Log in

View Full Version : War, the world's only hygiene


derrida
Mar 2nd, 2009, 08:35 PM
So I saw this quoted in that other thread and decided to post the whole thing.

We Futurists, who for over two years, scorned by the Lame and Paralyzed, have glorified the love of danger and violence, praised patriotism and war, the hygene of the world, are happy to finally experience this great Futurist hour of Italy, while the foul tribe of pacifists huddles dying in the deep cellars of the ridiculous palace at The Hague.

We have recently had the pleasure of fighting in the streets with the most fervent adversaries of the war, and shouting in their faces our firm beliefs:

1. All liberties should be given to the individual and the collectivity, save that of being cowardly.

2. Let it be proclaimed that the word Italy should prevail over the word Freedom.

3. Let the tiresome memory of Roman greatness be cancelled by an Italian greatness a hundred times greater.

For us today, Italy has the shape and power of a fine Dreadnought battleship with its squadron of torpedo-boat islands. Proud to feel that the marital fervor throughout the Nation is equal to ours, we urge the Italian government, Futurist at last, to magnify all the national ambitions, disdaining the stupid accusations of piracy, and proclaim the birth of Panitalianism.

Futurist poets, painters, sculptors, and musicians of Italy! As long as the war lasts let us set aside our verse, our brushes, scapels, and orchestras! The red holidays of genius have begun! There is nothing for us to admire today but the dreadful symphonies of the shrapnels and the mad sculptures that our inspired artillery molds among the masses of the enemy.

- F.T. Marinetti circa 1910

I remember reading this as a teenager and finding it morbidly quaint. I guess I kinda still do, considering two of Futurism's main proponents died in the war, and the movement as a whole died with armistice. However, now I feel less inclined to view it as a comical footnote to one of man's greatest follies and more as a crude albeit powerful articulation of the seductive appeal of power.

I remember thinking it was cool, even subversive to view wars in purely aesthetic terms, I lined my bookshelves with volumes on obscure conflicts bereft of caution and luck like the Triple Alliance War in which Paraguay faced down the giants of South America, Brazil and Argentina leading to vignettes in which naval infantry battalions armed with machetes attacked Brazilian ironclads, and colonels strode into battle barefoot. Those Paraguayans were some badass motherfuckers and they suffered mightily for it after the war was over, but this is the fate of every brave and proud people. Yes.

I still view such things with awe, but after 5 years (got my dd214 in september, praise jeezus) in the Navy as an enlisted hospital corpsman attached to the 3rd marine battalion and the USNS Comfort my juvenile aesthetic delight is wholly gone, replaced with revulsion. Now when I think of war, as a concept, I think of dead friends and feral dogs eating human flesh. (Soldiers kill dogs. You would too.)

It's hard to dismiss my youthful naivete with a laugh and a shrug, unless I can rationalize it as being the product of an imperfectly formed mind, drawing an easy parallel between the fact that I no longer care about my once-beloved chevys and mopars and would much rather find myself behind the wheel of an underpowered yet sophisticated faggoty euro car, preferably of french extraction. Mind you, my decision to enlist was informed more by boredom and an affinity for the medical professions. I even considered myself a pacifist. The disturbing thing about my former self is that, even with all of the information in the world at my fingertips, the words of those who had gone before, I lacked the human insight to bury once and for all those seductive notions of glory and violence and kinetic energy.

Kulturkampf
Mar 2nd, 2009, 09:57 PM
Yeah, I like war.

I think the hardest things to stomach are good for the evolution of the individual, and I do view war as a necessary thing to be enacted and carried out.

The world needs to experience massacres. It is the only hygiene. I believe in it completely.

I will not lie -- I have not been to battle other than bashing about on the streets a few years back. I haven't been in a fight in a long time.

However, I think you need to be objective about this, Derrida.

So what if you feel emotionally revolted? It is what is intellectually necessary.

Pull yourself together.

Grislygus
Mar 3rd, 2009, 06:22 PM
Armchair philosophy has no weaknesses! Unless a certain korean ever finds himself staring down the barrel of a gun and shits himself

executioneer
Mar 3rd, 2009, 07:56 PM
if you think war is the only hygiene you better stay the hell downwind from me, bacterial culture camp

Tadao
Mar 3rd, 2009, 08:08 PM
People who romanticize war are usually nowhere near the front line.

pac-man
Mar 3rd, 2009, 08:17 PM
Bingo.

VaporTrailx1
Mar 3rd, 2009, 08:34 PM
Forests have fires, Lemmings run off cliffs. War is our thing.

I think it's just sort of naturally ingrained in our species. Prove me wrong. Name one unisolated group of people on earth who has never been at war with another group. Sure Switzerland and Iceland never really did anything, but they don't have the resources at their disposal to conquer a bowl of jell-o

Dixie
Mar 3rd, 2009, 08:48 PM
What ever happened to plagues?

VaporTrailx1
Mar 3rd, 2009, 09:03 PM
I think nature gave up after the Black Plague

Dixie
Mar 3rd, 2009, 09:10 PM
I DEMAND MORE DISEASE

The Leader
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:15 PM
Lemmings run off cliffs

That's not actually true, a Disney film crew drove them over the edge so that they would have something to film. Cruelty is our thing, not war.

Kulturkampf
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:29 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah.

War is necessary to kill off the lesser developed, moronic societies and to purify the nation of shitty governments.

People get traumatized and fucked up but in my time in the Army I have also met a lot of guys who revelled in their time in the sandbox.

Tadao
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:33 PM
Sure it is. :rolleyes

The Leader
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:34 PM
War is necessary to kill off the lesser developed, moronic societies and to purify the nation of shitty governments.

Oh, wow.

Grislygus
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:36 PM
Blatant idiocy from intellectually crippled guttertrash, marginally moving up from his career as an unparalleled drunkard only to learn nothing. Fantastic.

Kulturkampf
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:38 PM
Blatant idiocy from intellectually crippled guttertrash, marginally moving up from his career as an unparalleled drunkard only to learn nothing. Fantastic.

I am still a drunkard. And still unparalleled.

The only difference now is that I have shifted focuses, I guess.

Tell me...

Why shouldn't Ba'athists be massacred and a democracy set up?

Why shouldn't Mugabe be fucking dead already?

The Leader
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:40 PM
Because then we'd be doing what we were killing them for?

Kulturkampf
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:44 PM
Because then we'd be doing what we were killing them for?

Only if we set up a shitty regime; that is why we should stick in until the very end.

Tadao
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:45 PM
What? You're just babbling now.

Grislygus
Mar 3rd, 2009, 10:50 PM
Shee-it, if fucking South Korea feels like taking Iraq off of our hands and getting into a clusterfuck in Zimbabwe, you guys can have at it

VaporTrailx1
Mar 4th, 2009, 01:19 AM
Didn't South Korea duck out early?
Looks like the Romanians are the only non-Anglican nation still going actually.
Iceland sent 2 people. What the hell is even the point of that? And I'm wondering how they got em since Iceland has no standing military.

Big McLargehuge
Mar 4th, 2009, 07:07 AM
I think nature gave up after the Black Plague
Spanish flu anyone? I mean it killed at least twice as many people as WWI.

Zhukov
Mar 4th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Yes, hygiene, but uh, what? Is it a population control idea? Weeding out the weak for the strong?

derrida
Mar 5th, 2009, 04:15 AM
Yes, hygiene, but uh, what? Is it a population control idea? Weeding out the weak for the strong?

I guess that's the idea, but the problem is the strong don't always win.

Zhukov
Mar 5th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Do the strong ever win? I mean really win?

I don't think you weed out the weak through destruction, I think the better way to weed out the weak would be through education.

Killing the "weak" leaves nothing but an army of malleable soldiers or frightened civilians wiling to say/do whatever it took to not be seen as weak. Hardly Strong, in my eyes.

VaporTrailx1
Mar 5th, 2009, 12:53 PM
Usually the strong (elite units and those most willing to fight) are pretty much wiped out in the beginning stages of the war. At least that was the case in both World Wars. You're pretty much left with rookies and unwilling draftees towards the end.

It's pretty much counter-productive in that sense.

pac-man
Mar 5th, 2009, 12:54 PM
Where do you get a stat like that from?

Big Papa Goat
Mar 5th, 2009, 04:12 PM
All this talk about the strong is ridiculous. Go to a gym if you want to be strong. And as for weeding out the weak, why weed them out? If they're so weak they'll weed themselves out.

Tadao
Mar 5th, 2009, 05:10 PM
Weak of mind or weak of body? What are we looking for here? What Hitler called the perfect specimen? All those experiments showed that the offsrping were nothing like... Why the fuck am I even bothering :rolleyes

derrida
Mar 5th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Every thread Mr. Kampf participates in devolves into sweeping generalizations. It's basically how the guy thinks.

This is also probably the worst possible topic to generalize about, considering there's not much in common between, say stone-age raids in the Amazon and low-intensity conflict in the Balkans or whatever.

Strength doesn't really mean a thing in war outside of individual battles. Japan and Germany prevailed on the battlefield more often than not and ended up with a gelded culture and the lowest birth rates in the western world. History is chock full of examples of small but tough tribes that get slowly ground into hamburger by their weaker but larger and wealthier neighbors. (see paraguay) I'd say the single greatest weapon nowadays is demographics.

That said, someone should attempt to explain how the Peloponnesian war was a good thing. Agricultural aristocracy (Sparta) defeats commercial democracy (Athens). It ended the Greek golden age and enabled Alexander the Great to conquer Greece and use its blood and treasure to finish off the crumbling Persian empire. A nice achievement, to be sure, but didn't accomplish anything of lasting significance. After the death of Alexander the Seleucid empire was formed, only to be defeated by cavalry archers from the Asian steppes (a recurring theme).

Oh, and as a side note, what about the Afghans? Some of the best fighters in the world, and they only fight for two things: boys to rape, and money.

Dr. Boogie
Mar 5th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Opium fields, too, but I guess that could go under "money".

VaporTrailx1
Mar 5th, 2009, 08:54 PM
Yep, and the Spartans didn't help Alexander, because they refused to take part in a campaign that wasn't lead by the Spartans. Alexander had some commemorative shield on it that said something along the lines of "Thanks to all the Greek states, except Sparta"
I have no fuckin clue where this conversation is going anymore. I think it's time lock lock this clusterfuck thread lol

Zhukov
Mar 6th, 2009, 05:16 AM
Are we supposed to be in a state of constant war? 1984 stylee.

Dimnos
Mar 6th, 2009, 02:08 PM
Are we supposed to be in a state of constant war? 1984 stylee.

Fuck that shit! Give me liberty or give me death!