In the end, staff, or prinicipals, will be "look, enough bullshit. Fine. I'll retire and tell the story."
No way whatever this shit show is... doesn't wind up being displayed in full regale.
I do think if its the DUI Hire telling the flag corp how to be "bad ass" as some are reporting? The flag core is going to beat him to death. :P
We have more combat seasoned leaders, and soldiers, in the US military, at any time since 1775... they don't need to be lectured on having a big dick and the warrior ethos.
I can't imagine the graduates of our military academies are going to roll over and pay dead for Pete Kegstand. Some of them yes. A West Point graduate that I went to high school with immediately comes to mind if he hasn't already retired, but I hope the majority of the rest remember their oath.
Across history, the faces of terror have shifted — from inquisitors in black robes, to political commissars, to masked insurgents, to modern states invoking national security. Yet beneath the changes in costume, weapons, and rhetoric lies a single recurring logic: the conviction that the ends justify the means.
The Spanish Inquisition: Salvation by Fear
The Inquisition cloaked itself in the highest purpose — saving souls. Heresy was framed not as personal belief but as a contagious disease threatening the Christian world. If torture, imprisonment, or execution could “purify” the body of society, then such cruelty was not just permitted but sanctified. The end — the preservation of faith — was judged so vital that the means no longer required moral justification. In effect, terror became a holy tool.
20th-Century Regimes: Ideology as Absolute
Totalitarian states inherited this same logic in secular form.
Fascist regimes labeled dissenters as traitors undermining the nation.
Communist regimes condemned ideological deviation as betrayal of the revolution. Both elevated their end — national unity, classless society — to such an absolute that any means could be excused: censorship, imprisonment, purges, and executions. Terror was no longer a regrettable side effect, but an integral method of governance.
Modern Counterterror Rhetoric: Security Absolutized
In democratic states, the same pattern often appears under the language of security. Labeling opposition movements as “terroristic” or “extremist” broadens state power to surveil, censor, and detain. The end — protecting democracy, liberty, and safety — is invoked so forcefully that the means, even if repressive, are rationalized as necessary. What is at stake, the argument goes, is nothing less than the survival of the system itself.
The Common Thread: Fear as Instrument
Whether in the dungeon of the Inquisition, the propaganda halls of the 20th century, or the press release of a modern government, the essential mechanism is identical:
Declare an existential threat.
Elevate the end (faith, ideology, nation, security) above all else.
Deploy fear — of torture, prison, social ostracism, or death — to secure compliance. The “enemy” shifts names, but the strategy endures.
The Paradox of Terror
The irony is that those who wield terror while claiming to oppose it often become indistinguishable from what they fight. The inquisitor rescuing souls, the dictator purging traitors, the state suppressing dissent in the name of liberty — all share the same DNA. By treating the end as sacred, they make fear itself the most reliable tool of rule.
📌 Conclusion:
If terrorism can be defined not only by violence against innocents but also by the principle that the end sanctifies any means, then the line between outlawed terror and official policy blurs uncomfortably. What unites inquisitors, dictators, insurgents, and modern power-holders is not their ideology, but their willingness to enthrone fear as the path to their chosen future.
Jesus. Sobering, but this is why this is the only column I pay for (per that silly little subscription tag next to the username).
Unlike those "in charge", these are smart, clever and serious people they are gathering. It will come out, one way or another.
Yes it will... won't it.
In the end, staff, or prinicipals, will be "look, enough bullshit. Fine. I'll retire and tell the story."
No way whatever this shit show is... doesn't wind up being displayed in full regale.
I do think if its the DUI Hire telling the flag corp how to be "bad ass" as some are reporting? The flag core is going to beat him to death. :P
We have more combat seasoned leaders, and soldiers, in the US military, at any time since 1775... they don't need to be lectured on having a big dick and the warrior ethos.
Excellent reporting. Very well thought out and communicated.
#reversevalkyrie
I can't imagine the graduates of our military academies are going to roll over and pay dead for Pete Kegstand. Some of them yes. A West Point graduate that I went to high school with immediately comes to mind if he hasn't already retired, but I hope the majority of the rest remember their oath.
Terror and the Logic of “Ends Justify the Means”
Across history, the faces of terror have shifted — from inquisitors in black robes, to political commissars, to masked insurgents, to modern states invoking national security. Yet beneath the changes in costume, weapons, and rhetoric lies a single recurring logic: the conviction that the ends justify the means.
The Spanish Inquisition: Salvation by Fear
The Inquisition cloaked itself in the highest purpose — saving souls. Heresy was framed not as personal belief but as a contagious disease threatening the Christian world. If torture, imprisonment, or execution could “purify” the body of society, then such cruelty was not just permitted but sanctified. The end — the preservation of faith — was judged so vital that the means no longer required moral justification. In effect, terror became a holy tool.
20th-Century Regimes: Ideology as Absolute
Totalitarian states inherited this same logic in secular form.
Fascist regimes labeled dissenters as traitors undermining the nation.
Communist regimes condemned ideological deviation as betrayal of the revolution. Both elevated their end — national unity, classless society — to such an absolute that any means could be excused: censorship, imprisonment, purges, and executions. Terror was no longer a regrettable side effect, but an integral method of governance.
Modern Counterterror Rhetoric: Security Absolutized
In democratic states, the same pattern often appears under the language of security. Labeling opposition movements as “terroristic” or “extremist” broadens state power to surveil, censor, and detain. The end — protecting democracy, liberty, and safety — is invoked so forcefully that the means, even if repressive, are rationalized as necessary. What is at stake, the argument goes, is nothing less than the survival of the system itself.
The Common Thread: Fear as Instrument
Whether in the dungeon of the Inquisition, the propaganda halls of the 20th century, or the press release of a modern government, the essential mechanism is identical:
Declare an existential threat.
Elevate the end (faith, ideology, nation, security) above all else.
Deploy fear — of torture, prison, social ostracism, or death — to secure compliance. The “enemy” shifts names, but the strategy endures.
The Paradox of Terror
The irony is that those who wield terror while claiming to oppose it often become indistinguishable from what they fight. The inquisitor rescuing souls, the dictator purging traitors, the state suppressing dissent in the name of liberty — all share the same DNA. By treating the end as sacred, they make fear itself the most reliable tool of rule.
📌 Conclusion:
If terrorism can be defined not only by violence against innocents but also by the principle that the end sanctifies any means, then the line between outlawed terror and official policy blurs uncomfortably. What unites inquisitors, dictators, insurgents, and modern power-holders is not their ideology, but their willingness to enthrone fear as the path to their chosen future.