Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Sunday, July 24, 2005

poor thing... she's gone mad you know...

She is insane. Check it out for yourself. Her shrink probably advised her to put it all on the web as some form of outlet. And what an impressive effort she has made too.


Such a total unquestioning certainty of her own reality/ideas/beliefs.

It's that totality which marks her as one who has journeyed into insanity with only a one-way ticket in her pocket.

But she is probably harmless. There are many others who are like her. Only the difference in their beliefs separates them. But there are also True Believers who belong to political parties, governments, religions, sects, cults, movements, etc., who are not harmless because, unlike this woman, they are prepared to kill in the name of their beliefs.

This brings us to the subject of pacifism. And talk of pacifism usually brings us to the mooting of a right to kill in self-defence.

It is the question "Who should decide if someone has the right to kill in self-defence?" which I'd like to debate.

Any takers?


Anonymous Jaxpax said...

Hi Gerry,
Isn't the internet a wondrous thing. Firstly, it seems to me that 'insanity'is a subjective notion, and am not quite sure what the 'definition' is.
This link poses interesting questions.
Secondly, what sort of 'self defence' are we to talk about? The personal, individual sort, or that relating to the 'leaders' of Nations?

July 24, 2005 11:24 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Yes, Jaxpax, Op Northwoods. I think I covered it quite well here.

What do we do if what they did beggars belief? It's so easy to dismiss a really way-out plot as mere "conspiracy theory". On the other hand you don't want to overlook what might really have happened.

So, what to do? Easy! Just trust and believe the government, the military planners (of which I was once a peripheral one), and the spooks. They would never lie to us, would they?

Now, back to the dilemma of knowing when it's OK to kill in self-defence: I guess the individual kind is dealt with by the arbiters of our respective cultures, so let's deal instead with nations, political and religious groups deciding they must kill their "enemies" in "self-defence". Where should the boundaries for such judgement calls be? And who should arbitrate on such matters?

As to a definition of sanity, I would come from the proposition that none of us is even remotely sane, least of all those who claim emphatically that they are. It would then follow that we would not know sanity if we fell over it, and therefore we would need to invoke "Gerry's Injuction" which states, ipso facto, "That of which I do not know, I cannot speak." Now you might begin to understand why "the bear is wearing a strait-jacket."

July 24, 2005 2:15 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

In case you haven't noticed, the stuff about conspiracy theories and Op Northwoods is now a seprate blog post.

July 24, 2005 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Jaxpax said...

ah.. if "That of which I do not know, I cannot speak." applies, then I guess am effectively gagged. You are asking some broad spectrum questions here, and since I've never been in a position of "power", can't really address the question of 'what' or 'how' a person in a 'leadership' position would or should behave.
However, will invoke the 'insanity clause'. If you can consider yourself a 'lunatic', then I will consider myself 'certifiably insane'. Just haven't turned myself in to collect it .. or they haven't caught up with me yet..whichever comes first. Am working on it though. Have just enrolled in the "Blogsville School for the Certifiably Insane" and hope to collect my ticket in due course. But I digress.

It seems to me that "fear" plays a part in the reactions governing 'self defense'. It also seems to me that most organisms, when in fear for their life, react defensively. This, to me, is 'normal'. What we have to establish, is how far - and to what extent - the level of 'retaliation' needs to be.

July 24, 2005 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Jaxpax said...

"And who should arbitrate on such matters?" That's a tricky one. If I use the analogy of 'society' as an 'organism', then it's the 'head', or 'brain'. Which brings me back to the notion of 'insanity'. 'commonsense' now springs to mind. The sense of the 'commons'. Where are we all?

July 24, 2005 5:31 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Juaxpax, I was not trying to gag you, I was just saying that I don't know what sanity is. If you know what sanity is then the injunction does not apply to you and you owe it to the world at large to tell us. All I can tell you is that so far I haven't heard a definition of sanity that's worth two bob...

"What we have to establish, is how far - and to what extent - the level of 'retaliation' needs to be."

Retaliation is a sane way to deal with True Believers who belong to political parties, governments, religions, sects, cults, movements, etc., who are not harmless because, unlike this woman, are prepared to kill in the name of their beliefs?

I think you mean 'respond' rather than 'retaliate'. Which brings us right back to discussion about the right to kill in self-defence and who arbitrates on whether or not this right is being exercised justly?

I'm also questioning pre-emption as a self-defence strategy.

About 'who should arbitrate' I mean in "the war on terror" crap. Who is America/Britain/Australia answerable to and how should such a body arbitrate? Or is it now true that the US can do what it wants? And if so, why do we go along with a such a rogue state attitude?

July 25, 2005 3:49 PM  
Blogger Brownie said...

All debate on self-defence, retaliation, life support switches and terminations, has to be based on the premise of
'Sanctity of Life', which, to me seems a very false one. What sanctity? Where?
Starving babies ignored by Ferrari owners, young soldiers sent to die for oil so some Texans can be richer. what sanctity? Where exactly, is your life or mine held in sanctification? nowhere. So I'm loaded for bear and coming outta my cave.

July 28, 2005 10:17 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

I'm not on about sanctity of life, Brownie, and if after all I've written here you really can't deduce what I am on about, I'm quite happy to put you on the list of people who can fuck right off, Brownie. But don't take it personally, it's just that I've totally lost patience with those who are happy to meet violence with violence as a way of solving political, social, economic or religious problems.

July 28, 2005 10:54 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<<<<< Home