Skip to main content

Fairy Dust

Why does "international community diplomacy" = Fairy Dust?

I believe it is because we've lost sight of the fact that Diplomacy *is* War.

We think it's not war, that it's something different and civilized. When we don't understand that diplomacy isn't making *nice* but that it's a projection of force rather than persuasion... it's no surprise that it is so ineffective.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Diplomacy is where you try to plant a dagger in the other guy's back without anyone knowing about it, including your left hand.

War is about declaring formal dueling rituals/traditions, and getting it all out in the open for everyone to witness.
1:34 AM
Ymarsakar said…
So in this war of ours, we have combined subterfuge/diplomacy/deception/assassination with war.
1:34 AM
Ymarsakar said…
I made this analogy before at Neo's page, where I wrote that there are two main kinds of diplomacy as practiced by diplomats and warriors. Specifically, you can negotiate as you would negotiate in an Arab bazaar over the price of your purchase. Essentially you will haggle until you believe you have a good price and the other side believes that they have a good price. This model of diplomacy is believed in by the UN and other fakers and incompetent idiots, as the primary tool by which differences are resolved without violence.

The other school of diplomacy faces negotiation as another kind of warfare, essentially meaning that one person wins and the other person loses. In such a framework, the rules are different than for haggling.
5:33 PM
Synova said…
When one is haggling the buyer and the seller both want the same thing... before they start.

The seller wants to sell.

The buyer wants to buy.

The problem with international diplomacy isn't getting people to do what they want to do, it's getting people to NOT do what they want to do.
11:30 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...
Post a Comment
Read more