Don't know why, as I'm not crazy about Tom Cruise but I really hope Valkyrie succeeds.
He seems to have tried to rehabilitate himself and the type of driven character which was von Stauffenberg, the plotter to kill Hitler, is also present in Cruise. So to the story of those days.
Many saw von Stauffenberg's purpose as self preservation and for that of the nobility, which was more than likely a factor after Rohm; however, after Major Kuhn:
The plot was not carried out terribly well. For a start, von Stauffenberg had too much responsibility, both to arm the bomb and then call the forces to support the coup. He did not arm the second bomb at the meeting place, his three fingers barely equal to the task, the first bomb was moved under the most solid part of the room - a thick oak table and then he proceeded as if he'd succeeded, without confirmation.
They didn't seem to have a good exit plan either.
The most enduring theme to come from this was the eternal question of when a patriot can officially commit high treason and kill a legitimate head of state [in terms of process, if not moral right]. This was the theme of V for Vendetta and is an appropriate question for discussion within a Britain now under severe duress from Gordon Brown's Nu-Labour who have inexorably tightened the screws on the society ever since Nu-Labour came to power.
At what point is it legitimate for a patriot to set in train a series of events which would remove the decimator of the society? Also, is the head of state actually the main culprit? He may be just a pawn. Maybe the EU itself should be the target. That both are morally bankrupt and have done great damage to the society is beyond doubt in the minds of the majority of pundits.
The same thing could be said about non-President Obama. At what point would removing him be a legitimate act in defence of the peoples of the United States?
One remaining question is at what point someone would have the nerve to be labelled "insurgent", "terrorist" and be set upon by the very forces which he/she would consider it was being done for. Who would appreciate the action?
Would it not be better for the Ragnarök to just take its course?
Longrider gives an answer here.
He seems to have tried to rehabilitate himself and the type of driven character which was von Stauffenberg, the plotter to kill Hitler, is also present in Cruise. So to the story of those days.
Bishop Preysing of Berlin from 1935 on and close friend and associate of Bettinger, saw as others after the Nazis assasinated Rohm, one of their own, that the Nature of the Reich was inherently vile, and changing for the worse. He was an outspoken voice against the true nature of the Nazis, warning Catholics that they were not the conservative negotiators of the 1933 concordat. Preysing was also the Bishop to whom von Stauffenberg and others pleaded to intercede with the Vatican , asking questions regarding the ethics of killing a tyrant. Reports Catholic Herald:
Von Stauffenberg reportedly met with Cardinal Count Preysing of Berlin to discuss this matter, and his eminence honored the motives and offered no theological objection to restrain him. In so doing, Cardinal Preysing placed his own life in jeopardy with the Gestapo, but was never implicated in the plot.
Many saw von Stauffenberg's purpose as self preservation and for that of the nobility, which was more than likely a factor after Rohm; however, after Major Kuhn:
... became a POW of the Soviets after the 20 July plot, he led the Soviets to the hiding place of the documents in February 1945. In 1989, Gorbachev presented these documents to then-German chancellor Dr. Helmut Kohl. These documents, produced by Stauffenberg and his fellow officers in 1943 in Berlin, evince the idealistic motivation of the resistance group.
The plot was not carried out terribly well. For a start, von Stauffenberg had too much responsibility, both to arm the bomb and then call the forces to support the coup. He did not arm the second bomb at the meeting place, his three fingers barely equal to the task, the first bomb was moved under the most solid part of the room - a thick oak table and then he proceeded as if he'd succeeded, without confirmation.
They didn't seem to have a good exit plan either.
The most enduring theme to come from this was the eternal question of when a patriot can officially commit high treason and kill a legitimate head of state [in terms of process, if not moral right]. This was the theme of V for Vendetta and is an appropriate question for discussion within a Britain now under severe duress from Gordon Brown's Nu-Labour who have inexorably tightened the screws on the society ever since Nu-Labour came to power.
At what point is it legitimate for a patriot to set in train a series of events which would remove the decimator of the society? Also, is the head of state actually the main culprit? He may be just a pawn. Maybe the EU itself should be the target. That both are morally bankrupt and have done great damage to the society is beyond doubt in the minds of the majority of pundits.
The same thing could be said about non-President Obama. At what point would removing him be a legitimate act in defence of the peoples of the United States?
One remaining question is at what point someone would have the nerve to be labelled "insurgent", "terrorist" and be set upon by the very forces which he/she would consider it was being done for. Who would appreciate the action?
Would it not be better for the Ragnarök to just take its course?
Longrider gives an answer here.
We'll see after the next election I'd say.
ReplyDeleteAlthough our leadership is legitimately elected, it has exceeded the proper powers of the state, particularly as it has made fundamental changes despite being elected by about only 20% of electors (36% of those who actually voted). I don't think any patriot who decided to kill them would be justified though. Our problem is not with the leaders but with their clients; the state employees and the economically inactive who now (together) exceed thirty million. They would ensure that if you killed this mob, you would get one just as bad. As witness the appalling performance of HM Opposition, which knows that if it attacked the root of the problem, it would render itself unelectable. I fear that Britain must go all the way down now - to total social and economic collapse - before it can be rebuilt. It might even be worth voting Labour to accelerate that process of creative destruction. Except that wouldn't work either. The IMF will send in the brokers' men when the national credit runs out and the poor Tories will be brought in as the "nasty party" to implement the necessary readjustment of national expenditure to national income. Once they do that, the farmed voters will put Labour back in and the decline will resume. This agony could take as long as the collapse of the Soviet Union. I fear few alive today will live to see the end.
ReplyDelete"At what point is it legitimate for a patriot to set in train a series of events which would remove the decimator of the society?"
ReplyDeleteI think it would partly depend on the society itself. To whom do the people owe their allegiance? If the subjects owe allegiance to the ruler, than it may never be legitimate. Here in the US, officials and military officers do not swear allegiance to the government or its leaders; they give their oath to defend the US Constitution. If a government official or a military officer goes against the constitution, they are acting illegally and can be acted against.
Rob - yes but I think it is more like Tom's take here.
ReplyDelete"They would ensure that if you killed this mob, you would get one just as bad."
Therein lies the problem. As you say, the problem is the system that is in place and the people at lower echelons who are running it.
It spawns these sorts of people. [Runs fingers through non-existent hair] ... solution is vexing.
Bob, your comment came as I was writing the other.
ReplyDeleteYes - the allegiance to the constitution - that makes it easier. A bit.
Obama ain't Hitler James- and comparing the two is a bit silly- when has he murdered 6 million of his fellow citizens in gas camps or promised to, has he invaded the whole of Europe or promised to, suspended elections or promised to, overwritten the rule of law or promised to or done anything particularly like Hitler?
ReplyDeleteHitler is in a fairly special classification of evil- along with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot- he murdered millions of innocent people for fact they were Jewish, cosmopolitan, homosexual or gipsy. That's an evil I don't think Obama will come close to- whatever you think of his policies.
On the main point- I doubt its legitimate in most cases to go and execute a head of state if they are democratic and you disagree with them. I'd say you have a better case if they are undemocratic. Also you have a better case if they are attempting a crime against humanity- like genocide. There is a lot of good political theory on this- Locke, the author of the vindiciae contra tyrannos and plenty of others write at length about it and are worth reading.
Indeed he is not because he is not the nutter Hitler was. Yet. But he has clearly made deals and he is clearly inelgible [otherwise he would have cleared up the matter tranparently] plus he has already been dishonest over the Chicago affair.
ReplyDeleteWe're looking more here at a corrupt globalist who will sell America down the drain. There is definitely an SPPNA going on in a fragmented form, so it can't be sheeted home.
Time will tell on this but the socialistic solution to the problem of the meltdown will most likely follow the British pattern and Obama is the one to do it.
Even a comparison to Blair only holds to a point because Blair is a weak man and Obama is not although he's already been taking the path of least resistance a few times.
That's most likely just to get elected though.