[Assam] force is effective only as a preventative

[uttam borthakur]

Ram Da,
 
I request you to kindly say something on my earlier post as quoted below. As I shall be away in Nepal interiors for a while, I may not possibly be able to react soon : -
 "
                         We surely do not live in, or off, the US. 
 
But the Jewish Professor, who utters the following words, and quotes Winston Churchill, surely does. So, he ought not (normative) have the "victim mentality” (same use of adjectives such as 'bloody' Brits instead of 'snooty' Brits or the ‘smug’ Americans!).
 
XXXXXXX
 
"Literal censorship barely exists in the United States, but thought control is a flourishing industry, indeed an indispensable one in a free society based on the principle of elite decision, public endorsement or passivity"
 
 
Xxxxxx
 
“ The central device of the system of “brainwashing under freedom,” developed in a most impressive fashion in the country that is perhaps the most free, is to encourage debate over policy issues but within a framework of presuppositions that incorporate the basic doctrines of the party line. The more vigorous the debate the more effectively the presuppositions are instilled, while participants and onlookers are overcome with awe and self-adulation for their courage. Thus in the case of the Vietnam War, the ideological institutions permitted a debate between the ‘hawks’ and “doves”; in fact, the debate was not only permitted, but even encouraged by 1968, when substantial sectors of American business had turned against the war as too costly and harmful to their interest.”
 
xxxxxx
"Mark Heller, deputy director of Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University explains that 'state-sponsored terrorism is low intensity warfare, and its victims, including the United States, are therefore entitled to fight back with every means at their disposal.' It follows, then, that other victims of "low intensity warfare" and "state sponsored terrorism" are "entitled to fight back with every means at their disposal": Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, Palestinians, Lebanese, and innumerable other victims...... through out a good part of the world......... It is true that these consequences follow only if we accept an elementary moral principle: that we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others....... But that principle, and what follows from adopting it, is scarcely comprehensible in the prevailing intellectual culture, and would be hardly be expressible in journals that demand stern punishment of others for their crimes. In
 fact, were anyone to draw the logical consequence of these dicta and express them clearly, they might well be subject to prosecution for inciting terrorist violence against political leaders of the United States and its allies"
 
 
 
xxxxxx
 Per Winston Churchill: " ... we are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty inheritance. We have engrossed to ourselves... an altogether disproportionate share of wealth and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.........
 
...." the government of the world must be entrusted to satisfied nations, who wished nothing more for themselves than what they had. If the world-government were in the hands of hungry nations, there would always be danger. But none of us had any reason to seek anything more. The peace would be kept by peoples who lived their own way and were not ambitious. Our power placed us above the rest. We were like rich men dwelling at peace within their habitation"
 
>From me: AMEN. I can only try to understand the limitations of the ‘intellectual culture’, because I try to follow the humanist maxim that nothing human is alien to me J
Uttam Kumar Borthakur
 


Uttam Kumar Borthakur