Sun Tzu on the Art of War: Attack by Stratagem Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. [22] (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. [23] (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. [24] Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. [25] If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle
What about the old warfare between two tribes. One wins, the other's men are killed or enslaved, the woman are married off to the men of the winning tribe, the children are raised as part of the new tribe?
I don't think that would qualify in most cases because generally with hunter/gatherers these tend to fall under the same ethnic group. This also wouldn't be a good fit since genocide is about elimination, not subjugation. The entire populace would be killed instead of 'just' of males over a certain age.
Let's not forget Hannibal wiped out 86,000 Roman troops at Cannae, every last soldier was surrounded and butchered to the last man, the stretch of land they died on was a putrid sea of corpses for over a year afterwards, it was one of the greatest military victories in history and almost the ruin of Rome. No wonder the Romans were pissed when they finally got to Carthage! Still....
In the Gallic wars, Caesar did genocide various tribes along the Rhine. One tribe he was proud of destroying was the Ebruones, a northern Rhine tribe. Caesar also genocided the entire northern Italy flatland which was inhabited by the Gaul tribes.... If he read Caesar's Gallic wars, he'd know this. It was more than just pacification, was considered good and noble to wipe out the undistinguished races, to make way for what is to be a more civilized Earth.
The Old Testament also tells us that the Canaanites were child-sacrificing worshippers of Baal, also known as Be'elzebub. But i understand, from a cultural relativist's perspective, that culture has as much value and right to exist as one that worships the creator, deems humans to be made in his image, and forbids sacrificing children to idols.
@Jerriel O Miller I would take ANYTHING the bible says with a pinch of salt. The bible is not just a religious book. It is a propaganda book. As the old saying goes, history is written by victors. Whoever wrote the old testament. they meant to portray the enemies of the Ancient Israel as degenerate, idolatrous, blood-thirsty people, deserving of death.
By the definition of Dr Naimark, what happened in the book of Joshua, with regards to the conquest of Jericho and Canaan is NOT genocide. He says genocide is about there being nothing that the affected people can do about saving themselves from the attackers. So consider Rahab, who was spared for helping the two spies. She and her entire family were not killed. Rahab ended up in the lineage of Jesus Christ to boot. The Gibeonites were also another case. They found a way to obtain a covenant of peace with Israel, and God held Israel to account on it, and punished Israel later for trying to renege on that covenant with the Gibeonites when during the reign of Saul, he tried to have them exterminated contrary to the pact that Joshua entered into with them. The case cited of Saul and the Amalekites is not fully contextualised. The Amalekites were incorrigible enemies of Israel. Even the existence of one of them threatened the whole nation of Israel. God knew that. Hence His adamant refusal to accommodate their existence and His severe treatment of king Saul when he spared Agag. Later in history, Haman, an Agagite came close to wiping out the Jews in Persia as told in the story of Esther. God knew and knows the hearts of men. Hence His strict commands for the elimination of those who totally refused to change despite His patient waiting for them to turn. This is what happened with the Canaanites. He gave them about 430 years to repent, according to what He said to Abraham. The conquest of Canaan happened because the Canaanites became utterly and irredeemably corrupt.
Genocide is not the worst kind of crime. Worse is the systematic killing of your own children, and that is why the Caananites had to be completely wiped out. To build a great house, they would first bury their own newborn in the foundations. Molech was a statue with a hollow belly in which a fire was started in the back. When the tentacles where red hot, during an orgy, a newborn was placed to be slowly roasted to ensure the fertility of the orgy and the land in general. This was part of their religion. Worse still is the combination of genocide and the killing of the unborn, as Margaret Sanger admitted in private communications was THE reason she began Planned Parenthood: to eliminate "the inferior race of negroes" in her sick twisted words. This is why she was acelebrated speaker to the KKK, the armed wing of the Democrat party. This man is ignorant of the depth of evil. All his research is on a superficial level. There is evil so bad that genocide is the only answer God allows. One of the more shallow thinkers of this excellent series.
I do no think he was being far with accient civilization cultural context. My other concern, is that think he has look at genocide for so long that now he starting to see it every where. But I could be wrong.
In the spiritual war, the condition to be spared is to acknowledge that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is right and we are wrong in regard to our sinful condition. "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", "The seed of the woman will bruise the head of the serpent." In order to be accepted of God one must accept God's coverage. Adam and Eve were covered by God with the skin of an animal, Abel offered an animal sacrifice, ''when I see the blood I will pass over you." Cain's sacrifice indicates that he ignored that the soul that sins must die. God wanting to spare us provided a substitute in the person of Christ which the animal sacrifices prefigured so his justice in regard to sin can be satisfied.God does not commit genocide, God has always provided a way to escape: "I am the way, the truth and the life''. In spite of all odds and with God's intervention the seed of the woman was preserved. "He came unto his own and his own received him not, but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
I wouldn't consider the Old Testament record of the Israelites occupying the Promised Land - Canaan as genocide, as it was distinctly about a certain stretch of Land. The Canaanites (practiced Baalism) were free to leave. Which is distinctly different from chasing every last Canaanite across the globe to eradicate them. Unless of course genocide takes on a different meaning than the original. (Baalism - with it's radical sex and violence ethic - had a stronghold of the centre of the known world. And, true, the thoughts of killing all is gruesome. But remember America dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end fascism from its very real likelihood of ruling the world. The obliteratation of those atomic bombs weren't discriminating between sex and age of Japanese. And yet it's spoken of, generally, as a horrible necessity that ended the war).
PROFESORZE NORMAN NEIMARK ALALEKSANDER CZY TO TY JESTEŚ TYM OLKIEM ZMIASTA W .GRATULUJĘ SERDECZNIE SUKCESÓ NAUKOWYCH . JESTMIMIŁO, ŻE OSIĄGNOŁEŚ TYLE .TO BYŁO PEWNE, ŻE TAK BĘDZIE . POZDRAWIAM BARDZO SERDECZNIE. BOGUMIŁA KWIATKOWSKA PISZ Z WROCŁAWIA.
At the end better Dr. Naimark should have been asked not what would he say to the president but what he would say to the American families of service members. And approach that appeal honestly, as in there is a mass killing going on, historically it's gone on before in this place and I want you to ok the sending of your son, brother, father, mother, sister, daughter to stop it. We know we can stop it, stopping is the easy part, but the next task is to build a completely new society so it never happens again. Because if it happens again the sacrifice of your loved ones have been for nothing. And I have to admit such a "rebuild" has never been successful in the past (mentioning all the success we've had in Afghanistan after fifteen years might have strengthened your argument... well, maybe not). More we still have troops in the Balkans, lo, these many decades later for a promised one year intervention. Don't bring up Germany and Japan, they were ground into dust, infrastructure destroyed, the Allies controlled all food distribution, all policing, all means of production. That will never be politically and militarily possible again. Listening to you sir, it's almost as if genocide is the norm rather than the exception. And speaking of exceptions I will site Alexander the Great, a ruthless man indeed, who did not genocidally try to wipe out Persians but embraced them. Discussing him might have thrown an interesting light on the subject. Dr. Naimark, I'm perfectly happy to have people like yourself create a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade and fight the good fights you find around the world. Please have at it. By the way I was surprised that Kennewick Man wasn't mentioned at all. A Caucasoid group genocidally wiped out by the Indians as you term them.
They glossed over the displacement of the Indians as a genocide, even after explaining that physical annihilation was not necessary for genocide. I don't know if they were saying genocide is the norm, but it will get to that when an authoritarian force is not present to keep different peoples living together from winding up there eventually. When Tito was gone in the Balkans that "Wonderful diversity" the author experienced in the `70s fell apart and the people went at each other. He did not want to say it was Tito's iron fist that forced the diversity to "work", which I thought was politically correct disingenuous. As you point out we are still there keeping them from continuing to fight each other. White people in the west are the current target for displacement. heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/
declaring that "we don't know if the Bible is true" is pulling the same stunt as the Soviet Union at the genocide convention - dancing around inconvenient truths. If the Bible is true, and millions currently living believe it to be including some very smart people, then genocide isn't a crime. It's a necessary thinning of the herd. It's a good thing, ultimately.
Sun Tzu on the Art of War: Attack by Stratagem
Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. [22] (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. [23] (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. [24]
Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. [25] If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle
What about the old warfare between two tribes. One wins, the other's men are killed or enslaved, the woman are married off to the men of the winning tribe, the children are raised as part of the new tribe?
Drumsgoon - That is a war crime.
I don't think that would qualify in most cases because generally with hunter/gatherers these tend to fall under the same ethnic group. This also wouldn't be a good fit since genocide is about elimination, not subjugation. The entire populace would be killed instead of 'just' of males over a certain age.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Let's not forget Hannibal wiped out 86,000 Roman troops at Cannae, every last soldier was surrounded and butchered to the last man, the stretch of land they died on was a putrid sea of corpses for over a year afterwards, it was one of the greatest military victories in history and almost the ruin of Rome. No wonder the Romans were pissed when they finally got to Carthage! Still....
Also the Carthaginians had a horrible religion which engaged in human sacrifices.
the Carthaginians started planned parenthood ?
In the Gallic wars, Caesar did genocide various tribes along the Rhine. One tribe he was proud of destroying was the Ebruones, a northern Rhine tribe. Caesar also genocided the entire northern Italy flatland which was inhabited by the Gaul tribes.... If he read Caesar's Gallic wars, he'd know this. It was more than just pacification, was considered good and noble to wipe out the undistinguished races, to make way for what is to be a more civilized Earth.
Excellent. Thanks for the insight and upload.
The Old Testament also tells us that the Canaanites were child-sacrificing worshippers of Baal, also known as Be'elzebub. But i understand, from a cultural relativist's perspective, that culture has as much value and right to exist as one that worships the creator, deems humans to be made in his image, and forbids sacrificing children to idols.
@Jerriel O Miller I would take ANYTHING the bible says with a pinch of salt. The bible is not just a religious book. It is a propaganda book. As the old saying goes, history is written by victors. Whoever wrote the old testament. they meant to portray the enemies of the Ancient Israel as degenerate, idolatrous, blood-thirsty people, deserving of death.
The old testament is almost entirely fiction.
Great interview
By the definition of Dr Naimark, what happened in the book of Joshua, with regards to the conquest of Jericho and Canaan is NOT genocide. He says genocide is about there being nothing that the affected people can do about saving themselves from the attackers. So consider Rahab, who was spared for helping the two spies. She and her entire family were not killed. Rahab ended up in the lineage of Jesus Christ to boot. The Gibeonites were also another case. They found a way to obtain a covenant of peace with Israel, and God held Israel to account on it, and punished Israel later for trying to renege on that covenant with the Gibeonites when during the reign of Saul, he tried to have them exterminated contrary to the pact that Joshua entered into with them. The case cited of Saul and the Amalekites is not fully contextualised. The Amalekites were incorrigible enemies of Israel. Even the existence of one of them threatened the whole nation of Israel. God knew that. Hence His adamant refusal to accommodate their existence and His severe treatment of king Saul when he spared Agag. Later in history, Haman, an Agagite came close to wiping out the Jews in Persia as told in the story of Esther. God knew and knows the hearts of men. Hence His strict commands for the elimination of those who totally refused to change despite His patient waiting for them to turn. This is what happened with the Canaanites. He gave them about 430 years to repent, according to what He said to Abraham. The conquest of Canaan happened because the Canaanites became utterly and irredeemably corrupt.
Genocide is not the worst kind of crime. Worse is the systematic killing of your own children, and that is why the Caananites had to be completely wiped out. To build a great house, they would first bury their own newborn in the foundations. Molech was a statue with a hollow belly in which a fire was started in the back. When the tentacles where red hot, during an orgy, a newborn was placed to be slowly roasted to ensure the fertility of the orgy and the land in general. This was part of their religion.
Worse still is the combination of genocide and the killing of the unborn, as Margaret Sanger admitted in private communications was THE reason she began Planned Parenthood: to eliminate "the inferior race of negroes" in her sick twisted words. This is why she was acelebrated speaker to the KKK, the armed wing of the Democrat party. This man is ignorant of the depth of evil. All his research is on a superficial level. There is evil so bad that genocide is the only answer God allows. One of the more shallow thinkers of this excellent series.
sounds like the guy is just playing around with semantics and language in general
I do no think he was being far with accient civilization cultural context.
My other concern, is that think he has look at genocide for so long that now he starting to see it every where. But I could be wrong.
Interesting interview, yet there are some parts of the Old Testament writings that were overlooked.
In the spiritual war, the condition to be spared is to acknowledge that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is right and we are wrong in regard to our sinful condition. "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", "The seed of the woman will bruise the head of the serpent." In order to be accepted of God one must accept God's coverage. Adam and Eve were covered by God with the skin of an animal, Abel offered an animal sacrifice, ''when I see the blood I will pass over you." Cain's sacrifice indicates that he ignored that the soul that sins must die. God wanting to spare us provided a substitute in the person of Christ which the animal sacrifices prefigured so his justice in regard to sin can be satisfied.God does not commit genocide, God has always provided a way to escape: "I am the way, the truth and the life''. In spite of all odds and with God's intervention the seed of the woman was preserved. "He came unto his own and his own received him not, but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
Norman "you know" Naimark
"I thought about our own society, and the strains in it, and could that happen here?" - *cue Benny Hill Theme*
I wouldn't consider the Old Testament record of the Israelites occupying the Promised Land - Canaan as genocide, as it was distinctly about a certain stretch of Land. The Canaanites (practiced Baalism) were free to leave. Which is distinctly different from chasing every last Canaanite across the globe to eradicate them. Unless of course genocide takes on a different meaning than the original. (Baalism - with it's radical sex and violence ethic - had a stronghold of the centre of the known world. And, true, the thoughts of killing all is gruesome. But remember America dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end fascism from its very real likelihood of ruling the world. The obliteratation of those atomic bombs weren't discriminating between sex and age of Japanese. And yet it's spoken of, generally, as a horrible necessity that ended the war).
PROFESORZE NORMAN NEIMARK ALALEKSANDER CZY TO TY JESTEŚ TYM OLKIEM ZMIASTA W .GRATULUJĘ SERDECZNIE SUKCESÓ NAUKOWYCH . JESTMIMIŁO, ŻE OSIĄGNOŁEŚ TYLE .TO BYŁO PEWNE, ŻE TAK BĘDZIE . POZDRAWIAM BARDZO SERDECZNIE. BOGUMIŁA KWIATKOWSKA PISZ Z WROCŁAWIA.
At the end better Dr. Naimark should have been asked not what would he say to the president but what he would say to the American families of service members. And approach that appeal honestly, as in there is a mass killing going on, historically it's gone on before in this place and I want you to ok the sending of your son, brother, father, mother, sister, daughter to stop it.
We know we can stop it, stopping is the easy part, but the next task is to build a completely new society so it never happens again. Because if it happens again the sacrifice of your loved ones have been for nothing. And I have to admit such a "rebuild" has never been successful in the past (mentioning all the success we've had in Afghanistan after fifteen years might have strengthened your argument... well, maybe not). More we still have troops in the Balkans, lo, these many decades later for a promised one year intervention.
Don't bring up Germany and Japan, they were ground into dust, infrastructure destroyed, the Allies controlled all food distribution, all policing, all means of production. That will never be politically and militarily possible again.
Listening to you sir, it's almost as if genocide is the norm rather than the exception. And speaking of exceptions I will site Alexander the Great, a ruthless man indeed, who did not genocidally try to wipe out Persians but embraced them. Discussing him might have thrown an interesting light on the subject.
Dr. Naimark, I'm perfectly happy to have people like yourself create a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade and fight the good fights you find around the world. Please have at it.
By the way I was surprised that Kennewick Man wasn't mentioned at all. A Caucasoid group genocidally wiped out by the Indians as you term them.
They glossed over the displacement of the Indians as a genocide, even after explaining that physical annihilation was not necessary for genocide. I don't know if they were saying genocide is the norm, but it will get to that when an authoritarian force is not present to keep different peoples living together from winding up there eventually. When Tito was gone in the Balkans that "Wonderful diversity" the author experienced in the `70s fell apart and the people went at each other. He did not want to say it was Tito's iron fist that forced the diversity to "work", which I thought was politically correct disingenuous. As you point out we are still there keeping them from continuing to fight each other. White people in the west are the current target for displacement. heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/
Totally inaccurate understanding/perception regarding Yugoslavian conflict ( and what led to it etc etc)
This guy thinks he is wise but ignores the causes of many problems but only concerns himself with the results.
What is the definition of cultural genocide? Native American's can answer this question.
In the movie/cartoon animals farm who represented the Kulaks?
The sheep
Europe is multicultural. Tribalism. Very interesting.
the genocide against the Danes in the United Kingdom
Don
declaring that "we don't know if the Bible is true" is pulling the same stunt as the Soviet Union at the genocide convention - dancing around inconvenient truths. If the Bible is true, and millions currently living believe it to be including some very smart people, then genocide isn't a crime. It's a necessary thinning of the herd. It's a good thing, ultimately.
Miles Stoneman as long as you aren't the one being destroyed.
EVERY war is at least attempted genocide. The distinction between (good) "normal" war and (bad) genocide in the interview is repugnant.
🆘🆘🆘🆘
A good stocking filler book.