[psychohistory] Two mistakes (fwd)

F. Marc de Piolenc piolenc at mozcom.com
Fri Oct 26 19:47:02 PDT 2001


> Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Nations with imperial aspirations, invariably, throughout History
> change their conscript based army in favor of an army of paid
> soldiers. Today euphimisticaly called 'profesional' soldiers, but know
> also as mercenaries and soldiers of fortune in the not-so-distant
> past. (Note: Ligustically a "soldier" is 'someone-who-is-SOLD'
> anyway).

Psst - your ignorance is showing! The French term "soldier" refers to a
warrior who is paid - "solde" means pay - as contrasted originally with
feudal levies, who were not. Nowadays the distinction is meaningless
because even conscripts are paid at regular rates, so we say
"professional soldier" for a volunteer and "conscript" for a short-term
draftee. 

A . "Salary," by the way, refers to a portion of the pay of the Roman
legionaire, which was paid in salt.

> Now this trend is well documented in past history and definately has
> its own Psychohistorical significance as it's one of the notable
> 'landmarks' of an Imperium (ie. a nation/state pursuing
> local/regional/global hegemony - dominance).

The US eliminates involuntary military servitude, and you call it
imperialism. It develops a career army, and you call it mercenary. I
know this won't make any impression on you, but do try to consider the
obvious military advantages of having continuity in training, experience
and DISCIPLINE. I would just add that by your criterion, Canada must be
planning to take over the world because they have always had a
professional military in all services!

> Of course profesional soldiers are in for the money and
> generally do not look forward to a glorious death in Afganistan,

Have you ever actually talked to a US soldier? I don't think anybody
"looks forward" to death in combat, but if you think our military is
intimidated by the likes of OBL or the Taliban, you obviously don't know
much about the current state of morale in the US military. And your
ignorance shows again when you say professional soldiers are "in it for
the money" - you contradict yourself. How much would it cost to convince
YOU to put your life on the line? There probably isn't enough money in
the world for that, because you are a moral coward, and such people tend
to be physical cowards as well. Fortunately, your kind is the exception,
something you are naturally incapable of perceiving from your
perspective.

Marc de Piolenc






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list