Infanticide

Hoo boy! Interblogging rivalry extravanganza ahoy!

Marcus of Harry's Place has previously merited comparison on these pages to the pseudonymous author of a 19th century pamphlet advocating infanticide to cure unemployment. (It seems to have irritated him ever since, for some reason.) This early "Marcus" has been surpassed by his 21st century desecendant, however, who mixes an extraordinary, irrational support for the deaths of 100,000 people with a nice turn in removals from context.

In a comment on Lenin's page, one reader had mentioned his general unhappiness with the formulation "by any means necessary", as supported by Trevor Phillips (no less). I suggested that

It's been said before, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the "by any means necessary" formulation: "necessary means" clearly does not include the murder of trade unionists; this will do nothing to liberate Iraq.

I say that as one member of the Stop the War Coalition. Clearly, others in the Coalition will disagree with that, for all sorts of reasons. That's fine by me. For the Coalition to work at all, as Robin says, all kinds of compromises have to be made.

"That" refers to the entire formula "any means necessary", as is clear enough from the preceding comments. There are some people in the Coalition opposed to all violence. It is an understandable position, and one with which I think many people have an innate sympathy. It thoroughly deserves representation within StWC. Hence "compromise".

But, bless his socks, Marcus has become sufficiently excited about one comment of mine posted on a website he presumably detests to construct a delirious fantasy around it. "Flattering... but not a little creepy," as he may have said elsewhere, of some other issue.

(I wonder if now is a good point to mention weapons of mass destruction?)