As American President Obama has spoken today at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park of what happened on 6 August 1945, and how it must never be forgotten, it is a reminder of possibly the most severe application of the 'short sharp shock' concept that humanity has ever applied in its long history.
True, the sacrifices of lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended up saving perhaps millions of lives by in effect bringing the Second World War to an abrupt end, but at what a cost!
The principle is a good one, though, and one I have applied consistently for quite a few years now,mainly to those who troll me here or elsewhere, and especially to the 'ad homs' – those who attempt ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to counter or belittle me and my views. I have had the latter quite a few times, and it is just about always a dishonest practice, so I have no hesitation in responding.
Some might think that what I do is nasty, but in fact it is meant kindly (even though it doesn't look like it!) as my response is fast, sharp enough to make the other party sit up and realise that they've made a mistake, and pitched only as strongly as is necessary to be confident of achieving the intended result. I know what will happen if I don't do this, and it tends not to be good!
There are broadly three outcomes: one is the Lefty troll who gets the message that I know my stuff and will fight back. They almost always realise that there is no point in continuing and just vanish, never to come into contact with me again – at least not under that (usually fake) identity.
The second type is the type who made a genuine mistake, and apologises for having gone too far, usually carried away in the heat of the moment. I have even been thanked for waking the other up before things got really out of hand – which is of course my intention in all such cases.
The third type doesn't learn, and puts his own ego and views first regardless. Such types will typically block me, and they are no real loss.
The most recent of that last category is interesting, as being the second example of what might have been thought to have been 'friendly fire', at least at one time. The first had defected to UKIP and for reason seemed to hate me because I had stuck to my guns and my principles.I never did work out what had happened there, but eventually put it down to the usual warped and twisted thinking that one finds with 'Kippers, especially those who were formerly Conservatives, perversely.
The recent instance, though, was someone who is a political party paid official who has never been elected to public office, but whose rigid (and frankly one-dimensional) view on a topic went against my own actual experience during my years as an elected Councillor. In the end, his approach turned into a sly, sneaky but obvious 'ad hom', so I responded in the above-descri bed manner, as always.
As I expected, I was de-friended – and the original post deleted in its entirety. I can think of the reason that individual would give for doing the latter, but I think that even my medium-strength riposte was too close to home, in reality.
Anyway, I relate this tale for a more significant reason: where have we encountered this attitude before, of an unelected official placing his (or her) views above those of the people's elected representatives? Ah yes: the European Union (EU) – and indeed, dictatorships in general. I cannot perceive the slightest difference here, and it is but one of the issues I have with formalised political parties and similar bodies operating in that arena.
Long (and perceptive) experience across much of the spectrum, and in various places and situations, has taught me much over several decades now; and it is extremely unlikely that I shall ever join/re-join any party ever again. Meanwhile, if any of them tries anything on with me, they should be prepared to get the same kind of response – and, as with the examples I have pointed to here and the others, I am (by inference) even then holding back even stronger material for those who don't get the message the first time...