A Good Point

John R. Schindler in the Observer:
All this angers Americans with experience in our military and intelligence services who understand what Ms. Clinton and her staff did—and that they would be held to far harsher standards for attempting anything similar. They know that brave Americans have given their lives protecting Top Secret Codeword information. They know that in every American embassy around the world, our diplomatic outposts that worked for Hillary Clinton, Marine guards have standing orders to fight to the death to protect the classified information that’s inside those embassies.
He goes on to say that she needs to explain herself if she expects to be Commander in Chief. I would say that no explanation for this behavior could possibly be sufficient to permit her to assume that office.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right.

I would have voted for Hillary, if she had been the Democratic candidate, and I have long thought she would have been a much more competent president than Obama. This scandal, however, is disqualifying for me.

The woman has no f'in clue what she has done. She has lived her entire life in national-level politics, and she does not know the basics of security. What else has she failed to learn?

Valerie

Ymar Sakar said...

The Leftist alliance's evil has already been explained. People refuse to pay attention. They are free to choose that, but they won't be free from the consequences of ignoring evil.

Grim said...

The Leftist alliance's evil has already been explained.

What is evil for you, Ymar? It's a word I've heard you use nearly every day for years and years, but it occurs to me that I don't know what you mean by it.

When the Church says that a practice is evil, I know exactly what they mean because I understand the metaphysical ground they're on. I know what evil is because I know what good is, what it is essentially.

Can you explain those things? What is good? What is evil? How are those concepts grounded? What, essentially, makes something good or evil?

raven said...

I'll jump in here, no education to speak of but maybe a workingmans perspective. Pretty slim pickin' for all you philosophers!

Good creates, and seeks to create. When good destroys, it does it for the sake of creation.
Evil destroys, and seeks to destroy. When evil creates, it does it for the sake of destruction.

Grim said...

In absolute terms, that's not very plausible though: for one thing, every act of creation is an act of destruction and vice versa. For another, it seems as if some acts are absolutely evil whatever is created out of them. If a man murders you in order to create something wonderful out of the charity he's able to establish with the funds he takes from your corpse, he's doing evil whatever he builds.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I was once among them, years and years ago. I tremble at my answer to your question.

Marines, guards, servicemen in general are not valuable people. They like guns. They kill babies. They are the wrong people, and are faceless. They are the obstacles to the new world that must come.

They hate them, even as they need them.

Grim said...

Hate might be a plausible ingredient for evil, perhaps: though I think of Chesterton poetic lines about the Christian army falling upon the pagans who had come to murder or enslave them:

"Roaring they went o'er the Roman wall,
And roaring up the lane,
Their torches tossed a ladder of fire,
Higher their hymn was heard and higher,
More sweet for hate and for heart's desire,
And up in the northern scrub and brier,
They fell upon the Dane."

Also, read this, which was a meditation on that line.

Tom said...

In a just society, she would have to explain herself if she expected to stay out of prison, and would never be considered for commander in chief.

She should spend the rest of her life in the pen breaking big rocks into small rocks. Or, given her age, small rocks into gravel.

That said, going back 8 years, I agree with Valerie that she would have been a more competent president than Obama, but given her character, probably a more corrupt one as well. 8 years ago, though, I did think much better of her.

MikeD said...

Honestly, I didn't. I knew Obama was a radical leftist, but then again, so is she. The difference is that she has always believed herself above the law, and is a grasping, power-hungry, awful person. And always has been. The difference between then and now is that now, she is more desperate. This is literally her last chance. If you think she'll have the stamina to run in 2020, I think you're deluding yourself. If she loses in Iowa, expect the most nasty, vitriolic, deceitful attacks to begin coming out against Sanders.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that's already begun.

Grim said...

Yeah, her campaign has turned nasty in the last weeks -- especially through semi-deniable proxies like Vox. On the other hand, I'm always amused that the best defense that Vox can come up with for her sounds so much like an indictment: 'she'll be really effective because she won't be constrained by the law, but will act with pure will-to-power,' or, 'It's true that she's unprincipled, but that's the key to getting things done in D.C.'

Or, my favorite of their strongly pro-Clinton articles lately: "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust You." Because, it turns out, you don't deserve it.

MikeD said...

Scratch a communist, you'll find an authoritarian. But then I repeat myself.

Ymar Sakar said...

What is evil for you, Ymar? It's a word I've heard you use nearly every day for years and years, but it occurs to me that I don't know what you mean by it.

How about you take another look at Europe, Rot England in particular and think on the concept and requirement for being an enemy of humanity.

The answers has always been around, for people who wanted them.

In military concepts, it would be intentionally going for higher collateral casualties, even though it is inefficient and generates greater risk of losing the war. Evil is not about competency or incompetency, it's not about failing to do the job or succeeding at a job. It's about that little extra, the unnecessary part.

In other words, the Left's marxist redistribution is evil because they would rather have 4 to your 0 than 8 to your 10. They would hurt their own chances of survival, merely to ensure that you aren't above them in status. Expand "you", thus, to the entirety of humanity.

Survival and zero sum, they're all accounted for. Evil is outside of doing what is necessary. It's that little "extra". To show that they care.

Ymar Sakar said...

I'll jump in here, no education to speak of but maybe a workingmans perspective. Pretty slim pickin' for all you philosophers!

Good creates, and seeks to create. When good destroys, it does it for the sake of creation.
Evil destroys, and seeks to destroy. When evil creates, it does it for the sake of destruction.


Jesus was said to have been a carpenter. And for true philosophy, a warrior or life experience like Socrates might be the better fit than reading.

While evil probably uses the power of destruction 90% or 95% of the time, I consider the scenario where Planned Profit creates 2 lives for every single life they harvest and make a profit on. Would that be "gray" or neutral, even if it isn't the Good? So if evil creates for the sake of destruction, that would apply in that scenario as evil. For the lives created and produced, do not make the life lost, good or neutral.

I first ask the question of necessity. Is this necessary for this biological unit to survive. Is it necessary to achieve the goals of said biological unit. What are the effects of this goal, does it meet the test of justice?


If evil exists, then at some point in time it must be destroyed, then are evil's destroyers evil, because they used the absolutely effective power of destruction and death? Do they seek to destroy evil to create a better world or humanity? If so, that might also apply under your precept, Raven.

Evil, for me, is a structure, a kind of crystalline lattice. It is not a material or a position or a policy or an entity. It can be destroyed, yet forever regenerates so long as energy exists. The snowflake has a structure. It looks a certain way. Evil certainly looks a certain way. But it can be of any substance or origin point, there is no limitation on that. Because it is closer to a fractal process than a "thing" that can be quantified in words and labels. A power is seen by the effects it has on the physical world and the mode of its travel. It, on its own, has little substance to quantify or purify down.

Later on, I asked myself another question. "What would it take to become an enemy of humanity itself?"

Grim said...

If evil exists, then at some point in time it must be destroyed, then are evil's destroyers evil[?]

That's a good question.

Although on second thought Raven has a point. When I say that every action of creation is an act of destruction (and vice versa), I'm not saying anything different than the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter. The only way to make something new is to destroy something old, or rather, all you're really doing is rearranging the parts. True creation, the creation of something genuinely new, is only possible for God. Thus, the tie between goodness and creation -- not in our sense of 'creating,' but in the true sense -- does make sense. After all, the moral order of the world follows from the intent of the creator as embedded in the natures of the created things.

There's a much denser version of that argument I will spare you.

Evil, for me, is a structure, a kind of crystalline lattice. It is not a material or a position or a policy or an entity. It can be destroyed, yet forever regenerates so long as energy exists. The snowflake has a structure. It looks a certain way. Evil certainly looks a certain way. But it can be of any substance or origin point, there is no limitation on that. Because it is closer to a fractal process than a "thing" that can be quantified in words and labels. A power is seen by the effects it has on the physical world and the mode of its travel. It, on its own, has little substance to quantify or purify down.

So, aside from 'I know it when I see it,' what does that mean? What do you mean by "substance"? By the same token:

...does it meet the test of justice?

What do you mean by "justice"? What is the standard here?

Later on, I asked myself another question. "What would it take to become an enemy of humanity itself?"

What was the answer to that question? I notice you often define your enemies out of humanity -- even people not strictly your enemies, but people who don't live and think in a way you find appropriate. Sometimes they are "slaves," but other times "livestock." The people you take to be true enemies are usually "traitors," but are really corpses-in-waiting. I gather you think it is justified because they are somehow 'enemies of humanity itself,' but humanity only exists in human beings. Reading them out of it strikes me as arguably backwards.

Ymar Sakar said...

What do you mean by "substance"?

A physical substance. When people say individuals are evil or actions are evil, I see it as independent of the physical reality. If conditions had been different, that evil person might have been good instead. If evil was a substance, something more physical, it could be scientifically assessed, bottled up.

Islam did not create the substance of human behavior and vice. It was already in humans, Islam merely promoted it, they did not create it from nothing. They created a system to promote it and pass it on in the DNA, blood, and culture for generations upon generations, the promotion of lust and conquest over the Christian beliefs of virtue and reason/self control.

But even if Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed did not exist as prophets, the same processes, the energies of good and evil, would still be around. They did not create it either, they merely passed on knowledge of it, the spirit of it, through the centuries.

What do you mean by "justice"? What is the standard here?

I referenced the difference of the Meta Golden Rule, which I adhere to, vs the Golden Rule, which I find to be flawed, here a long time ago. That is part of the standard of justice, when people get what they deserve, no more and no less.

An action or path may sometimes be necessary, but whether it is necessary for evil, for justice, or to survive, are different limitations. Sometimes what fits under Justice, fails to fit under survival, for example when the CIA SF/former SF shooters went to the embassy to evacuate the Americans. It was Justice exemplified, but to acquire that Justice against evil, sacrifices had to be made. More than had already been made.

I gather you think it is justified because they are somehow 'enemies of humanity itself,' but humanity only exists in human beings. Reading them out of it strikes me as arguably backwards.

It comes from a practical point of view. Humans are conditioned to treat their fellows a certain way, for survival or mutual benefit. When a person is recognized, for example, as an Enemy of the State, such as the Hammonds or the Amond ranch families, they are savaged and violence is utilized against them, irregardless of the Bill of Rights. In order to counter the physical military power present, one must exile targets from humanity itself, in order to differentiate the ROE. In other words, humans can only fight and win wars by putting it into "us vs them" mentalities. Even Bush II said something on that, after 9/11. Bush II, the great compromiser, who dealt with Democrats and wanted to bring them into the fold on Iraq and domestic politics. And was stabbed in the back, much as Caesar was, because the Senators had already turned traitor and power mad with greed and megalomania. The rights under a Republic, they had already thrown away for power and elections.

Ymar Sakar said...


What was the answer to that question?

It's something you have to answer for yourself. Just as Southern slave barons considered the Northern abolitionists to be weak pacifists and against the US Constitution, humans will decide for themselves what constitutes the "Enemy".

An Enemy of Humanity is an enemy to all humans, because slavery 2.0 or 3.0 destroys the human spirit. One merely has to look at Europe and Islam for the non abstract reality. Excommunication puts someone outside the faith, in order to wage holy war against them, as the Pope did against the Albigensians sheltered by French aristocrats.

Besides that point, if I consider myself human and I consider my enemies human, then whose cause is for the promotion and progress of humanity? If there is no truth to fight for, then what is the point of this war. If you don't want your enemies to be human, then find something people can ally together to fight against, true evil. Not policies, politics, or the peripheral stuff. Humans will be fighting over that stuff until the species goes extinct or the sun goes nova. It's Hatfields and McCoys all the way down. But that is not what a holy war against evil is about.

On Killing has a more practical point of view concerning atrocities and the responses to them. The reason military soldiers sometimes feel no guilt when killing, not because they were ordered to but because they themselves decided to pull the trigger, was because certain atrocities and actions put a person outside humanity. Thus a normal human that kills another human, will feel fear/guilt/PTSD as a result, if they cannot deal with that stress, that mutual contradiction.

Does the Black Panthers feel guilt for covering gang rapes of non black girls 13 or below, because the gang rapists are black and they are loyal to their race? Perhaps they feel as much guilt as they get when they order chicken wings. Evil isn't in a mechanism. Humans have been exiling each other for various reasons for a long time now. An Enemy of Humanity is someone all humans would have to fight, sooner or later, to survive. Irregardless of their own personal differences of belief. And that is the fence, that is the sides, people will choose.

A holy war is something from the past, people think. Islam was created in the early 7th century AD. The Leftist alliance, as a viral WMD, was created in the early part of the 20th century, although R and D had been ongoing for some time even before then.

The ultimate test is always personal. Each individual human will have to determine what they will fight for, and who they will pull the trigger on. If they doubt themselves, if they doubt the necessity or moral justice of it, they will feel guilt. Their combat effectiveness will be reduced. Islam feels no guilt in their jihad, except to fail. And whatever guilt they do feel, will be removed through Jihad.

That is why evil isn't a process or a person. In order to defeat evil, humans often have to utilize the same human weaknesses as their enemies. Humanity did not survive by refusing to use the tools DNA and nature had given us. Whether that is good or evil, just or unjust, necessary for survival or unnecessary for survival, is an abstract question. It becomes real when dealing with actual events and actors. So no, you won't necessarily know evil when you see it. People saw Rot England after all, but it's not like they figured out how to see evil.

Grim said...

What do you mean by "substance"?

A physical substance.


OK, so we're still not quite there. I gather you're using the word in the sense of 'stuff' or something like that. But this is a word with real history in this kind of discussion. It's the word that comes from the English that comes from the Latin that comes from the Greek 'ousia.' To say that evil is not a substance is really right, according to Catholic or Aristotelian metaphysics. But why is it right?

Ousia are the primary things that really exist. Aristotle says we speak of other kinds of things because of them, such that we predicate the attributes of the substances. Thus, a dog is; a dog's viciousness only exists as an attribute of the dog. The dog has a level of existence that is stronger than the viciousness, which doesn't exist separately from the dog. (Cf. humans and humanity.)

So what the Church says about evil is that it does not exist, or rather, that it is an imperfection of existence. Evil is something not being what it should have been. You are a substance, and you should be merciful and kind. Those are virtues. If you don't have them, you are evil -- not because you are evil, but because you aren't everything you should be. It's a failure of existence.

This makes sense because Aquinas defines existence and goodness as being the same thing. This is because of an argument tracking to Aristotle through Avicenna that God's essence is to exist. God is perfectly good, and indeed defines the terms of the good, so his essence must be perfectly good. But there's a second proof: everything that exists that has will seeks to continue to exist, either as themselves or through the survival and flourishing of their children (or institutions they care about, in addition to or instead of children). Thus, if 'the good' is what things desire, what all things desire from squirrels and bugs to people is the same thing: existence. Good = existence, Q.E.D.

Therefore, evil as the logical opposite of good cannot exist. It must be a failure of existence. Something that ought to have been, is not.

To say that evil isn't a substance is thus exactly right, on the old model. How does that fit with your view?