Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Motivated?

Feel like I should post. It's been almost two years. Perhaps I owe something, perhaps a truth or two. Perhaps something of myself in exchange for every blogger whose ever blogged before. You know, like how where Jodie Foster exposes her vulnerabilities - except with hopefully less silenced lambs. Bad joke, rotten metaphor, sorry.

So an answer perhaps. You may or may not recognise the question.

"What's in it for you, emigre, this blog-counting?"

It would be untruthful to say no diarist ever started without an ulterior motive. Oh yes I had them. And how pure those motives seemed, virtuous. What, leave blog-linking to the self proclaimed "war bloggers"? Ga no, thought I. Ga no, why, I shall link in the name of peace and free-speech! Fight I shall! Neutrally! Courageously! Without weapons! With words! Oh cutting blade, how righteous the pen (yes, I still ballpoint stuff at times. Generally on the backs of old receipts and recycled printer paper). What a battle shall be waged! And how fearless shall I be, speaking truths and outing blogs and inspiring and egging on and logging the unloggable and generally you know, being brave from here behind my pseudonym requiping things that other people think up (always acknowledging sources and cleverly collaging quotes). An all inclusive list of blogs! Thought I. Oh how compelling, that there ought be a blog count. A blog count of diversity! The pro-war linked by no-war (and hopefully vice versa). Surely peace cannot help but spring out across the bridges that surely will be engineered!

But now? Well now I have nothing to prove. Peace cannot be proven, just as war cannot. It's blindingly obvious to anyone with an eye on history that no war is ever just, in that no war is exempt from atrocity. Blindingly obvious that dictators and weak leaders prop themselves up with war, having no other means to convince a population. Despots choose rule by fear, there is no secret in that. And it is equally obvious that people find peace at their own pace. Peace cannot be forced, coerced, artificially replicated or converted into poster boys and pin-up girls. Peace is no rivulet wearing away stone, tempting as it is to believe so. Nor is peace chipped off shoulders or even from old blocks. Peace is not an acronym. So many things peace is not! Is peace an absence then? Of troops perhaps? Well maybe, except that even troop withdrawal is a superficial solution and fails to address the creation of armies and the bodies that will remain long after official forces have shipped out.

Oh well. There you have it, a piece of my mind. I guess I will stick about anyway.

17 Comments

#11/01/2005 09:53:00 pm Assalam Aleikom Blogger richsanter

what a nice little speech emigre. someone that hasn't read your posts might actually have believed that you are neutral and a peace activist.

 
#11/02/2005 12:09:00 am Assalam Aleikom Blogger Moron99

Em,

Everyone wants peace. But it must be on their terms.

Such is the cause of war.

 
#11/02/2005 02:25:00 am Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Anonymous

To commenter 09:53, she is a peace activist you rube (assuming you have reclaimed "rube" and proudly bear ignorance to the point of contrivance).

Nice try moron99 except that every religion has philosophy written into it's core and through this many people of many beliefs have charted common understandings and exchanged words in peace. Peace is a universal language.

 
#11/02/2005 05:04:00 am Assalam Aleikom Blogger Moron99

anonymous, it has nothing to do with religion. For that matter it has nothing to do with any specific culture or time period. Everybody wants peace. The reason wars start is because two or more groups of people are unwilling to accept peace except on their own terms. When the terms are mutually exclusive then a war starts.

 
#11/02/2005 07:21:00 am Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Anonymous

Moron99, the religious co-existance of many faiths in one place is an example of peace understood universally.

You propose wars begin when two groups cannot agree on terms, a scenario that has more to do with possessions (tangible owned goods) then with peace (a shared concept). Material assets are frequently dressed in ideological outer garments during war, so it's hardly surprising when certain parties with vested interests begin passing off war as peace.

Peace cannot by it's nature cause war, although many a dear leader will try to convince civilians that peace can be won and "protected" with arms.

 
#11/02/2005 09:24:00 am Assalam Aleikom Blogger richsanter

anon, don't be such a hateful piece of trash. allow people to voice their opinions without your disgusting insults for once.

 
#11/02/2005 03:34:00 pm Assalam Aleikom Blogger Moron99

anonumous,

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Your words seemed very forced and contrived and your example seems very shallow ... so I assume that I am failing to understand your meaning.

Let me draw a few over-simplified, over-stereotyped, and incorrect examples that nonetheless serve their purpose. Hitler wanted peace but his terms were that Germany should rule central Europe and all Jews be removed from german society. The crusaders and conquistadors wanted peace but their terms were that everyone convert to christianity. The americans wanted peace but their terms were that land ownership was legally binding (the american indians did not own land). The Palestinians want peace but their terms are that Israel ceases to exist. The Israelis want peace but their terms are that they keep seized lands. Bush wants peace but his terms are that there will not be another dictator or a system of governance condisive to one. AlZarq wants peace but his terms are that there will be an appointed leader who forcibly enacts sharia according to sunni/wahabi interpretations. Sistani wants peace but his terms are that it shall come by the ballot box and not by the koran or an autocracy. etc. etc. etc.

don't pick at the details. these are just the stereotypes. the point is that "terms for peace" can be anything. the broader point is that everyone wants peace. To say that you want peace as an individual means nothing. Saying that you are willing to negotiate terms and search for compromise means everything. Wars start when two groups aren't willing to the compromises required for peace.

 
#11/02/2005 09:53:00 pm Assalam Aleikom Blogger madtom

"What, leave blog-linking to the self proclaimed "war bloggers"?"

Like your not a "war blogger", or at least this blog is not a war blog? I remember clearly seeing footage and audio of the "war" right here way before I ever started blogging.
Peace blog my ass. Maybe dictator blogging, but peace.

 
#11/03/2005 01:58:00 am Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Interloper

I would guess, moron99, that you are right in assuming you have misunderstood something and I would suggest that perhaps what you have misunderstood is the meaning of peace itself. In all your examples you claim that all these people wanted peace, and yet from your examples it seems clear your types (stereo) have no peace in mind at all but rather the protection of their interests from other parties.

It is most unfortunate, agreed, how forced and shallow all these commenters read after reading emigre.

 
#11/03/2005 05:53:00 am Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Marcel Sane

We shan't be relying on your memory then madtom, because a thorough search of the archives reveals no audio war footage has ever been published on this blog. Lyrics yes, links yes, and even in recent months an occasional mp3 theme tune. But audio footage of war no. I'm not even sure actually that any of the blogs linked here have published more than a handful of audio links between them. Emigre doesn't cut it as a war blogger and never will, she is far too busy stopping to peer into the gloom and listen to her spooks. She only manages to recreate links to other people's articles and is so plagued by dalliance and fantasy that her idealistic entreaties could never be considered factually. I doubt she ever validates her sources. While every other blogger is reality based Emigre's reality is utterly base-less.

 
#11/03/2005 05:58:00 am Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Marcel Sane

Bt interloper, Anon, Francisco, Jeffreyinawig, whoever you are, stop faking it.

And one more thing moron99 it's not very nice picking on other people's stilted style because for all you know Anon 07:21 has three kids, dinner to prepare and a home business to run and probably doesn't spend as much time as you do channeling your inner bull stream. It's not Anon 07:21's fault if he or she can't communicate as eloquently as the communist elite who spend every waking moment dined on hand and foot while agitating, just as it's not anyone else's fault for being born disabled by the crippling and self-centered belief that everyone thinks him ugly or her stupid or that zion is an asset not a dream. In fact if you ask me that's where America went all wrong, when it got its assets confused with its dream. Just like you have moron99, getting your peace all mixed up with war and ownership but I won't be blaming you for that as you have admitted to moronity already even if you are a marxist and even if you do hate god.

 
#11/03/2005 07:09:00 am Assalam Aleikom Blogger Moron99

Marcel Sane,

peace is, at its most basic, the lack of fighting. A better peace is mutual trust. An even better peace is mutual assistance.

In the mideast, not even the lack of fighting has been achieved in centuries. So what is the point of longing for utopian peace without addressing the requirements of basic peace? The requirement for basic peace is tolerance. Cross that bridge first. Until you cross it all other forms of peace are a mirage.

 
#11/03/2005 07:48:00 am Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Anonymous

Do you mean to say, it has taken a whole day or more, one madman and at least 4 comments, moron99, to work your way to that conclusion?

I would add that tolerance is reached sooner when peoples bellies are full and everyone has a room of his own.

 
#11/03/2005 09:01:00 am Assalam Aleikom Blogger Moron99

anon,

that was pretty much one of the two original points. sometimes I guess it doesn't pay to say the obvious and assume that people will do the thinking to apply it to current events.

 
#11/03/2005 04:08:00 pm Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Marcel Sane

Lucky there are so many different ideas about peace. Let me see, so far on this thread,

1. Tolerance
2. Tolerance
3. Tolerance
4. An end to all poverty.

Wow. Quite a list. And a good thing too, otherwise some of us might be half bored to tears from lack of diversity. Downside though, I can see your point moron99, there could be quite a bit of confusion around this rather complex menu.

 
#11/03/2005 04:12:00 pm Assalam Aleikom Anonymous Pru Detente

O sacred Friendship, who in urgent flight
And leaving here on earth your guileful ghost
Exultant soared to that empyrean height
To dwell in glory with the heavenly host
From there to show us, when you think it best
Behind a veil that peace for which we long

A veil that other times betrays a zest
For doing good, which then does vicious wrong:
Come back from heaven, Friendship:
don’t agree
To the destruction of sincere intent
When fraudulence parades your livery;
For if his base charade has your consent
Grim-visaged war will win the world again
And dark primeval anarchy will reign.

- Quadineo

 
#11/06/2005 07:20:00 am Assalam Aleikom Blogger madtom

I'm afraid you just haven't been reading here long enough, but they are there, images of planes dropping bombs and the sound file of the pilots reacting to the kill. Ask Emigre, I'm sure she could help you find the post.
You'll also find my comments there too.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

Site
Meter