I have a new guilty pleasure–not sure how much mileage I’ll get out of it, but it’s off to a hell of a start. Behold, Emmett Tyrrell, founder of The American Spectator and appearing as a writer for Townhall. I think I enjoy his particular brand of right wing-authoritarian ranting because it reminds me of Onion founder and columnist Hermann Zweibel*. Beware, if you are a left wing-authoritarian who still believes in the political process, Emmett’s writings will likely fill you with white hot rage or elitist condescension, depending on how your mind responds to a nonsense narrative’s assault on your nonsense narrative.
Reading Thers at Whiskey Fire (h/t for pointing me towards Emmett) is another guilty pleasure of mine. His** party loyalty is bullet proof, which I appreciate because it gives us a modern day example of how pre-literate tribes may have been structured. Beware, if you are a right wing-authoritarian who still believes in the political process, Thers’ writings will likely fill you with white hot rage or elitist condescension, depending on how your mind responds to a nonsense narrative’s assault on your nonsense narrative.
Recently, in an moment of accidental lucidity, Emmett wrote a post in which he compared the united state’s army to the german wehrmacht: “Confronting savages — usually on their own soil — our forces have been professional to the utmost, the Wehrmacht but with democratic values!”
Yes, yes they are. Forgive me for mansplaining the obvious: “savages” and “their soil” is universal propaganda, but that aside the similarities Tyrrell is pointing out are pretty striking. Both packs of psychopaths fought/fight imperial wars of aggression far from “home” (some farther than others, more on that later). Both were highly professional–the profession of the soldier being to kill and destroy life and instruments of prosperity quickly and without remorse. I would take issue that the Wehrmacht demonstrated fewer democratic values. Democratic values enshrine the barbaric principle of “might makes right” into institutional form–the idea being that if the many can demonstrate that they can destroy the few, maybe the few will submit and physical conflict can occasionally be avoided.
So well done, Emmett. I know you didn’t mean to be so spot on, but credit where credit is due. Now stop calling foreigners “savages.” Seriously, the irony is almost too much for me.
Thers isn’t going to let this slight to the imperial army go unchallenged:
See, now, call me a liberal kook, won’t be the first time, but I’d previously been of the opinion that the Wehrmacht was comprised of the most barbarian enemy “savages” we’d ever gone after on their home turf. Or at least in the top two. But besides that, the concept of a “democratic values” Wehrmacht is a bit of a mind-bender. Even before Hitler, the Wehrmacht was inherently anti-democratic, bent on violent conquest, contemptuous of the idea of civilian authority… I suspect that what Tyrell means is that the Wehrmacht was awfully butch, but still, the fucking Wehrmacht? Comparing American troops to the fucking Wehrmacht? As praise? The fuck?
This, folks, is why the military budget of the united states is larger than the rest of the world combined. When some crazy right wing statist accidentally says something true about the military, some crazy left wing statist is going to rush to its defense, attacking right-wing guy’s accidental truth. Thers is even straw-manning Emmett, who stated the Wehrmacht lacked democratic values, to point out the non-conquest oriented, non-contemtuous, pro-democratic values of his fantasy-land u.s. army. He even concedes the use of barbarian to describe foreigners, although he does put quotes around savages–I guess that means he’s a progressive.
The rest of Emmett’s article and Thers’ response can be summed up as stodgy old back-in-my-day mysoginist vs. stodgy old** why-can’t-I-be-dictator state employee. Both entertaining writers–hence my guilty pleasure. Keep writing gents**!
*Here’s an excellent example from Emmett of his Zweibelness:
Often the Super Bowl ads depicted these patheticoes in humiliating states of catastrophe. One promoting a disgusting snack called Doritos — an inescapable insult to Latin cuisine — ended with a loutish young man wearing a dog collar and writhing on the ground, supposedly another exemplary Doritos customer.
** I apologize if Thers is young and/or female. I’ll happily change the gender of the pronouns and/or relabel Thers as a stodgy young why-can’t-I-be-dictator state employee.
One saying the US Army is not as bad as the Wehrmacht is not the same as endorsing US military policy, dumbass.
By what reasoning is the US Army not as bad as the Wehrmacht?
Not sure how that’s a serious question.
The German army rejected the idea of civilian control of the military — it’s a key reason why the Weimar Republic failed. The US military does not reject this principle.
This matters: to wit, under the Third Reich, you could have been shot for having written this post, while under present conditions, all that’s happened is you’ve convinced me that you’re an ass.
If you can look around the entire fucking globe at the stacks of millions of human corpses rung up by the american military–which first exterminated every race of people on most of the north american landmass–and still think it’s not the same as those mean old germans, you’re just a broken propaganda robot that will never see past his cultural upbringing.
But to your absolutely trivial counterpoints:
The Wehrmacht, of which the German army is one part, never once left “civilian control”–please point me to any evidence to the contrary.
The Weimar republic failed because consolidating absolute power is what republican governments with sufficient power do when given the chance–the Nazi party rose to power by elections at least as legitimate as recent american elections. Granted, they had a bit more panache (i.e. street fighting) since the communists were a legitimate opposition party.
The third reich is, of course, not the same thing as the wehrmacht. The military establishment actively opposed the rise of Hitler, but followed his orders– being such fans of civilian control. If I were a “citizen” of the reich, I would have been much more likely incinerated from the air by the amerikanishe luftwaffe than shot for comparing the wehrmacht to the american army.
Holy cats, you’re an odd one.
the american military–which first exterminated every race of people on most of the north american landmass
I applaud your historical sensitivity. Or, WTF?
The Wehrmacht, of which the German army is one part, never once left “civilian control”–please point me to any evidence to the contrary.
I said they rejected the principle of civilian control. But anyway, the history of the German military in the WR would be my evidence.
The Weimar republic failed because consolidating absolute power is what republican governments with sufficient power do when given the chance–the Nazi party rose to power by elections at least as legitimate as recent american elections. Granted, they had a bit more panache (i.e. street fighting) since the communists were a legitimate opposition party.
Were you hit on the head a lot as a kid or something? If not, I regret it.
The WR failed because of a widespread refusal to commit to modern liberal democratic norms.
To wit, while American elections are badly done for a lot of reasons, open thuggery and murder aren’t quite why.
The point is, though, to remind ourselves, that the German military, Wehrmacht or whatever, was not very nice.
Again, I’m sorry your parents dropped you on your head a lot., and I hope you find healing.
Oh, and:
“The military establishment actively opposed the rise of Hitler”
Not exactly. Christ, you are an ignorant one.
Sorry to interrupt, Thers, but as far as Hitler and the military, I seem to recall learning that he was hated and opposed by many of the heads of the Wehrmacht and the Abwehr. The head of the Intelligence Office himself, Hans Oster, was anti-Nazi and helped organize the military resistance, even transmitting details about planned attack targets and dates. It was high-ranking army officers who were executed after their botched assassination attempt in 1944, and that was hardly their first try. (Their trouble was that for every act they took to undermine the campaigns, they knew rank-and-file enlisted would suffer, and this held them back in several instances.)
I needed a refresher on the facts myself, but wikipedia’s handy like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance
Sorry to rob you of your last big point: you’re going to have to go back to ad hominems for this part of the argument.