Rioting at embassies -- y'know what'd put a stop to that? A wall of liquid fire.
Yes, I'm serious; this isn't "high spirits" or "free speech," it's a mob assault on the embassy of a foreign power. If you, me and 500 of our closest friends stormed the Chinese embassy in Washington, or the Yemeni consulate in wherever the hell there is one, or whatever other furrin outpost of furriness and afternoon teas-over-treaties, I'd expect deadly force to be used -- and not just by their guards, but by our own police as well, 'cos that form of mob violence is an assault on a sovereign power.
But Roberta X, you demur, aren't you an anarchist? Don't you believe in your heart of hearts that "government" and "sovereign powers" other than the individual are merely polite fictions? Why yes, yes I do -- but just like the polite fiction that the Vicar's wife has not just let fly an enormous, dire blat of flatulence while taking tea, those polite fictions are (at least in theory) how we refrain from climbing bell towers or pushing the big red missile-firing button, even when we are, severally and each, getting on one another's last nerve. It's b---s---, but it's useful; swarming the fences and takin' out ambassadors with shoulder-fired rockets is breaking the rules. It ain't how the game is played.
And it deserves a response other than "oops" or "Oh, my, that was an insulting video." Personally, I would recommend flamethrowers loaded with napalm; that way, when the Grand Vizier or the Undershirtsecretary or Prime Minister of Rioterstan calls up to say he's shocked, shocked to learn rioting is going on and promising to take stern action if only the malefactors can be located, our Consul or Ambassador can simply tell him, "Great! Just look for the b-stards with severe burns."
And why are they rioting? Let's ask the Brits! Why, this columnist says it's over a "a really nasty piece of lying propaganda" which he likens to "a Jack Chick comic;" he goes on to urge banning. --No word if he'd ban Chick handouts, too, but the implication's obvious. Still, the gov.uk can do that; the writer even claims it is within "central values of liberal democracy" with a straight face. And he cites Mill, that the remedy for bad speech is better speech; but just like the rioters, he has no faith in the notion. (Submitting to thugs and mobs has such a great history of positive results, doesn't it?)
Holy cow. Chick tracts are hilarious; while I'm sure they hold a certain appeal to persons who agree with the tenets expressed therein, the rest of us have trouble takin' 'em seriously. Yet that's the kind of thing violently-inclined Islamic "youth" are burning embassies and torpedoing Ambassadors over? (Well, if there is any group that knows and loves crude propaganda.... Ahem.)
Napalm's too good for 'em. It's bit too tony for any government that condones their actions, too.
W9BSP: A HAM'S HAM, A TEACHER'S TEACHER
3 weeks ago