Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about Stanley Kramer’s 1961 courtroom classic JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG. I’ve been thinking about it because there is a nasty undercurrent to our current politics that is making me uneasy in the same way Kramer’s skillfully made film makes me uneasy. I don’t like what it has to say about the trajectory of our future as a healthy functioning Nation.
No need to use the tactics of the Democrats against them. There has been prolific criminality by them in the service of winning elections. Prosecute the actual crimes ruthlessly but honestly and without regard to the prominence of the criminals. The statutes of limitations may have run out on a lot of the crimes, but not on all, and we can be sure that more will be committed in the coming election cycle, because that's how leftists roll.
Kurt is right that there is a risk assessment aspect to the retribution strategy… with certain candidates the risk factor is acceptable… with others, not so much
Please excuse me for not being a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars fan but when you got to Star Trek and Kirk, you got me. We should remember that real life super hero that saved the world, Sir Winston Churchill, when he wrote:
In War-- Resolution
In Peace-- Good Will
In Defeat-- Defiance
In Victory- Magnanimity
It takes strength and courage to follow the path of good. Heroes help us along the way whether real like Churchill or fiction like Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise.
Indeed, and that's kind of what I was getting at. It is very easy to give up and get down in the mud with your opponent, but it's not the way to win, ultimately
You don't have to use. the D's tactics agains them but you do have to hold them accountable for their using them. The problem with The Judgment at Nuremberg is they didn't try all of those they could have because the US wanted to use those Nazi's against the Communists at the start of the Cold War. It wasn't in the scope of the movie to delve into the issue but it was there, lurking in the background. Similarly the US let the Japanese who were running the infamous bioweapons labs in China off the hook. Moral decisions take second place to political decisions. Usually for the worst. England went to war for Poland, then betrayed Poland at the end to avoid confronting Russia.
There is a difference between destroying evil and destroying ones enemies. Not always the same thing.
That's a pretty big subplot in the movie... the Germans want Haywood to let the judges off with a slap on the wrist under the theory that the country has suffered enough already, and Janning is a national hero. The Americans want him to let them off because they need the Germans on their side in the Cold War that's just beginning with Russia. And his fellow jurists want light sentences because that's what the other tribunals have delivered in other cases
Agree, we are on the path to either a Hitler, Stalin, Moa or a Caesar, Pinochet or Franco. But I disagree that we don't need and avenging angel. An angel is in the service to justice, we need someone who will be ruthless in the application of the law because that is were the communist party aka democrat party have gone off the rails. They have determined that the "rule of law not men" is a barrier to their pursuit of power, they have a moral imperative to destroy any opposition to their agenda. As Charles Krauthammer said "conservatives see democrats as people with bad idea's, they see conservatives as evil". And you and everyone else better understand something right here and now, these people are anti-human they are openly discussing depopulation which entails murdering billions of human beings.
In Star Wars The Republic begot the Empire; local Governors kept the populace "in line." The only way out was murdering the Emperor and slaughtering millions of Government soldiers with tactical attacks.
In LoTRs, all of the enemy, twisted beyond all reckoning, along with the wild men ("they took what was ours from us! [ie.those evil conservatives]") needed to be put down. And when they WERE put down where did they go? Hobbiton, a place where they thought they'd find weaker people to start anew.
And yes, this was all reactionary defense, but it was violent.
Are our options limited to violence? Of course not (I hope not!). But those people working the polls are snickering at you every time you vote. Every forcibly registered voter (Pennsylvania, anyone?) is someone that will 'totes 100% be voting' whether they know it or not. Judges are paid or harassed, cops know where their goose is gravied, and no one wants to bother with being brave as they've been shown exactly what happens to those who step out of line.
When people feel helpless that's when things get crazy on all sides. What's the non crazy solution? What else, really, can men do against such reckless hate, besides ride out to meet them?
I do think we must ride out and meet them, and I noted that our stories tell us as much, while also warning of the corrupting nature of using the tactics of the enemy. And I'll go a step further here... having read Michael Walsh's book LAST STANDS, it seems to me that the lesson of history from Thermopylae to The Alamo, is that often times standing on principle and getting beat is a prerequisite for winning the larger war. Dirty fighting rarely inspires others to charge the battlements.
No need to use the tactics of the Democrats against them. There has been prolific criminality by them in the service of winning elections. Prosecute the actual crimes ruthlessly but honestly and without regard to the prominence of the criminals. The statutes of limitations may have run out on a lot of the crimes, but not on all, and we can be sure that more will be committed in the coming election cycle, because that's how leftists roll.
Kurt is right that there is a risk assessment aspect to the retribution strategy… with certain candidates the risk factor is acceptable… with others, not so much
Please excuse me for not being a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars fan but when you got to Star Trek and Kirk, you got me. We should remember that real life super hero that saved the world, Sir Winston Churchill, when he wrote:
In War-- Resolution
In Peace-- Good Will
In Defeat-- Defiance
In Victory- Magnanimity
It takes strength and courage to follow the path of good. Heroes help us along the way whether real like Churchill or fiction like Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise.
Indeed, and that's kind of what I was getting at. It is very easy to give up and get down in the mud with your opponent, but it's not the way to win, ultimately
You don't have to use. the D's tactics agains them but you do have to hold them accountable for their using them. The problem with The Judgment at Nuremberg is they didn't try all of those they could have because the US wanted to use those Nazi's against the Communists at the start of the Cold War. It wasn't in the scope of the movie to delve into the issue but it was there, lurking in the background. Similarly the US let the Japanese who were running the infamous bioweapons labs in China off the hook. Moral decisions take second place to political decisions. Usually for the worst. England went to war for Poland, then betrayed Poland at the end to avoid confronting Russia.
There is a difference between destroying evil and destroying ones enemies. Not always the same thing.
That's a pretty big subplot in the movie... the Germans want Haywood to let the judges off with a slap on the wrist under the theory that the country has suffered enough already, and Janning is a national hero. The Americans want him to let them off because they need the Germans on their side in the Cold War that's just beginning with Russia. And his fellow jurists want light sentences because that's what the other tribunals have delivered in other cases
Agree, we are on the path to either a Hitler, Stalin, Moa or a Caesar, Pinochet or Franco. But I disagree that we don't need and avenging angel. An angel is in the service to justice, we need someone who will be ruthless in the application of the law because that is were the communist party aka democrat party have gone off the rails. They have determined that the "rule of law not men" is a barrier to their pursuit of power, they have a moral imperative to destroy any opposition to their agenda. As Charles Krauthammer said "conservatives see democrats as people with bad idea's, they see conservatives as evil". And you and everyone else better understand something right here and now, these people are anti-human they are openly discussing depopulation which entails murdering billions of human beings.
G*dspeed, America.
In Star Wars The Republic begot the Empire; local Governors kept the populace "in line." The only way out was murdering the Emperor and slaughtering millions of Government soldiers with tactical attacks.
In LoTRs, all of the enemy, twisted beyond all reckoning, along with the wild men ("they took what was ours from us! [ie.those evil conservatives]") needed to be put down. And when they WERE put down where did they go? Hobbiton, a place where they thought they'd find weaker people to start anew.
And yes, this was all reactionary defense, but it was violent.
Are our options limited to violence? Of course not (I hope not!). But those people working the polls are snickering at you every time you vote. Every forcibly registered voter (Pennsylvania, anyone?) is someone that will 'totes 100% be voting' whether they know it or not. Judges are paid or harassed, cops know where their goose is gravied, and no one wants to bother with being brave as they've been shown exactly what happens to those who step out of line.
When people feel helpless that's when things get crazy on all sides. What's the non crazy solution? What else, really, can men do against such reckless hate, besides ride out to meet them?
I do think we must ride out and meet them, and I noted that our stories tell us as much, while also warning of the corrupting nature of using the tactics of the enemy. And I'll go a step further here... having read Michael Walsh's book LAST STANDS, it seems to me that the lesson of history from Thermopylae to The Alamo, is that often times standing on principle and getting beat is a prerequisite for winning the larger war. Dirty fighting rarely inspires others to charge the battlements.