The coming war

I’ll try to talk less about politics on the blog in the future (that is, let’s be real, if I get around to writing much at all), but what I am about talk about is of perennial importance.

This week, it was announced that in light of a chemical attack in Syria, and the unverified accusation that it was caused by Bashar al-Assad, America looks set to engage a military campaign in Syria to “punish” Assad for allegedly killing civilians in Douma. Basically, Trump has gone from punitively striking Syria once and saying America won’t invade Syria again, to sending military forces to attack Syria in spite of this position, to openly suggesting a military response to Assad. Remember when people like me supported him instead of Hillary Clinton partly on the grounds that her proposal for a no-fly zone would lead to war with Russia because Russia’s interests are aligned with Syria’s? Well now it appears we’re likely to be involved in conflict with Russia anyway. Thanks a lot Trump.

And it looks like my country, the UK, is going to be in on it as well, as the Prime Minister Theresa May joined Donald Trump and French president Emmanuel Macron in calling for military intervention, without a vote from the House of Commons. Because of that, I’ve officially gone from hating Jeremy Corbyn (even as a recently converted socialist) to supporting him just because he might be the only viable alternative to the decidedly pro-startting World War 3 agenda of the Conservatives. Of course, Theresa May did say on Wednesday that she would be making our participation in the Syrian war conditional depending on if we have more evidence of Assad’s role in the chemcial attack in Douma. Only for her to send submarines to Syria anyway.

So why am I so appalled by this development, you might ask? After all, muh North Korea! Kim Jong-un is a mad man, right? Well, considering that denuclearization is actually on the table with North Korea, and the North Korean state is shedding is Songun (military first) policy, you would frankly have to be a sheep if you still believe by this point that North Korea is the biggest threat to world peace. Not to mention, even I didn’t believe that North Korea was even capable of blowing everyone up. With Syria, however, if NATO presses against Syria long enough, if they depose Bashar al-Assad, and if they consequently encroach upon Russia for long enough, they will not be able to defeat NATO in a straight fight, and so the only option left for Russia will be to use its nuclear weapons against the West. The difference in the level of threat involved is quite clear. We knew this when the American people were making their choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but for some Trump himself isn’t aware of this and even many of his supporters seem to be lining up like dogs to support his actions, although some of them are outright condemning him (of all people, Alex Jones has outright said “fuck Trump” on the issue).

We are on our way to World War 3 any moment now, and it could well end with nuclear fire, and I wish I were being hyperbolic, and I don’t even know how many people care because people still think North Korea is the one that will destroy us all, even as all pretense of that idea fades slowly and Syria and Russia (and Turkey to some extent) become much more relevant. Just goes to show you that despite all insistence from conservatives that the media is left-wing, they still want you to be threatened by the more communist nations out there (despite the fact that the North Korean state technically no longer positions itself as communist).

I, for one, will oppose my country’s involvement in Syria to the last. I do not want to have any part in this carnival of greed, unjust violence and needless human suffering just so the congloms can make money off of developing missiles to lob at Syria and so that the political establishment can take out anyone who poses a threat to their global economic interests. Even if the Douma attack was Assad’s fault, for which there hasn’t been any investigation, it is not our business to oust him from power in Syria – America already tried that bullshit in Iraq and Libya in recent memory, and it ended up getting taken over by Islamist regimes who proved to be even worse than the dictators that were removed by military intervention. When the time comes, I will do what is necessary to avoid participating in the abomination of a war that is to come, perhaps agitate against it.

If it comes to war and either I drafted (which I hope can be avoided somehow) or bombs drop where I live before I have the chance to get a bunker then, well, it was nice knowing you guys.

(PS: Don’t take the last comment to hard, I do still intend to write some posts, though the pace will likely be as slow as it’s been recently; at any rate, I’ll try not to let my readers think that the worst has happened)

We all need to calm down

What I am going to ask of everyone who reads this is something that will probably be impossible for the vast majority of people on Earth, particularly as we draw close to the end of the US election cycle, but I think it needs to be said. Calm down. Just calm down.

I know it’s hard. There are good reasons to be on edge – democracy itself may well be on the line, the values of a free society that we in the West cherish are under attack from a new rise in collectivism masqueraded as righteousness, governments are likely to face popular resistance for certain plans that they have, we could be facing an increase in war in this world and there’s the possibility that it may involve nuclear weapons, and in general it feels like the world we live in will never be the same again. But we must not lose sight of our sanity, and more importantly, our personal values. I am talking of course about we who travel the Left Hand Path, in whatever form we choose to do so.

Make no mistake, big things are coming no matter who wins in November 8th. Not immediately, but give it time and we may yet see whether or not they actually manifest. We should not fear the collapse of the old order of the world, for there is no immortality afforded to it. That old order will die, and it will be replaced by a new one. The only thing left to our imagination is what shape that new order will take, and whether or not it’ll end in the desolation of civilization itself as some of the more fearful individuals may believe. I think there will be many foolish individuals who cling to what the media or their social cliques tell them without any critical thinking and they will believe that by following the crowd and practicing the virtue of the peacock then they will prove themselves to be good and saintly people who will have preserved the old order. But they will fail, and be shocked to see that it does not last forever. I think those of us who favor rebellion and despise conformity should embrace the thought of our current societal paradigm getting a good kick in the ass, at least if it’s in a direction that will result in the renewal or expansion of liberty or won’t end in bloody purges.

No matter what happens though, we must keep ourselves in order. We must not give in to the forces of collectivism, fear and stupidity, we must try to be consistent in acting and thinking as rational actors, at least to some extent, and we must make sure our commitments to our principles is strong. We should be on guard and canvas the world around us, and think about what we see very carefully and clearly. This is what we whose minds we expect to be free from tyranny should consider doing. We cannot otherize those whose oppose our values completely, or we give in to the forces that we should be fighting against. To do so is to reject the universalism of the value of individuality, and before long we will wind up rejecting the humanity of everyone and our own values in the process. Is that truly what we wish to do? Go mad with the rest?

In the meantime, at least consider this proposition: if you decide to follow the aftermath of the US election, make sure to have some popcorn or some snacks with you. You’ll see why in Wednesday.

For now, I think this clip from the Simpsons should lighten the mood in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion.

What are they thinking?

There’s an issue I’ve been hearing about that’s been dividing the government in the UK: the issue of whether or not to conduct air strikes in Syria to fight ISIL. This has resulted in the Labour party being divided by their leader’s refusal to support air strikes, even as much of his cabinet wants to agree with the prime minister David Cameron and the French president Francois Hollande. At first I thought it was more of the same old war issue, bickering over whether or not we should keep fighting even while ISIL was gunning for our heads no matter what we think of them, but I learned that it’s all just bickering over whether or not we should strike them from the air.

My question to the leaders of the Western world is this: why are you still thinking of dropping bombs on Syria?

Surely we are already familiar with the devastation in Syria that was caused by previous air strikes against the country in hopes of flushing out ISIL. Not only has ISIL not been significantly pushed back by these air strikes, but innocent people have been injured or killed by those strikes, and have undoubtedly had their lives shattered by the whole affair, and our air strikes against Syria have exacerbated the migrant crisis. Our leaders just have to be aware of all this, yet I still here them suggesting a continuation of dropping bombs in Syria as though nothing had happened.

Pictured: Devastation in Syria caused by air strikes

If the West is serious about fighting ISIL, why don’t they just stop dropping bombs on Syria and just start fighting on the ground? And with a plan no less? Because seriously, I am convinced that just dropping bombs on a country in order to get rid of the likes of ISIL is just not a viable plan. Not when it results in innocent casualties and the while ISIL has not been held back by it. That we don’t realize this and still intend on just dropping bombs on a country thinking that will solve the problem worries me because it bespeaks a kind of laziness and shortsightedness, and it even makes me wonder if these world leaders even want to fight at all.

Another time of tragedy and another time of war

The aftermath of the savage attack on the city of Paris, which has been attributed to IS and a Belgian extremist who affiliates himself with ISIL, makes me think of two things. One thing is how utterly familiar violence associated with Islamic terrorism is in this day and age, and the other pertains to war.

I honestly have spoken very little about what has happened in Paris. At first I was thinking “what the fuck is going on here?”, and eventually I learned of how apparently the attack was conducted by Islamic terrorists, and then I realized “so we’re going through this again are we?”. I don’t know if many people still remember, but I haven’t at all forgotten that Islamic extremists have attacked Paris only as recently as 10 months ago. That’s just barely old news to me, so much that it feels like an almost dispiriting repeat, one that probably has me thinking “why France?”. And while we’re all reeling from the news, the politicians are offering their condolences like they’re expected to, and people return to reduce themselves to dehumanizing the Muslim community as a whole. Even in LHP circles I have found people who think of the attack on Paris and think “fucking Muslims!”. And if I don’t see people using the attack to justify their belief that all Muslims are evil, I see the traditional atheist bland gloat in another example of how religion inspires terror and violence and proclaim “see, the problem is religion”, all while people like ISIL represent neither Muslims nor religion as a whole. It’s just all so lamentable, and it’s all so familiar.

I also don’t quite know what to think when I see people express their sadness and their shock of what has happened, while I don’t know what to think other than that things like this have lost their power to shock me because it’s all so inanely familiar. When I observe I feel like I have found myself above it all, but not necessarily in a positive sense. I mean, to paraphrase Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2, I know why they cry but it’s something that I just can’t do. I feel very little sadness compared to contempt for the fact that it’s all basically the same. Can you blame me for feeling that way, living in this day and age and knowing about what’s going on in the world?

What I have found interesting, however, is how the French president Francois Hollande, and even the likes of Anonymous, people who I think of peaceniks, begin proclaiming war (though in the case of Anonymous it’s probably just hacktivism rather than actual warfare).  Honestly, I let out a hammy evil laugh when my brother informed me of this because to me it proved only that no one has escaped the desire for war. Over the weekend, I had become convinced that we are living in a time of war, and I feel that we are no closer to the “peace” that most people imagine than we may have been only five years ago. We can deny it all we like, but I see the human race as still being drawn into warfare. I swear I am mostly alone in my belief that this year seems to be one of the most violent so far from what I’ve been hearing about, and I feel like we’re only going to see an increase violent activity from those who wish to tear down that which we hold dear and replace it with a realization of their own hate-filled dreams. In the face of all that, I would say it is a miracle that people would even think that peace will win the day. Well, not so much a miracle, rather an exercise in nonsense.

Why? Because when people like ISIL show up to destroy, kill, rape, and enslave, our desire is to answer them with violence, destruction, and hatred or contempt. In this situation, war is what we want and peace can take a backseat. I’m not saying that humans don’t want peace at all, or that humans want only violence, though I can’t deny that violence is one of our predilections as a species. But I think that we deep down want to answer force with force. We have this guilty conscience about our history or war and violence and I can’t say I blame anyone entirely, after all there can be few people who honestly appreciate the bloodshed seen particularly in modern wars, but when it all comes down to it, when there are those who seek our conquest and our destruction, when there are those who cannot be compromised with or reasoned with, the only answer is war is against those people. People like ISIL cannot be compromised with, they don’t observe the niceties that much the world takes for granted, and the whole “don’t give in to fear or they win” doesn’t work, because unlike common terrorists whose prime directive is to spread fear, ISIL would lay waste to our civilization and kill, rape, and enslave its inhabitants no matter what we think of them, and the only reason they wouldn’t is because our civilization fights back, just as it naturally would.

Even without ISIL, I suspect there is a desire for conflict somewhere, waiting to be ignited, even if it’s not clearly for the right reasons. And in general when I look at the UN and how a chunk of the world’s leaders barely hide their hatred or contempt for each other, it feels like if it weren’t for the UN, they’d be at military conflict with each other without a whole lot of effort because that’s secretly what they want.

So if anyone’s hoping that peace will prevail, I say that it’s your right to hope for that peace, but the way things are going it might be precisely that right to hope that may wind up having to be fought for more than usual. Or, if I don’t put it that way, I’d smirk.

Make love AND war (Why I don’t support Peace One Day)

My brother has been very angry about his time in college lately, particularly regarding something called the Welsh Baccalaureate. He tells me me that the college he is attending had made him sit through a 32-minute film titled The Day After Peace (which was made in 2008), which chronicles the self-endowed quest of one Jeremy Gilley to create a day of non-violence, which ended with what my brother described as a bastardized version of the song “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)” by Eurythmics (the actual song isn’t even about peace to begin with; it’s actually about looking for fulfillment).

I’m not saying a day of non-violence is inherently bad, but not only does it feel redundant because most people know not to be too violent on a regular basis. Is that not non-violence? Also, I feel we should question the motives of this Jeremy Gilley. Is he really such a saintly person, or just an attention-seeker like one Jason Russell. It’s like how people try to get everyone united under a banner. Said people are both attention-craving and hungry for influence others. Even if this Jeremy Gilley isn’t just another attention-hungry twit and he really does believe in world peace, he’s a fool, and everyone supporting his campaign is either desperately dragging flower power out of its grave again or just mindlessly going with the crowd like so many people supporting popular ideas and causes.

And let me tell you about my brother’s college before I criticize the cause. After having to watch that short movie and having to do some pointless group activities, the lesson ended with him and his class being assigned homework that involves the following tasks:

  1. Going to the Thunderclap website and supporting a Peace One Day campaign.
  2. Writing a short speech on how you want to make peace with someone.
  3. Doing some research on an anti-war artist, with personal commentary.

I’m sorry am I missing something here? Because that whole assignment has the exact hallmarks of a fucking social/political agenda rather than education. How stupid do you have to be to not see that making something sign up to support something as homework is pure bullshit? It has nothing to do with educating people, and everything to do with indoctrinating people, or playing to sentimentality that people do not question the legitimacy of. The second task is stupid too. It’s a completely moronic task that assumes you feel animosity towards someone let alone have plans to reconcile with said someone. Don’t get me wrong, my brother and I probably do have animosity towards someone, but we don’t care about reconciling with said person (at least in this moment in time), and we certainly would not feel comfortable telling a Welsh Baccalaureate teacher, or any teacher for that matter. The third task, I gotta say, is the only homework task that even qualifies as homework. If the homework assigned by Welsh Baccalaureate was just writing about some anti-war artist, then it would be fine, at the least it would an actual assignment. But no. My brother’s class gets being made to support Peace One Day as fucking homework. I don’t care what people would say, you shouldn’t make anyone support anything if they don’t want to, and you shouldn’t make it homework. This is hardly any different from fascism, or school for that matter. And if I were in his situation, I’d be pissed off too, and I wouldn’t be shy of expressing it either even if it means losing some potential friends.

Now back to the cause itself. Seriously. When was the last time you actively sought out to support something like Peace One Day, that runs only on popular sentiment? I’ll bet it was that you were led on to supporting it and didn’t question anything at all, or you were just going with the crowd most likely not actually believing in anything. In general, things like the whole world peace thing is nothing more than undead baby boomer philosophy. Flower power died in the 1970’s, killed by the dark realities of this world. Hell, I could actually say flower power died in the middle of the 1960’s when peace and love didn’t go according to plan. Back then you see, there was not only government crackdown, but also riots, and even prejudice-fueled killing (especially during that fateful Rolling Stones concert). Flower power is finished. Flower power was always finished, it was and still is shallow and meaningless if you think about it. It almost always seems to die not too far from when it begins, and even if it had genuine meaning and inspiration, in the end it could not survive the interests of the corporations who spread it as meaningless slogan. It only survives because the baby boomers preserve it and the masses mindlessly follow it without any thought at all.

The reality most people may refuse to accept is that war and conflict always find a way to rear their heads in this world. They have always found a way to happen in this world and there’s fuck all that can change it save for the death of the universe (which for all we know would start all over again and then the entire cycle would repeat). The way I see it, peace always gives way to war, and war always gives to peace. Come to think of it, peace and war pretty much happen at the same time. Even if we rule out war specifically, we still have aggression, competition, and hate in all of us. We can control these things, yes, but we will never completely be rid of it. And people will always disagree with each other, which sooner or later would always lead to conflict. The only alternative is some authoritarian utopia where you don’t have free will to disagree or be angry at anything. That’s the only way you can have a world of absolute peace. And let me appeal to your common sense for a moment: would you want to live in a world like that? And I’m not saying we shouldn’t have peace, love, or harmony at all. I think we can have peace, love, or harmony, but we should enjoy the peace we can have in this world instead of following some stupid naive idea that has always been left for dead.

One last thing. The mere fact that corporations like Lynx spread this irritates me, but it’s pretty unsurprising. They’re just appealing to the masses who don’t think.

So this September 21st, don’t follow the crowd. Don’t support another useless sentimental campaign. Enjoy the personal peace you have or already can have. Don’t crave a world where peace is all you will ever know.

No peace until tyranny is destroyed

The situation in Syria is still going on, even though the majority of people don’t remember it. Hell, the new pope is busy trying to tell everyone to end the conflict peacefully. And some say the situation is going to get worse this year.

Personally, I think we should be helping the rebels overthrow the tyrant Bashar al-Assad. Not by invading Syria, but by supplying weapons to the rebels to help them win against Assad. Further more, I think Western countries should stop propping dictators like Assad, if they really value freedom.

Forget about all this talk about peace and breaking up conflict. There’s a dictator out there. A man who used sarin on his own people and continues his oppression, and trying to look like a darling on top of that (he’s even on Instagram apparently). There should be no peace until the tyranny is destroyed.

Soldiers aren’t heroes

Soldiers fight for an external sense of duty and obligation, thus they are not heroes, but servants. Heroes, however, pursue virtue or righteousness from their own heart. The soldier merely serves the nation and protects its interests, while the hero does what is right for him, and because he wants to.

If we ever believe they are heroes, then that’s exactly what society wants you to think. Society wants you to believe in acting in service to society as highest ideal, and thus that a hero is someone who works for the common good of society, whereas a true hero serves only the virtue of his heart.

You cannot make a hero of a servant, for a servant does nothing but follow a master.

Peace is an overrated goal

When I say peace, I don’t really mean peace. I mean mostly the buzzword that gets thrown around by the masses, and to the societal goal of peace on Earth. To often all we hear about the values of society is “world peace” or “peace on Earth”. It’s all just a slogan, a sham, that no one ever thinks about. People just go along with the idea without realizing what it means.

True peace on Earth would be dull, boring, and lifeless. In the real world, you don’t even need the presence of brutal war to illustrate the reality of conflict. Even if there aren’t any bona fide wars involving blood and weapons, there are countless other arenas in which conflict or battle of some kind will always continue to be waged. There will always be conflicts of culture and ideas, tests of character, personality, and integrity, struggles of ideals and ideas, and other forms of strife and conflict, or at least disagreement. And besides, life on its own is a struggle not just for survival, but for your own interests and will.

But you see, a world without this disagreement and conflict is also a world that is as lifeless as the surface of the moon. And a world of “world peace” would have to be a world where there are no disagreements and no conflict. Such a world can never be, for there is always disagreement, different wills that are often bound to clash swords, and the energy for conflict, and any attempts at trying to create a world of peace will invariably lead to the silencing or undermining of dissenters and the removal of free will.

If you want peace, don’t like that world peace buzzword. Look for personal peace or calm, space to unwind and relax, which you can find in daily life anyway. Hell, a bit of inner peace might not be so bad if it floats your boat. But for shit’s sake, don’t fall for the whole world peace thing. World peace is at best just a cheap, meaningless buzzword passed around by the ignorant masses, and at worst a great lie whose pursuit will lead to oppression and the damnation of free will.

The glory and honour in war is gone

War used to be about power, ambition, and glory, but in the modern world, it is nothing more than a game of money, worthless politics, and the manipulation of human life. Though war has often involved the organizing and even using of human lives to the ends of nations, in the old days there was more glory and honor involved. Ever since the 20th century, war has simply lost whatever honour it has.

Sure, we have bullets and explosions now, which would ideally make things more exciting, but in the end, it doesn’t feel like anything other than politicians sending young adults to their graves for political and monetary gains, a far cry from the days when one would fight for glory, conquest, and dignity. The only case of honor or a noble cause would be Middle-Eastern and North African uprisings and civil wars fought in the name of destroying tyranny, and even then, nations like America try to intervene and ruin that honorable fight.

And to add insult open injury, the supposed bastions of morality are shown to be not only killing innocent women and children, but laughing about it, even enjoying it, as though they aren’t dealing with innocent human beings. And soldiers do not come back with glory, but emotional suffering and trauma instead. War in the modern world is not about warriors, it’s about soldiers, those who give their lives not for glory, as they would believe, but in service of their puppet-masters.

No glory, no ambition, no honor, just degradation, manipulation, and slaughter without justice. That is modern war.

The difference between a soldier and a warrior

What is the difference between a soldier and a warrior? Both are actively engaged in combat and violence, often of a military nature. But the difference between the two is that the soldier obeys orders from higher ranks and has a sense of duty to his country, while a warrior is not strictly limited to those characteristics. A warrior can be genuinely heroic, or be less than heroic. Be that as it may, a warrior is necessarily bound by certain standards, other than his own. To quote Turok: “A soldier follows orders, but a warrior follows his heart“.

By this differentiation, even the knights of old can count as soldiers, since many of them served an army, namely the armies of kings. The exception would be orders of knights who served themselves or various causes, but not the king, or weren’t part of an army. Really, anyone who serves under an army and obeys the orders of higher ranks within that army is a solider. If you’re not that, you’re not a soldier, but you are a warrior, or can be one. If you answer the call of the warrior, you can be one. Someday, I hope to as well.

Would you answer the call?