右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
Exclusive: Hawley calls on Biden to drop support for Ukraine membership in NATO
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is calling on the Biden administration to drop longstanding U.S. support for Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO, arguing that a binding commitment to defend the country would undermine efforts to counter China.
Why it matters: Hawley is staking out a position increasingly supported by the Republican base but historically at odds with the mainstream GOP consensus still backed by his Senate colleagues.
Josh Hawley做了第一个吃螃蟹的人，提出美国放弃支持乌克兰加入北约。这是一个很理性的想法，出自当今右翼平民派的代表。
我的看法是：
1. 北约没必要一直东扩。武装联盟越大，盟主对其边缘成员的安全的保证就越不可靠。有多少美国人愿意让自己的儿女为巴尔干或者高加索的某个小国卖命？国民态度的冷漠将为事发时美国政府的干预力度设置上限。武装联盟扩张的另一个后果是盟主和外界发生冲突的可能性增大。与其领导一个有很多边缘成员会引来麻烦，而盟主国国民又不愿意付出代价解决麻烦的联盟，一个政府与民众、盟主与友邦不齐心的联盟，不如自我设限，领导一个成员不多但向心力强的集体。
2. 乌克兰在可见的未来不可能加入北约，首先因为它不是成熟的民主国家。更重要的是，根据北约的章程，加入的先决条件是没有领土争议。普京占克里米亚正是为了制造争议。南奥塞梯在格鲁吉亚的作用类似。放弃支持乌克兰、格鲁吉亚入盟不过是承认既定现实。
3. 支持乌克兰、格鲁吉亚加入北约是2008年布加勒斯特峰会上布什这个民小总统拍脑袋决定的。说他是民小，是因为丫真的相信任何国家在任何情况下搞民主都没问题，都值得美国大力支持，各国国情和地缘政治完全不考虑。俄罗斯的回应是，10年内先后入侵两国。尽管俄国从来都对控制原有势力范围之内的国家有企图，但可以认为布什等人的决定提供了俄国行动的直接诱因—是诱因而不是借口，因为俄罗斯反对北约东扩是很认真的。我记得几年前看老牌现实主义者基辛格的一个访问，他主张把乌克兰作为俄国和西方的缓冲地带，记者问他，乌克兰人愿意付出代价来加入西方阵营，难道我们能对他们说不吗？基辛格反问说Why can't we? 我当时厌恶他的冷酷，现在欣赏他的老成。
4. 一旦俄罗斯再次侵乌，一定的武器支援是必要的，因为美国在布达佩斯备忘录中通过承诺维护乌克兰领主主权完整来换取乌克兰弃核。美国的承诺不能当儿戏。而且考虑到“安全保证换取弃核”的模式将来可能再次应用，本次的应用最好不要以这种方式彻底失败：承诺方在被承诺方安全受威胁时拒绝提供任何实质性援助。
5. 提议出自Josh Hawley毫不奇怪，他在诸多议题上的立场代表了当今大批共和党基层选民的呼声。反对美国过度介入国际事务，反对美国进一步帝国化是右翼平民派的核心主张之一。川普成为几代人以来首位任内没有发动战争的总统，不全是偶然。
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is calling on the Biden administration to drop longstanding U.S. support for Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO, arguing that a binding commitment to defend the country would undermine efforts to counter China.
Why it matters: Hawley is staking out a position increasingly supported by the Republican base but historically at odds with the mainstream GOP consensus still backed by his Senate colleagues.
Josh Hawley做了第一个吃螃蟹的人，提出美国放弃支持乌克兰加入北约。这是一个很理性的想法，出自当今右翼平民派的代表。
我的看法是：
1. 北约没必要一直东扩。武装联盟越大，盟主对其边缘成员的安全的保证就越不可靠。有多少美国人愿意让自己的儿女为巴尔干或者高加索的某个小国卖命？国民态度的冷漠将为事发时美国政府的干预力度设置上限。武装联盟扩张的另一个后果是盟主和外界发生冲突的可能性增大。与其领导一个有很多边缘成员会引来麻烦，而盟主国国民又不愿意付出代价解决麻烦的联盟，一个政府与民众、盟主与友邦不齐心的联盟，不如自我设限，领导一个成员不多但向心力强的集体。
2. 乌克兰在可见的未来不可能加入北约，首先因为它不是成熟的民主国家。更重要的是，根据北约的章程，加入的先决条件是没有领土争议。普京占克里米亚正是为了制造争议。南奥塞梯在格鲁吉亚的作用类似。放弃支持乌克兰、格鲁吉亚入盟不过是承认既定现实。
3. 支持乌克兰、格鲁吉亚加入北约是2008年布加勒斯特峰会上布什这个民小总统拍脑袋决定的。说他是民小，是因为丫真的相信任何国家在任何情况下搞民主都没问题，都值得美国大力支持，各国国情和地缘政治完全不考虑。俄罗斯的回应是，10年内先后入侵两国。尽管俄国从来都对控制原有势力范围之内的国家有企图，但可以认为布什等人的决定提供了俄国行动的直接诱因—是诱因而不是借口，因为俄罗斯反对北约东扩是很认真的。我记得几年前看老牌现实主义者基辛格的一个访问，他主张把乌克兰作为俄国和西方的缓冲地带，记者问他，乌克兰人愿意付出代价来加入西方阵营，难道我们能对他们说不吗？基辛格反问说Why can't we? 我当时厌恶他的冷酷，现在欣赏他的老成。
4. 一旦俄罗斯再次侵乌，一定的武器支援是必要的，因为美国在布达佩斯备忘录中通过承诺维护乌克兰领主主权完整来换取乌克兰弃核。美国的承诺不能当儿戏。而且考虑到“安全保证换取弃核”的模式将来可能再次应用，本次的应用最好不要以这种方式彻底失败：承诺方在被承诺方安全受威胁时拒绝提供任何实质性援助。
5. 提议出自Josh Hawley毫不奇怪，他在诸多议题上的立场代表了当今大批共和党基层选民的呼声。反对美国过度介入国际事务，反对美国进一步帝国化是右翼平民派的核心主张之一。川普成为几代人以来首位任内没有发动战争的总统，不全是偶然。