Courtesy of the Patriot Post.
The secret to successful negotiation is for both sides to come away satisfied, feeling that they got what they wanted.
Take the Iran nuclear deal, Obama and Kerry wanted a deal, any deal, and the Iranians wanted to carry on developing nuclear weapons with minimum interference. If the Iranians could get away with making the American government look like sycophantic lickspittles, well, so much the better.
See, each side did get what they wanted. We have satisfaction all round and a thoroughly successful negotiation.
Dark green jackets and black buttons – liberty and voluntary service can defeat Collectivist tyranny.
This day of evil is finally drawing to a close. The leftists in Paris may well have (as they do every year) slaughtered a pig – as part of their celebration of the treacherous betrayal (“come out – we promise you and your men safe conduct”) and savage murder of the Governor of an old fortress in Paris – a fortress in which there were seven (7) prisoners, none of whom were there for their political opinions.
Thus the left celebrate the principles of the left. Treachery, robbery (for the real goal of the operation was to steal weapons and other goods) and murder.
Soon all of France was to be convulsed in mass robbery (of the Church – and of many ordinary people who were far from “aristocratic”) and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people (see the works of William Doyle and others). And Europe was to be convulsed by the designs of the French Revolutionaries to bring the collectivist doctrines of Rousseau to power everywhere. His idea that the Law Giver knows the “General Will”, better than the individual persons themselves, so (in Marxist fashion) people have to be “forced to be free” against their false consciousness. If need be robbed and slaughtered – for their own good. And with their own consent – as their cries of protest (and screams of pain) are but mental confusion, not what they “really” believe.
The French Revolution does not show the danger of taking liberty too far – because it was not about liberty, it was about power. The Revolutionaries talked of liberty – but they lied, as followers of Rousseau tend to do (using their words as a mist to blind the unwary).
Paper money (forced on people on the pain of death), theft of property, the murder of the innocent (of all levels of society) – these were and are the principles of the French Revolution. Its criminal lust for unlimited power (not just in France – but over the world) under the mask of “liberty”, which destroyed the rule-of-law and the security of persons and possessions.
People who cried for religious tolerance (in fact granted by Louis XVI years before), and practiced religious persecution – of the most savage kind.
People who cried for the end of serfdom (largely unknown in France for centuries), and an end to torture (“putting the question” had actually already been abolished in French Roman Law), but actually introduced serfdom to the state, and reintroduced torture (in all its forms).
These were the French Revolutionaries – if one judges them by their deeds, or even looks carefully at the meaning of their words (rather than the nice sound the words make).
But let us leave the Rousseau evil of the Revolutionaries aside – and turn to more hopeful things, dark green jackets and black buttons…….
Sir William Stewart (Colonel Stewart) in 1799 (some ten years after the Revolution started – and after its forces had overwhelmed most of Europe with vast slaughter) published his thoughts on “light infantry”.
People who fought as individuals and in small groups – but could (if worked with correctly) help defeat vast enemy forces.
Colonel Stewart studied the Croats who had resisted (for the Hapsburgs) the invasions of the Ottomans – for centuries. Helping hold back the forces of despotism (that recognised no rule-of-law, no protection of property rights from the state) that might otherwise have destroyed Europe.
He also studied the mountain people of the Tyrol – famous for both their individualism and their loyal service (there is no contradiction – the people of Eastern Tennessee are much the same in these aspects, Southerners who supported human freedom over tribalism in the 1860s and have supported the elephant over the donkey ever since ).
The great revolt of Andreas Hofer – the innkeeper turned leader of the “Reactionary” forces of the Tyrol was yet to come (but the spirit had been known for centuries).
Hofer opposed the takeover of the Tyrol by Bavaria – not the relatively conservative place we know today, but then an ally of Revolutionary France and ruled by the bureaucrat (and rumoured ally of the illuminated ones) M. Von Montegelas – a man who made a great show of “abolishing serfdom” (actually just a few old rituals by this time in Bavaria) whilst actually introducing serfdom – both for children (via his system of compulsory state brainwashing of the young) and adults (via mass conscription). Nothing (not Church property, or even other countries, if they were small and weak – he was not a man of great courage ) was safe from Montegelas, a sort of “mini me” Napoleon. And Bavaria was backed by the vast forces of France.
Andreas Hofer eventually lost and was killed – famously giving the order to fire at his own execution. But the idea of light infantry is sound – it just can not win major wars on its own.
Nor should the experience of the North American wars, against the French and some Indian tribes, and against the American colonists, be forgotten. The “King’s Rifles” had already been born – although still in red jackets….
Sir William Stewart was supported by Colonel Manningham (Equerry to the King) and in 1800 the Rifle Corps (the 95 regiment of foot) was born.
It was the first British infantry regiment since the Civil War to have green uniforms – I recently went to a Civil War re enactment, and whilst everybody raves over the red uniforms of the New Model Army (red because the dye was cheap), but there is something about dark green uniforms against the green fields and woods (and not just of England). Yes it is camouflage – but it is more than that, but I lack the gift of words to explain what I mean.
People will be familiar with the exploits of “the Rifles” from such things as the “Sharpe” novels – but the basic message is historically accurate and simple to state.
By out fighting French skirmishers (not so well trained, or so well TRUSTED, and armed with muskets not Baker rifles) British skirmishers – fighting as individuals and in small groups, were able to help change battles (and thereby help change wars). Negate some of the advantage of the enemy in numbers – and cause confusion and chaos among French (and other) armies that were organised as vast masses of conscripts.
The forces “equality and fraternity” could be defeated by the forces of liberty. Skill, creative thought, and voluntary service.
Those men in dark green jackets with black buttons have (under various names of regiment) fought in many wars since then – surprising people who assume that the British army is a force of robots who do not fight as individuals and in small groups, and who can not think without detailed orders.
Their story is little known – and the reader should look it up for themselves.
Commenter TacitusX observes Sowell’s chicanery:
I’ve decided that Thomas Sowell’s columns are just based on a trick. If you use reason, logic, empirical evidence, and common sense, of course your arguments are going to sound stronger than your opponent’s.
What is it with this defence of the symbols of the Confederacy?
It is unquestionable, at least, I hope, to the people who visit this site and others similar, that we know and understand history, and reject the determination shown by so much of the progressive left to impose their views on all of us. However, contrary to Gerald Warner writing on Breitbart the Confederate flag does not proclaim a glorious heritage.
Many men and women sacrificed and died for that flag, and the country and constitution for which it stood, but not one of them sacrificed in a glorious cause. It is argued that the Civil War was fought for the protection of States Rights, and this is true at a superficial level, but The Confederacy was established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the right of one man to own, purchase and sell other men, treating with and disposing of them as livestock. As such it was an enterprise entirely without merit and no measure of valour on the part of its supporters is deserving of celebration.
Instead of defending this symbol of mans contempt for other men, libertarians and conservatives should be demanding the Democrats explain their one hundred and sixty years of association with not just this flag, but everything it represents. We should demand they disassociate themselves from their entire race obsessed history.
Instead, so many of those who claim to speak on our side are, yet again, giving them a free pass.
Loyalty to bad commitments leads to moral incoherence.
–David Horowitz, “The Two Christophers”
First we have this:
And finally, we have this:
No Jewish person is going to look–especially if their family is originally from Czarist Russia. They’re never going to look on anything of Russian Communism with the same pure horror and fear and revulsion that they are going to bring to a reaction to Nazism.
–Christopher Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens, “Uncommon Knowledge,” July 15, 2004
Au contraire. I give you Ayn Rand.
Will Hillary Clinton go down in history as the first Presidential candidate to campaign on making gutting the First Amendment a central plank of her platform?
Well, yes. That is already the case.
Now, collectivism is about, amongst other things, the collective having rights over and above those possessed by the individual. Her position in this case is that when two or more people join together to common purpose they lose those constitutional rights currently guaranteed them as individuals.
I guess she’d argue consistency is a bugbear of small minds.
Now this, on relatively recent American History.
You Brits aren’t the only ones who play the Election Game, y’know. Ours comes up in about 18 months, and at Salon some unrepentant underminer of liberty named Eric Lee has seen fit to write “A Lesson for Bernie Sanders” on the topic.
For those who are going, “Bernie Sanders — Who He?”: He is the avowedly Socialist Senator from Vermont who has decided to run for the Presidency next year.
So why should Zanzibarians, or even Americans for that matter, care about Bernie Sanders’ political ambitions? No particular reason, except that we all have a liberty interest in seeing that such ambitions die like a beached flounder, but with less fuss.
(Although Sanders has annoyed many by refusing to get with the gun-control program. In fact Slate throws its toys out of the pram over his non-compliance with the Democratic-Progressive required stance on the issue.
(Additionally, many find Sanders far more honest than Shrill, not terribly difficult of course.)
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this one, but the history is interesting.
Mr. Lee’s “Lesson” describes Michael Harrington’s insinuation of socialism into the ideology and agenda of the Democratic Party, with its successful shoving of the Party leftward, and the result (as Mr. Lee believes, anyhow) of Mr. Harrington’s being persuaded not to run for the Presidency himself in 1980.
For a fuller account, see Dr. Ron Radosh’s book Divided They Fell.
The column commences:
The socialist revolt that America forgot: A history lesson for Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders is a singular figure in modern U.S. politics, the lone self-identified socialist to serve in Congress, at a time when mainstream American attitudes, if not actively violent towards socialism as they have been in the past, remain nonetheless fundamentally suspicious. As such, his plans to run against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries represent something of an anomaly. What bears mentioning about Sanders’ run, however, is that it is not the first time a prominent socialist has considered a bid for the Democratic nomination. To understand the significance of Sanders’ candidacy, it’s worth flashing back to the summer of 1978, as liberal Democrats were growing increasingly disillusioned with Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
Over at the LA (var. S.G.), there’s an ad for a book called Going Galactic, with an attractive, politically-correct cover featuring two persons in white hoods: One, a Person of Color and a Female, and the other a standard-issue white guy with a beard, somewhat reminiscent of Mr. Connery perhaps 15 or 20 years ago.
When I saw the thing, this flashed cometwise through what I sometimes call my mind, to wit:
Now I do trust you blighters in Jollye Olde &c., as well as those who dwell in the exotic regions of the Southron Hemisphere, know that the acronym (and for a wonder, this time it really is an acronym) stands for “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Male).” (The “Male” part goes without saying. I mean, how would you pronounce ‘WASPM’?) It is, of course, a term of contempt, but that is not the issue.
Here is my problem. Why WASP? Why not simply ASP? I mean, they are not pleasant creatures either. I forget whether they bite or sting or both, but it doesn’t matter. The point is, I have somehow always taken it for granted that both the Angles and the Saxons were white, for some value of “white,” wherefore so would be their progeny, the Anglo-Saxons.
So where can I go to find a specimen of that apparently rare breed, the un-white Anglo-Saxon? A zoo in Sub-Saharan Africa? Someplace in the vicinity of Shanghai or Tokyo? Perhaps the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, or a spot in Tierra del Fuego? Tahiti? Mars?
Anyway, that’s what passes for thoughtful questioning chez Krauss ’round 1 a.m. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
The man who depicted himself as a transcendent figure on history’s stage, who described his foreign policy vision at the Temple of Hercules has been out-thought, out-generaled and completely outclassed by men with far fewer resources, but a great deal more ability than himself.
We now know what the early stages of a post American world looks like.
Wars and land grabs in Europe, the collapse of the Middle East and a militarisation of both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, alliances between Saudi Arabia, Egypt and , um, Israel – that is a good outcome, at least.
Chinese dominance over SE Asia, confrontation between China and Japan, Chinese control over the core sea trade routes as it enfolds the South China Sea into its arms.
Is Russia arming Argentina as a means of directing British attention away from Eastern Europe? If Britain is drawn into an Eastern European conflict is there an agreement that Argentina will act? Or at least rattle some sabres?
All Australia’s, and Europe’s, trade with Japan goes through waters claimed by half a dozen separate countries, one of them China, and that China is now starting to militarise.
We are disarmed, we are broke, and the big boy on the block has picked up his ball and gone home.
We are still, nonetheless, the ugliest and toughest hombres left out there, if only we start remembering that truth.
We can protect ourselves, and our interests, but only if we can be bothered.
I suspect that when it comes to national interest and foreign policy the next generation of European leaders will look more like their 19thC forbears than their 21stC fathers. If they don’t, we got problems.