From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 03:03:49 MDT
Firstly, I regret sending the earlier e-mail whilst it was incomplete. I
meant to say thank you and well done to all the team who brought out The
Ideohazard. Well done folks, an excellent read, all of it.
Now on to my comments about Hermit's future history piece and the
response...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 14 September 2003 19:21
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
[Hermit 1] Unfortunately for the validity of Jonathan Davis' attempted
criticisms, the premis were accurate and recognizable. That's what made the
article's Chinese response seem "reasonable", the piece spooky, and the
consequences, "plausible".
[Jonathan 2] The piece was very interesting. Some of it is very plausible.
Unfortunately, in with the good stuff is partisan, anti-American blight.
[Hermit 1] Some International treaties that the Bush administration has
withdrawn from, violated or abandonded:
[Jonathan 2] Yes, the USA, like others has withdrawn from treaties. A treaty
is simply an agreement. There is nothing wrong with ending a treaty.
SNIP
[Hermit 1] I could continue, but then, so could anyone who cared to
investigate for themselves.
[Hermit 1] Jonathan Davis should read the National Security Strategy
(www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf). This document purports to address the "new
realities" of our age, particularly the "proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction" and "terrorist networks armed with the agendas of fanatics".
The NSS claims that these new threats are so novel and so dangerous that we
should "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of
self-defense by acting preemptively." This document makes it clear that a
threat need not necessarily be military, to draw an attack by the US, but
instead blatantly states that the US reserves the right to preemptively or
preventively attack any nation which threatens "the preeminence" of the US.
This statement, according to military analysts, including Janes and the FAS
is largely responsible for the current buildup of Chinese military
expenditure.
[Jonathan 2] I completely agree with the USA's right of self-defence by
acting pre-emptively. I think it is bunk to suggest the Chinese military
build-up, which has been going on for 40 years, is caused by an US document.
[Hermit 1] The US has previously acted against its citizens of Eastern
origin, most notoriously during WW II, but the degree of repression levied
against Orientals has been second only to that deployed against native
Indians.
[Jonathan 2] Japanese citizens were interned, not massacred. We are talking
about Americans here, not the Japanese. We do not know what would have
happened had there been an American minority in Japan, we do however know
what the Japanese did to 'enemy' non-combatants in Burma ("Get your marching
boots on girls") and need I remind you of Nanking and Manila?
[Hermit 1] The trouble with owning weapon systems, no matter how
terrifying, is that there is always a temptation to justify their use. For
example, the US planned to respond to a potential USSR invasion of Europe in
1998 by turning Western Europe into a nuclear, biological and chemical
holocaust (public disclosure of stolen NATO documents by numerous news
outlets in 1969).
[Jonathan 2] This is yet more bunk. The plan was to confine the fighting to
a "zone" in Eastern West Germany where tactical nuclear weapons could be
used to neutralize Warsaw Pact numerical superiority.
[Hermit 1] As another example, it is well known that the US has draconian
plans to counter internal civil unnrest or the consequences of biocides
whether due to biological warfare or other causes. Less well known outside
defense circles, is that exercises modelling such responses usually include
nuclear options.
[Jonathan 2] Britain has plans contain biowar victims too. That the US
scenario builders have modelled a scenario where a nuclear weapon is used to
destroy an infection site does not mean the US government are actively
planning to nuclear bomb its own people.
[Hermit 1] I note that the Chinese prediliction to self-destruct was raised
by me in private discussion with Jonathan Davis and is a separate issue and
not germane to those explored in this "future history."
[Jonathan 2] My comments were an incidental afterthought and not presented
in the context of your "future history".
[Hermit 1] As a final rejoinder, Jonathan Davis' ability to detect
"unconcealed approval" of genocide (irrespective of source or target) or
"overt anti-Americanism" and "pathological hatred of America" speaks poorly
of his ability to differenciate between fiction and reality.
[Jonathan 2] I noted that you wrote with "unconcealed approval of a
situation". This was simply my impression. The voice of your piece was all
of the above, whether that was you or a fictional Chinese future historian,
I don't know.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 03:04:29 MDT