We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Remembrance Day Just over 20 minutes from the time I am writing this, a quarter of a mile from my flat, people will line up around the Cenotaph, Whitehall, to commemorate the fallen. Wars involving our servicemen and women are being fought as I write. I leave aside for this post whether we should or not be fighting said wars, let us leave that for another time. There are various charities and organisations that people can support to help those who have suffered from their service as well as support the families left bereaved or in serious hardship.
My old man was a RAF navigator in the 1950s and he has several old squadron buddies who served in combat and could use a bit of help. So this is the charity I’ll be supporting this year: the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
There is no glory in dying in a war. not that I’m saying that the sacrifice of those who have died (or indeed are dying) should not be remembered. I simply want there to be some honesty, instead of the glorious dead we should remember them as the regrettable dead.
I’m sure those that died did not think it glorious at the time (those that had the opportunity to think). Instead of glorifying the horror of war, building some kind of cultish worship of death, we should regret it.
I used to be a pacifist, as you may remember. I have come to the conclusion that war is the politics of last resort, sometimes, when all else has failed, it is necessary. However, it is always regrettable.
So today, instead of painting the sacrifice of those who died to protect our way of life with a sheen of glory and boys-own heroism, regret the fact that the sacrifice had to be made at all, and strive to ensure that it never needs to be made again.
Instead of glorifying the horror of war, building some kind of cultish worship of death, we should regret it.
I was under the impression that that was the point.
Mandrill, your capacity to seize the wrong end of the stick and then impale yourself with it is impressive. The word “glory” did not feature in my post, nor should it. It is always a good idea to read posts first before actually commenting on them.
For what it is worth, I think overthrowing one of the vilest tyrannies in human history – that of Nazi Germany – is one worth honouring, and worth honoring the heroism – yes, that’s the word – of the people who made that possible. War is always a tragedy since it implies that reason has failed. But it is not always the worst thing that can happen: living like serfs can be worse.
There is glory in fighting evil.
Well said, Jacob.
Mandrill,
I have always suspected that a great deal of what you seem to object to in this commeration is essentially for the benefit of the bereaved and wounded. That we find meaning in their sacrifice perhaps makes it easier for them to bear. When we collectively acknowledge that their friend or relative didn’t die horribly for no reason is I am sure of at least some comfort to the widows and orphans.
That we remember in solemn mood their sacrifice on the nearest Sunday to the anniversary of the end of a war, not the start of one should also be noted. Remembrance Day is hardly a jamboree or even a victory parade.
It should also be noted that two out of the only three people ever to be awarded a bar to their Victoria Cross were medics. Google Captain Noel Chavasse and tell me there wasn’t glory in his actions.
The RAFBF is a most worthy cause, Guy. Personally though, it is the non-UK members of our forces I’m supporting this year. They are frequently treated extremely shoddily by UKGov.
My education was always that the ‘glory’ bit comes from sending some other poor mother’s son to meet his, not from trying to achieve it yourself.
I was in Tenby on Remberance Day and went to the service. It was very moving. Especially having a coffee with old men with strings of medals on their chests and them casually telling you the most hair raising stories as to how they got them.
Islam demands respect for its vile creed. Our armed forces have earned theirs for their courage.
My wife works for the Veterans Agency by the way.
Sheesh! the first line should have had a “last year” in it. Sorry folks.
It’s all in the name mandrill, Remembrance Day, remember the people, their achievements and their sacrifice.
I’m sorry, but I think that people who lay down their lives for their country should be honored.
The whole ghastly business of war requires that innocent men die at the behest of politicians, sometimes for good causes, other times for bad.
It’s why I even respect graves and memorials of German soldiers, while I spit on Hitler’s memory, for example.
Remembrance Day is NOT a political event, and any attempt to make it such should be stamped out, firmly.
It is a time when we bow our heads, and remember the fallen. It’s the very least we can do.
Some photos from Edinburgh are here.
The entire Heart of Midlothian team signed up en-masse in 1914.
Inscribed on a Royal Marines memorial at their museum garden in Eastney. Portsmouth.
Whether you agree or disagree with the reasons why they died, or even if they should have had to, they thought it worth their sacrifice, and that should be enough to stir our remembrance.
Mandril has a right to his opinion – and he did not go to the event and mess it up for other people (unlike the person in London who shouted out various things during the two minutes silence).
Our main event in Kettering was in the afternoon. There was no shouting – nothing worse than the leader of one of the political groups on the council turning up without a tie, but with a large grin on his face and refusing to either join the march or go to the Church service afterwards (fair enough he is free to decide to act like this – but it would have been better if he had not turned up at all).
However, I was told that at one of the Kettering Church services in the morning (St. Mary’s) people had shouted out various things during the two minutes silence.
Not political stuff – they were shouting out their support for Satan.
Oh well, I suppose it is less bad out in the open than it would be if they were serving their master in secret.
Any of those veterans who are receiving their British pensions and live in former British Dominions or colonies like Australia, Canada, Zimbabwe etc etc do NOT get those pensions indexed every April 1st like anyone living in the UK, Europe and even the USA. Ask your MP about this and try to find the reason why.
I do not wish to detract from the importance of remembering our war dead but there is no doubt that our commemorations are accompanied by an implied, if not overt, glorification of militarism and war. There are those who are working being the scenes on behalf of peaceful conflict resolution and the prevention of war. If more consideration and respect were given to what such peace negotiators are trying to achieve it may prevent war in the long term. Many of our wars need not have happened – most wars are the result of neglect, exploitation or marginalisation of the vulnerable and poor, leaving their countries ripe for dictators or the nurturing of terrorism. For information on the Peace Pledge Union see http://www.whitepoppy.org.uk
Tell it to the Chamberlin
Cos the Churchill ‘aint listenin !
Anthony your position depends on the cause of war being a matter of a dispute between two or more parties – a dispute that can be settled by talks.
Take the present government of Iran. Not only the President but the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians believe that it is their religious duty to kill enough infidels (all over the world) so that the 12th (or “hidden”) Imam will be impressed with them and lead their version of Shia Islam to world conquest.
What can “peaceful conflict resolution” achieve in this context?
In history there are many examples of real ENEMIES, not just people one is having a dispute with.
I appreciate your sentiments but as Paul Marks pointed out, such negotiations require both sides to compromise. In the case of a country like Iran, for example, where the intention of its leadership is to annihilate another – the state of Israel – there are limits to what this jaw-jaw can achieve.
Not just Israel Johnathan.
This is where the plan of not just President Carter but the conservative Bob “I was born Jewish so I can not be antisemitic” Novak, fails – i.e. the plan to sacrifice Israel in return for peace with the Islamic world.
Both radical Shia (such as the government of Iran) and radical Sunni aim at WORLD conquest – the extermination of the Jews in Israel would not satisfy them.