should be like!
Bravo! Alphie.
alpo, your ignorance of history is aamazingly, astonishingly huge.
I’m talking black-hole, suck information in and spew it into an alternative universe deep.
No, alphie, that’s not what Gandhi thought or what Gandhi said, and you know it. You’re just pounding the table.
(When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.)
What Gandhi believed was that if enough Indians died messily at British hands, the British would be embarrassed enough to let them go.
Gandhi’s compatriots used that teaching like a carpenter uses a hammer, as a political lever to keep the idiot pacifists from simply doing the colonialists’ work for them. They never came close to implementing Gandhi’s ideas, and still have not. (India maintains an Army, a Navy, and an Air Force, all three of which are remarkably competent by third-world standards, none of which are militant pacifists.)
Gandhi was correct: the British were civilized enough to be embarrassed at the lengths they would have to go to keep India as a colony. They were also flat broke, to the point of food rationing at home, and could no longer afford to keep an army in the field to hold on to their colony—and that fact is far more important than anything Gandhi ever did. If the British had been able to afford to keep a decent-sized army in India some British corporal would have slit Gandhi’s throat, India would still be British, and nobody but an occasional bibliophile would ever have heard of Gandhi.
The Indian rebels used Gandhi as a flag, but their actual strategy was to bleed the British by forcing them to keep an army there, supplied, and operating. That’s what they did, and that’s what worked. Invoking Gandhi is a face-saving measure for the British, who can claim that they were too nice to be vile, and a political leg-up for Gandhi’s family, who can invoke the Great Man in support of keeping their political party in power. The political party that descended from Gandhi and his family is not remotely pacifist—ask a Kashmiri.
Regards,
Ric
One time Gandhi was walking down a dirt road, he tripped and cut his knee on the gravel. Gandhi then proceeded to pick 3 flowers with exactly 6 white petals each.
Gandhi then boiled the leaves (not the stems or the middle, mind you) in hot water until they turned limp and yellow and let the water cool. He then poured the water in a circle around his house, chanting old Indian proverbs asking for his knee to heal.
And it worked!
So, Gandhi did a knee healing ritual and his knee healed. I’d call that success, wouldn’t you?
Or maybe, just maybe, the British had a hard time maintaining control over such a large distance, like Ric said, simply tired out.
Had Gandhi and his fellow compatriots sliced a few Redcoats’ throats, I’d be willing to be the overall cost in life would have been much, much less.
Posted by Ric Locke | permalink
on 03/16 at 05:10 PM
Good job, Ric.
But, will alpo’s reaction be to ignore your post, try deflection, or his favorite, the straw man?
I’m betting deflection.