Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Harvey, Slavery, Nukes, Genocide

I am writing regarding Paul Harvey’s June 23 monologue in which he lamented America’s failure to be tough on terrorism, and the Baltimore Chronicle’s associated 5 July 2005 Action Alert posted at http://baltimorechronicle.com/070505FAIR.shtml and at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2569 (see below).

I salute Paul Harvey for making such a valid point about the importance of using nukes to accomplish military goals while minimizing loss of life by American soldiers. I denounce the elitist apologist for terrorism who wrote the Action Alert. Harvey is incisive and accurate in his assessment of the abuse of American military power by sending soldiers to die when nukes can obviate conventional war in one fell swoop.

By contrast, his detractor, FAIR’s author of the alert, is deluded. Being all too willing to decry nuclear bombs that wipe out evil people, he seems unable to come to grips with the real team of questions:

  1. How many enemy human lives is the life of one American soldier worth?
  2. Is it right for individuals who should be showing mercy to empower government to destroy enemies?
  3. Should a people be held accountable for the iniquity of their secular or religious rulers?
  4. Is Islam a religion of peace or not?
  5. Can nukes be beneficial in modern times?
  6. Is Paul Harvey genocidal?
  7. What are the benefits of war?

Harvey submitted the ultimate answer. I shall address the reasoning.

  1. The worth of human life.

    The life of one American soldier is definitely worth an indeterminate number of enemy live. The whole idea of maintaining a military is to prevent enemies from oppressing, robbing, torturing, terrorizing, or murdering Americans. When an entire nation is devoted to such behavior, most particularly when exemplified by like the 9-11-2001 destruction, that nation’s people deserve to be wiped out, without the loss of a single American life. Even if it means nuking the place.

    Naturally, the best way to avoid such an offensive retribution is to establish an impenetrable defense through which enemies have no opportunity to hurt Americans. Maybe America, if it still exists after playing pattycake for centuries with Muslim terrorists and those who tolerate or support them, will get around to that in the next millennium.
  2. Empowering government

    Individuals in a nation, while encouraged by all benign religions to show mercy to wrongdoers and love for enemies, have the right to live in relative peace and tranquility. Working together, they elect representatives of their wiser members who draft a constitution and form a government that has as one of its purposes the obligation to provide for common defense of the people. Governments like ours are thus empowered by their people to engage in war if and as necessary to defend our people.

    As horrific as was the nuking of Japan 60 years ago next month, it did save a lot of money, and not one American G.I. was lost in the process. As we all know, Japan became peaceful immediately, and the world has enjoyed liberty from Japanese oppression ever since. In addition, post war stability has been guaranteed by the presence of American military in Japan for the past 60 years, and by the fact that Japan has not been allowed to build a massive military.
  3. Are people accountable for the wrongs of their rulers?

    People must be held accountable for the wrongdoings of their rulers. Other than the rulers, no one else can be held accountable. Only a people or a foreign entity has the potential to make a ruler rule rightly. Since the people are the ruled, the responsibility is theirs to ensure their rulers are righteous, or otherwise to depose them. This is true even if the ruler is a brutal despot who kills everyone who gets out of line. The people of a land are still responsible to erect a benign government. And if they cannot do it, if the ruler is a war monger and despot, then they deserve and should expect whatever horrible fate befalls them.

    Let us not think that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorist acts against America. As abundantly proved by http://judicialwatch.org, his agents planned and financed the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. The people of Iraq allowed him to rise to power, stay in power, conduct an 8-year, no-win war against Iran, and murder tens of thousands of his nation’s people throughout a 30-year reign of terror. While it was he who spearheaded those acts, it was the people of Iraq who by their complacency or incompetence empowered him. And it is they who are thereby at fault, just as the people of Afghanistan were at fault for empowering the Taliban, and through them, Al Quaeda, to destroy American lives and property.

    So, had USA government opted to nuke Najaf, Fallujah, and Tikrit and demand unconditional surrender before sending troops into the country, it would have been well within the USA’s right and reason to do so. Had the same thing been done in Afghanistan, Usama bin Laden might no longer be plotting the destruction of the people and property of America and its allies.

    After all, the people are responsible for the misdeeds they allow from their rulers. As such, they are not really “innocent,” even if they are being brutally oppressed by their rulers. In such a circumstance, it is their responsibility to shoulder their arms and overthrow their iniquitous government. That has happened twice in the history of the USA, and both times it was very costly in terms of life and property. It might be tough, but ultimately, unless helped by an outside nation, citizens have no other choice but to try.
  4. Is Islam Peaceful?

    Islam is not peaceful, and it is only partly a religion. It is both a religion and a malignant political force to all who resist it. This has been proven not only by the past 14 centuries of Muslim conquest of a fifth of the world’s land mass, but also by ongoing efforts by Muslims in India, Kashmir, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia, Chechnya, and numerous other areas of the world to destroy existing government and supplant it with dictatorial Islamic regimes. All truly Islamic states are dominated by an un-elected power structure. All are theocracies or just plain dictatorships. And all oppress their people.

    Until an Islamic government has been established, Muslim militants attack an existing government or its supporters in any way necessary to gain power.
    Both the example of Muhammad and his recital in the Qur’an gives Muslim militants (terrorists) carte blanch to oppress, torture, murder, and wage war against unbelievers. Of course, the Qur’an also double-speaks by encouraging individuals to show mercy and kindness to others. As a guiding document, therefore, the Qur’an encourages Muslims to do just about anything they please to infidels who resist Islam, be it peaceful or pugnacious. Thus, it guides wrong-headed Muslims to commit acts of terror.

    Islamic law also imposes radical and unfair social regulation on its adherents. Such law may be egregiously implemented as it was by the Taliban, or done somewhat moderately as it is in Saudi Arabia. Either way, it is a travesty in a modern world because it encourages the treatment of women as though they were chattel, the ownership of slaves, the requirement to exercise religious practices that should be a matter of personal and private choice, and oppression, robbery, torture, and murder of non-Muslims who resist Islamic rule.

    Islam cuts across national boundaries. Even though the focal point of Islam is Saudi Arabia (all good Muslims bow facing Saudi Arabia and pray 5 times a day), the “nation” of Islam has no earth territory, and its soldiers wear no uniforms. They see themselves as being authorized and commanded by God to eliminate any non-Muslims who resist Islam, and to do so by any means necessary. While there are many peaceable Muslims in the world, the truth is that virtually all terrorists in the world today are Muslims.

    The world cannot go on tolerating Islamic terrorism. Just as the people of a nation are responsible for the misdeeds of their rulers, so are the people of Islam responsible for the misdeeds of fellow Muslims who oppress, rob, torture, murder, and destroy in the name of Allah. It is up to them to take responsibility for and reign in their errant fellow Muslims. And since Muslim terrorists get their marching orders from the Qur’an, it is up to the benign Muslims of the world to take the Qur’an in hand, and excise from it all elements that even remotely suggest by word or example that Muslims are right in behaving hatefully toward others in the name of God, Muhammad, or anyone else.
  5. Can Nukes be beneficial?

    Tactical nukes (neutron bombs) can be quite clean. They eliminate people without destroying too much property (except right at ground zero). A nuclear bomb is the most effective way of eliminating a nest of bad people. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, nukes should have preceded conventional bombing by several weeks. And, I believe one should have been dropped on Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, quite close to the Kabba. Here are the reasons:

    a. It would have made a serious point to the rest of the world, and to Islamic enemies of America: the same thing will happen to you if you don’t knock off the terrorism, next we take out your religious centers and every government that supports Islamic law.
    b. America will not allow an Islamic theocracy to exist without being held accountable for Islamic terrorism worldwide because such regimes always support terrorism, and America will not tolerate terrorism.
    c. We would not have the pain and suffering of thousands of our own dead and wounded soldiers, and the attendant family difficulties to deal with. As all past wars have proven, soldiers are permanently shaken up by combat, and the aftermath often causes a breakup of their families an numerous other social problems.
    d. It would have saved a lot of money. It is far cheaper to send in some nukes than to mobilize an invasion force. Yes, the force would have to be sent in anyway, but the bulk of enemy troops could have been taken out beforehand.
    e. We should do everything possible to reduce the loss of American life and property while at the same time driving for victory.

  6. Is Paul Harvey genocidal?

    As for FAIR’s slimy insinuation that Harvey is in favor of genocide, I’m certain Harvey will ignore him. I won’t, though. It looks like a little history lesson is in order.

    It really is a shame that the crème of the red race was wiped out over 500 years of conquest by Europeans and Euro-Americans. Any honest student of history knows that the red race was characterized by an intense spirituality and racial pride (many called themselves “human beings”), and a concomitant intensity in hostility. Amerindians were so bellicose they could not get along with each other, much less the white man. That is why they never evolved any advanced system of government, and never progressed beyond the tribal stage, which is where most of their descendants still are. Their unwillingness or inability to be more socially harmonious prevented the development of wise representative government. Along with that, Amerindians did not evolve social systems that stimulated growth of education, literature, research, discovery, science, and technology. Until the 1800s, none of them had a written language, and that is the main reason we learn very little from our archeological digs in their concentrations of civilization.

    These factors conspired to make the Amerindians weaker militarily than Europeans and Euro-Americans. Their pride made them unwilling to serve the white man. They were unable to beat the white man in war. They refused to get along with the white man. The inevitable result was the destruction of the best of the red race. Only the dregs remain. That is a tragic loss to America’s gene pool.

    Europeans wiped out most of the Amerindians they contacted through either disease or war. At first the spreading of disease was accidental, but after the invaders discovered how badly it affected the Amerindians, they used it as a weapon. I doubt that anyone exposed to the constant threat of antagonism, terrorism and war by Amerindians blamed anyone for the use of any weapon that would bring permanent relief. That was not as much an effort to wipe out a race of people as much as it was an effort to wipe out an enemy group that had such an opposing culture. Naturally, the white people associated the culture with the race because no other racial group dressed and behaved the way Amerindians did.

    The same is virtually true in America today regarding the differences between Caucasians and Negroes. Certain styles of dress, speech, behavior, and naming children do stereotypically characterize non-professional inner city Negroes as being Negroes, even though they were reared in the same civilization as other Negroes who are professionals and choose to behave and dress as elite Caucasians. Naturally, many if not most Caucasians find Ebonics, jailbird music (rap), and jailbird attire (pants falling down because of no belt), all of which are stereotypical of inner city Negroes, to be loathsome. Fortunately, the news media does not tout stories of Negroes getting killed over it, so there’s little danger of genocide erupting as a result.

    What Paul Harvey pointed out is that any kind of weapon that gets rid of masses of enemies at one shot is a worthy weapon in war, and only a fool prefers to see his fellow countrymen killed in a conventional war rather than to use that worthy weapon. Harvey did not promote genocide. That genocide might be the result is merely coincidental.
  7. What are the benefits of war?

    FAIR seems most averse to discussing the benefits of war. Unless one frankly faces the benefits, one cannot face the question of how to achieve those same benefits by peaceful means.

    War is another facet of the law of the survival of the fittest acknowledged by Charles Darwin. And, it is a means of achieving not just survival (its main benefit) but optimum survival.

    Some of the legitimate benefits include:

    Eliminating people and the governments they support who are hostile to you
    Unifying an area in which no enemies exist and you can travel without danger
    Gaining booty (land, money, riches, slaves, and other assets) by conquest
    Earning future revenues from the conquered people or their assets
    Discouraging other enemy people from attacking you
    Providing expansion room for your own people
    Spreading your religion
    Spreading your genes or enriching your gene pool
    Eliminating threats to your gene pool

    You might consider that modern national and international laws make it illegal to conduct wars, particularly for genetic reasons, as though there is no such thing as inferior or superior genetic groups. If you think this, you are wrong. A people’s prime responsibility is to improve the lot of future generations, and that can only be done by wise and continual efforts to enrich the gene pool. There are many ways to do this, including the adoption of wise and benign eugenics laws that encourage citizens with the average and better genes to meet, marry, and procreate. Suppressing the procreation of the inferior and degenerate is also a good way.

    You see, any intelligent people intuitively know that if a group with an average IQ 30 points below the average IQ of their group is allowed to emigrate and procreate without restraint, the emigrants will thereby dumb-down the gene pool. If you look at the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations you find that the average IQ of Italians is 102, and the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa is 70 (considered by psychologists to be the upper boundary of moron). Italians would be, therefore, insane to invite sub-Saharan Africans into their country to mate and procreate with their people, unless, of course they felt that they themselves were too smart for their own good (I know lots of Italians and never met one who felt that way or didn’t want to be smarter).

    And note that IQ, the ability to solve problems, is only one measure of a people’s ability to build an advanced and benign civilization. Aptitude for science, engineering, music, literature, religion, philosophy, family, business, and military strategy are also important measures, as is physical and mental soundness and strength. A people have a right and responsibility to themselves and the rest of the world to foster the good characteristics and suppress the bad, even if harsh legislation or war is required to do so.

    Our laws prevent us from applying the law of the survival of the fittest in willy-nilly fashion. Because of that, our humanity demands that we find humane, diplomatic, and forthright ways of accomplishing the benefits that the outlawed law of the survival of the fittest would otherwise provide.

    The law of the survival of the fittest demands that when a superior civilization meets an inferior one, it retain the best of the one it finds for gene pool enrichment and eliminate the rest. In the past, the conqueror would murder or enslave the defeated, and as a result of not doing it intelligently, produce even more problems. For one thing, slaves eventually get absorbed into the gene pool, often deteriorating it. For another, war usually slaughters the fittest soldiers, the ones whom it is most important genetically to keep alive for gene pool enrichment and future conquests. And always in war, the most inferior and degenerate are usually adept at hiding or keeping a low profile, so they are not eliminated.
  8. How do we establish laws that achieve the benefits of the law of the survival of the fittest and of war?

    First of all, we have to discuss it rationally with intent to identify the truths in the issue. Ignoring it or pretending anyone who raises the subject is Hitler in disguise, as most liberal elitists do, solves nothing. Meanwhile, it allows our civilization to slide into a decline from which it could be impossible to climb.

    I’m going to leave this question unanswered, for that is not the purpose of my commentary. My purpose is to illustrate the reality that war does provide benefits, and that until our leaders start discussing ways to achieve them peacefully, and then frankly face and sincerely act up the findings, it is delusional to complain about how wars are conducted and whether nukes should be employed.

The point here is that war is a horrible, terrible recourse to the inability to resolve international differences peaceably. Sometimes it is the only alternative to oppression, robbery, torture, murder, and destruction at the hands of an enemy. There is no question that Islamic terrorists are the enemy of America, Israel, and every other non-Islamic government in the world that resists them. It might be considered somewhat genocidal to contemplate exterminating all Islamic terrorists, but so what? What right do they have to live while they are intent on hurting others just because they think God authorizes or commands it?

Of all kinds of wars, lobbing a huge nuke or two into an enemy land might seem to some to be the most terrible, but I don’t think it is. Had America been able to use the nukes at the beginning of the war with Japan, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would not have been wounded or killed, and many American families would have been saved the associated cost and horror. Saving our own lives and property was well worth the death and destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As General George Patton once remarked, the idea of war is not to give your life for your country, but to get as many of the enemy as possible to give their lives for their country. That’s what war is all about. And that’s what nukes do.

I am guessing Paul Harvey thinks it is wrong to agree to or abide by the Geneva convention’s outlawing of torture and weapons of mass destruction that kill innocent civilians as well as enemy combatants. If he does, I agree with him.

The only rule of war should be to win it as fast and cheaply as possible with as little loss of your own money, property, and life as possible. If the enemy doesn’t like it, let him behave decently.

Bob Hurt


ACTION ALERT:Paul Harvey's Tribute to Slavery, Nukes, GenocideHateful rant shows Disney's double standard on speechJuly 1, 2005Disney/ABC radio personality Paul Harvey, one of the most widely listened to commentators in the United States, presented his listeners on June 23 with an endorsement of genocide and racism that would have been right at home on a white supremacist shortwave broadcast.Harvey's commentary began by lamenting the decline of American wartime aggression. "We're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies--more moral, more civilized," he said. Drawing a contrast with what he cast as the praiseworthy nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Harvey lamented that "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos"--suggesting that America should have used its nuclear arsenal in its invasions of both countries.Harvey concluded:"We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever."And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."Harvey's evident approval of slavery, genocide and nuclear and biological warfare would seem to put him at odds with Disney's family-friendly image. The media conglomerate syndicates Harvey to more than 1,000 radio stations, where he reaches an estimated 18 million listeners. Disney recently signed a 10-year, $100 million contract with the 86-year-old Harvey.In 2004, Disney forbid its Miramax subsidiary to distribute Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, even though Miramax was the principal investor in the film. A Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04) that it was declining to distribute the film because, in the paper's words, "Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film...could alienate many."One wonders whether Disney executives are worried about alienating families who oppose slavery, nuclear war and Native American genocide.ACTION:Ask Disney why it finds Paul Harvey's nostalgia for slavery and genocide and his calls for nuclear war acceptable, but deemed Michael Moore's film unacceptable.

No comments: