XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.history, alt.politics
XPost: alt.culture
On 10/15/24 11:22 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:15:41 -0400, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
We've seen it all through history. Expert swordsmen HAVE to be
defeated by other expert swordsmen. Expert gun-fighters HAVE
to be defeated by a better gun-slinger. Brutes HAVE to be
defeated by a stronger brute. Even in "Harry Potter", expert
magicians HAVE to be defeated by stronger magic. In "Trading
Places" money people HAD to be defeated using money methods.
Or how about a knife in the back ??? A sniper ??? Hooker
bearing poison ???
Oh no ! NOT THAT !!!!!!
How come ?
A great movie scene I remember - the first "Indiana Jones"
film ... the huge black-clad killer appears, puts on a big
display with his sword ... so our hero just plugs him with
a .45 - problem solved :-)
This idea that strong men, usually malevolent, HAVE to
be defeated via their own strongest skill has hung on
for what seems to be thousands of years. You see, might
makes right, favor of The Gods, so .......
And for thousands of years the weak have resorted to witchcraft.
No such thing.
Mostly 'the weak' just SUFFER SUFFER SUFFER and do
not DARE rock the boat. They yearn for a champion -
but almost never get one. If they DO get one, the
champion often becomes as bad as what came before.
The politics of power are a constant, no matter who
winds up in charge.
Hmmm ... the other day the old 'Caveman' movie came
on - Ringo Starr as the ultimate loser/weak-person
forever bullied by the leader brute, never any pussy.
It was a fun little movie - including VERY young
examples of Dennis Quaid and Shelly Long. Our un-hero
eventually triumphs, but again only by taking on the
brute using (slightly smarter) brute force.
NOWadays, 'the weak' DO have one big advantage - LAWYERS.
Upset the whole equation .....
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)