Who is Responsible?

Our Israeli correspondent MC sends this essay on personal integrity vs. collective rights, and the larger questions raised by these issues in the ongoing battles of the Culture Wars.

Who is Responsible?
by MC

The ISIS infiltration of Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Sinai is significant. It means that the people there want more Islam, not less. More violence, and even more gruesome epics that tell the world that Muslims are macho.

We must therefore understand what incites males to the butchery of their fellow beings. It is something that is there in all of us, and we have seen it erupting wherever and whenever Judeo-Christianity is under pressure.

The Inquisition was one such event, as were the politico-religious purges of the 18th and 20th centuries.

At the basis of the Judeo-Christian civilization is the personal discipline of the Ten Commandments and their Christian extension to “love thy neighbour as thyself”. Where this policy is implemented, however inconsistently, then society ‘improves’ and civilization gains. However, where group-think takes over, and the burden of love is lifted from the individual, then ‘us vs. them’ becomes dominant.

When we remove from the individual the need be accountable for his/her actions, and where we immerse the individuality in a group, then the group seems to resort to its animal side very quickly.

When Jews were massacred in the 1920 Jerusalem riots incited by Haj Amin Al Husseini (and his British controllers) the cry went up: “The government is with us; kill the Jews!”

What was important here is that individual accountability was suspended, and, in this case, the (British) government was deemed to be responsible. The subsequent meting out of ‘justice’ only confirmed the situation. Jabotinsky got fifteen years for defending Jews (later commuted to 1 year after questions in the House), and the Arab who dashed a child’s head against the wall in front of (Jewish) witnesses had his case dismissed through lack of evidence. Haj Amin was arrested and bailed; he fled to Syria:

“It was asserted soon after, by Chaim Weizmann and British army Lieutenant Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, that Haj Amin al-Husseini had been put up to inciting the riot by British Field-marshal Allenby’s Chief of Staff, Colonel Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor, to demonstrate to the world that Arabs would not tolerate a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The assertion was never proven, and Meinertzhagen was dismissed.

The Zionist Commission noted that before the riots Arab milkmen started to demand their customers in Meah Shearim pay them on the spot, explaining that they would no longer be serving the Jewish neighbourhood. Christian storekeepers had marked their shops in advance with the sign of the cross so that they would not be mistakenly looted. A previous commission report also accused Storrs of inciting the Arabs, blaming him for sabotaging attempts to purchase the Western Wall as well. A petition circulated among American citizens and presented to their consul protested that the British had prevented Jews from defending themselves.”

The British Foreign and Colonial Office (the UK equivalent of the State Department) was rabidly pro-Arab and anti-Balfour Declaration. These riots were timed to precede the San Remo conference which the FCO and the British Military wanted to derail. So the ends justified the means.

Islam has always been used as a blunt instrument by whoever holds the upper hand politically or economically. Its very nature rails against individual responsibility and thus renders the ‘Muslim man’ uniquely manipulable where brutality and mob violence are concerned. It is not that events of mass murder are uncommon, but in most cases they are kept low profile so that the common people are unaware. Sometimes these things become public, and a human sacrifice is necessary (see My Lai and Lt. Calley). Somehow blame descends on the most junior and therefore the most vulnerable. Whilst Calley was involved in the murders, he was not alone, and, it would appear ‘he was only obeying orders’, an excuse which, it is assumed, subsumes personal responsibility.

In a Judeo-Christian society, personal integrity is important. It is a responsibility that is not shared. As a child, I was not allowed to play with the boy at the corner of the street because he had ‘been in court’ and was therefore not ‘nice’. I did play with him; he was fun and inventive, but I understood that if I was caught, it was my responsibility.

Islam values honour which is a different thing. Integrity is what I believe about myself; honour is what other people believe about me.

I ask myself: Why I am disgusted with the LBGT movement? The answer is that what consenting adults do in private, gay or straight, is their own business, not mine. However, when anybody chooses to thrust their sexual proclivities in my face, then I find it offensive. The LBGT movement is very happy to cause this offense, but does not like to be offended itself. This is normally just called hypocrisy, but when protected by so called ‘hate speech laws’ it becomes much more sinister.

Those who lack personal integrity tend to also be overly sensitive. It brings to mind the old saying “those who matter don’t mind, and those who mind don’t matter.” The problem comes when the picture is distorted by legislated ‘love’. I am forced to ‘not hate’ (i.e. love) those whose behaviour I abhor.

I think it is also in my DNA to dislike those who are offensive to me, but how come they can get away with their DNA driven activities, while I cannot? White lives don’t matter, and white male Judeo-Christian heterosexual proclivities certainly don’t matter.

Why? The simple answer is: Because Karl Marx and Edward Said said so. Between them, they have attempted to redefine right and wrong, good and evil. Eden is where God defines good and evil. When man redefines good and evil, he must be cast outside into the chaos.

These two men condemned everything that I am, or aspire to be. They each arbitrarily took my birthright and shredded it. My grandfather was a coalminer from his early teens. He helped build the infrastructure that provided his children and grandchildren with a better education and a better future. By his dirty, unpleasant labour he invested his life in their betterment.

Then along came a covey of well-heeled pseudo-intellectuals who decided that his investment was out of place because it was an investment in ‘white supremacy’ and was thus, in their opinion, invalid. So they stole it from him — my meagre inheritance — to give to some other ‘oppressed’ group whom they believed deserved it more. All in the name of ‘equality’, of course.

Judeo-Christianity establishes my absolute right to inherit from my grandfather, but for a socialist, ‘property is theft’. Thus the fruits of my grandfather’s labours belong to everyone, as do those fruits of my own labours. And, worse still, under socialism, ‘everyone’ does not mean ‘everyone’, it means only their ‘favoured races’ in the struggle for life.

Edward Said also ignored history, and his own Christianity, and accused the ‘white man’ of cultural imperialism. The implication being that all cultures are equally valid and that Judeo-Christianity was just one of those many, but was also uniquely guilty of inflicting itself on the world as ‘better’ than the others. Those same well-heeled pseudo-intellectuals believed him. And why shouldn’t they? He was one of them: private school, Princeton, silver spoon, etc. To him, the likes of my grandfather never even existed.

The world expects the Greek people to pay the debts of those same well-heeled pseudo-intellectuals who made the decisions to borrow and to lend (and maybe skim a bit off for themselves). So the game is exposed, from the peasants according to income, to the elite according to influence. The banksters made some bad calls — are they expected to take responsibility for their actions? Oh, no! They are above all that.

Removing Judeo-Christianity was supposed to result in a fairer and more just society, a society where ‘reason’ reigns supreme. However, it is my observation that it has created a society where Chaos is more apparent. It is difficult to assess just what went on here: Was the equality and social justice a propaganda slogan for the useful idiots who bought the message? Or was the chaos always the intention?

Socialism, the current iteration of the age-old and ubiquitous feudal system, has seen many cycles of failure. It survives because its zealots always think that this time it will be better, and each time it gets worse. There is still time to begin to purge our societies of the bought traitors and the vile criminals, but they will not go peacefully.

After all, that is why they want to disarm you!

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

11 thoughts on “Who is Responsible?

  1. The key to the political utility of Marxism and its modern incarnation as neo-Marxism is that it is functionally an enabler of the age old divide-and-conquer strategy. The “neighbor” in “love thy neighbor” is replaced with the “enemy class” and the “love” is replaced with “fight”. Therefore, the programming becomes “fight the enemy class”.

    This is absolutely great from a political utility perspective.

    Similarly, in Islam “fight the unbeliever … Until they feel themselves subdued” serves the same purpose. The “enemy class” is “the unbeliever” and love is replaced with “fight” and “subdue”. This makes it easy for Marxists to exploit because it’s exactly the same class warfare mentality, the enemy class is just hard coded to “unbeliever” instead of something else.

  2. Woeful ignorance of the Inquisition, with no countervailing references to the really bloody Star Chamber expresses a bigotry undermining the validity of this fine article.

  3. The British Foreign and Colonial Office (the UK equivalent of the State Department) was rabidly pro-Arab and anti-Balfour Declaration
    Nothing has changed. Institutional memory lives on!!

  4. >> Whilst Calley was involved in the murders, he was not alone, and, it would appear ‘he was only obeying orders’, an excuse which, it is assumed, subsumes personal responsibility. <<

    According to the Wikipedia account, LT Calley claimed he was following the orders of his company commander, CPT Medina. Medina, however, was acquitted of all charges so for me that is where that version of events went to die. I am unaware of any successful attempt to prove that Calley followed orders. I have not studied that incident but my view is that Calley lost control of his men. Maybe "group-think" was part of that. To what extent they may have been enraged by casualties they saw as having been caused by hostile civilians I don't recall. If they indeed were, that may have some bearing on that issue though that would not excuse them, of course. Anita Dunn would no doubt interject here that a revolution is not an invitation to a tea party.

    There was ample evidence of an attempt to cover up the killings.

    I and my fellow soldiers in 1969-70 were aware of the split in Vietnamese society but none of us had any unreasoning hatred of Vietnamese in the countryside or elsewhere. True, it was irritating to be given the one-finger salute by regular Vietnamese troops riding in an American deuce and a half, wearing American-supplied uniforms, and carrying M-16s. Which incident must be balanced with the story that one of my unit's interpreters threw himself in front of an American during an ambush during Tet and took a bullet in the stomach for his trouble. We knew stuff like this and didn't get our version of the war from either Stars and Stripes or the Washington Post (spit). There was never, ever any unspoken understanding that the command structure encouraged or tolerated war crimes.

    A more interesting inquiry would be who was the NVA commander who ordered the execution of 2,800-6,000 civilians and POWs while they occupied Hue in 1968. The death toll at My Lai was 347-504. This point is not a criticism of what you wrote but is to raise the peripheral point of how differently communist atrocities were reported in our press and how little attention the press paid to issues of personal responsibility on the part of the enemy.

    I heartily endorse your point that the removal of Judeo-Christianity “created a society where Chaos is more apparent.” It is a chaos where the most absurd lies are propagated, funded, and defended by moral lepers and idiots, and the most precious parts of our Western civilization are casually discarded or surrendered, including our very homelands themselves.

  5. Thank-you for this input, I was a Lieutenant myself at the time, but in the Royal Navy, we watched My Lai unfold with absolute horror at the time, not from loss of control aspect, but the way the consequences were dealt with.

    We had all realized that something like this could happen to any of us. The heat and excitement of the moment, and vague orders can very easily get one into trouble. Calley was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and to me, it feels as if he were scapegoated, but the massacre happened just the same, and far too close to home.

    Ho Che Min massacred many villages in the name of the gods of communism, although it is never reported, and there was no dissent in North Vietnam because there were no dissenters left alive.

    • My pleasure.

      I just remembered a TV documentary where the film crew followed a US infantry unit around. The company commander gave the order to proceed down a road but an NCO just flat defied him. He appeared to think that there was a high chance of ambush along that route. All on camera. It was horribly embarrassing to the officer.

      People back at home don’t realize how many discipline problems there were then. There is an excellent documentary series “Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War,” written by Peter Arnett. The episode that dealt with the period when I was there (c. 1969) was just superb. It captured exactly those problems, including the discipline problems and resentments of the black troops. Again, I don’t know what Calley’s unit was like but it was not rare for leaders to have to deal with such problems, which included widespread drug use, black troops on point carrying a transistor radio, and numerous officers being fragged back in base camp. I hope that Calley’s lenient treatment was because of an unacknowledged appreciation of how it really was, but that is just speculation.

      An OCS comrade of mine was in the outdoor latrine one day and heard the “ping” of the spoon coming off a grenade. He was able to dive out the door and saved himself from the grenade being rolled under the back opening. It was some troop who’d jumped off a chopper into a rice paddy after it just cleared the wire while on the way to a field assignment. He’d been captured many months later and was awaiting a similar assignment.

      The Army decision to go with a volunteer force was the direct result of those problems and it was the right way to go.

      It was right for us to apply our own standards but you’re correct about the scale of communist atrocities. The much-criticized Phoenix program was but an employment of VC tactics on the VC themselves. So cry me a river.

  6. “Islam values honour which is a different thing. Integrity is what I believe about myself; honour is what other people believe about me.”

    Interesting view. I suppose it comes from the honour/shame vs. guilt/innocence differences of Eastern and Western culture (oops, nearly used ‘civilisation’ but that can’t be applied to Islam). In my context & experience I tend to consider the two synonymous. God will decide on them finally. There’s a happy thought.

    • I perhaps should have phrased it “honour is what I believe other people believe about me.”

  7. Thanks MC. Great history.
    How can we change humanity and make it healthy again? I hope we don’t have to kill so many as we did in the 20th century. Maybe we can do it the way we got rid of smoking: constant argumentation, criticism, reasoning. This would require first that political correctness be ignored and that freedom of speech take off like a white hot nova, flooding the land with light. This actually is something that each of us–each one seven billionth of humanity–could incrementally and infinitesimally accomplish.

    • Yes. And each of us has to be willing to endure the consequences: social ostracism, loss of employment, harassment by government agencies, and (in Europe at least) arrest, prosecution, fines and/or imprisonment.

Comments are closed.