Category Archives: Politics

A Salute Returned

The big talking point of the day, for both conservatives that are skeptical of the peace process and the Left, is the returned salute from Pres. Trump. Some people are already hard at work spinning it to make it appear as if Pres. Trump initiated the salute and, indeed, when the only image accompanying it is Pres. Trump looking at an N. K. officer while rendering the salute, the deception is complete.

Newly released video footage from North Korean state media shows President Donald Trump returning a salute to a North Korean military general during this week’s summit in Singapore, an extraordinary display of respect from a US president to a top officer of a hostile regime. (CNN)

Note that the released footage from North Korean state media itself shows that President Trump was returning the salute. This is actually a rather important detail because, undoubtedly, one of the ideas cooked up is that the real damage of the salute is that it can be manipulated into something that it is not, e.g., Pres. Trump rendering a salute first and showing a sort of submission as opposed to receiving a submissive gesture from a North Korean officer and simply answering it.

Remember that all North Korean males and a significant amount of N. Korean females all have to serve in the military and would be totally familiar with decorum. It would be impossible for civilians to confuse the meaning of this.

CNN fortunately continued to clarify a few other things:

n the military, returning a salute from a military officer of a friendly foreign nation is common practice for US military officers and considered a display of military professionalism. There is no rule that a US president is obliged to return a salute, which is considered a sign of mutual respect.

This caveat of “friendly” is rather interesting to me as I had been taught that rendering a salute to officers, friend or foe, was customary at any kind of meeting. However, it now appears that Army regulations say that it is necessary to officers of friendly nations, but the same regulation notes that saluting is mandatory on ceremonial occasions (Army Study Guide). Presumably, this sort of meeting would qualify as a very officious and ceremonial affair, and this is a distinction quite different from simply coming across a N. Korean officer on the street (lol) and rendering him a salute without any other context.

It should be also noted that there are occasions where one is expected to explicitly salute enemy soldiers:

Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces.

Officer prisoners of war are bound to salute only officers of a higher rank of the Detaining Power; they must, however, salute the camp commander regardless of his rank. (Article 39, Geneva Conventions, hosted at UMN.)

Yet… There are people who are acting as if it is highly inappropriate to return the salute of a foreign Officer during discussions pertaining to peace negotiations?

Indeed, imagine having a meeting to arrange a treaty and then decidedly not rendering respect or entertaining mutual honor & decorum.

Of course, I will concede this to the Left who are complaining about this: if Pres. Obama had done the same (while doing what Pres. Trump was doing now), it would have been held over his head for the whole of his Presidency and to this very day. That is utterly undeniable. However, I am not sure why the low standards of your political opponents would justify low standards for oneself.

We should also consider that we are experiencing something already a bit unexpected: Pres. Trump is viewed as a potential warmonger, and is from a party that is stereotyped as warmongers, yet he is pursuing peace, and, while doing so, rendering all sorts of honors and treating everyone with dignity and respect.

The reason for the outrage is not actually a real objection to the things being done but comes from deep seated hatred for the President as a person and potentially conservatism in general.

And, perhaps an even more interesting talking point, and one that has a wide variety of applications, the willingness to accept that Pres. Trump is doing this for conservatives is also coming from a sort of base love for their ‘own guy,’ so to speak.

Ultimately, Pres. Trump did the right thing for the circumstances. Whether or not the negotiations will bear real fruit and CVID will actually occur is a completely different story, and people’s skepticism towards this is entirely justified. However, to be angry about participating in the basic rendering of respect between persons in a formal setting would be no different than demanding that nobody ever shakes hands at negotiations between parties with bad blood.

Haley Walkout, Quiet Deception, & Evolving Thoughts on Israel

Let me preface this by saying I had no idea that I would find this one, small opening to an article so interesting, and also that you will have to forgive me for a rambling delivery. But I really did find this to be a particularly interesting topic because it delves into a lot of small areas that interest me. The Israel/Palestine topic is so rich by itself, and is so utterly complex it is hard to ever adequately deal with it, and when we add in the media’s attempts to gaslight us into a strange position it gets to be even more fun.

I really only stumbled upon this by accident. In one of the Chess forums that I frequent, a leftist was throwing a fit over this story and, voila, here we are.

Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, forcefully defended Israel in the violence at Gaza, potentially widening a rift between the U.S. and allies.

The U.N.’s Middle East envoy said there was no justifying the killings of more than 50 Palestinians by Israeli fire at the Gaza border, and several Security Council members called for an independent investigation, but the council had no unified message Tuesday as the U.S. said Israel had acted with “restraint.” Haley placed all blame for the conflict with Hamas, after more than 50 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire at the Gaza border, following the U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem that was celebrated Monday. Haley laid blame for Monday’s violence on the Hamas extremists who rule Gaza and insisted it had nothing to do with the opening the embassy, a move that infuriated Palestinians.

CBS

It is kind of like the media wants to make it a foregone conclusion that it is the US & Israel alone on these issues, and that all of our other “allies” are thinking of turning their backs on us. But I do not know how accurate of a portrayal this is. I think the US has always vocally supported the Israel party line, more or less, while places like Europe openly oppose it in their words but do nothing with their actions, which is this happy medium that they have entertained for a very long time. In reality, I think nothing dramatic is happening here.

I think that the real interests of the media are quite clear on issues like this:

By emphasizing that this could cause conflict with our allies,  the more that it seems like a disturbance, and the more that it seems like people are meaningfully at odds with each other, the more that they can vilify the Trump administration.

This also provides us with a potentially funny situation where we have the Left and the “Resistance” to Pres. Trump, who are known for all manner of disruption tactics in their efforts to resist the ebil Nazis, arguing that it is beyond the pale to walk out of a discussion like this. Of course, you can almost hear them sputtering but, but, but it’s different because this is the United Nations.

Like shoes don’t get occasionally pounded on tables and what not. Like the people who paraded through the streets with hats meant to mimic female anatomy & have actively campaigned for shifting all standards of decency away from conservative values are truly disheartened by anything less than Victorian quietism when there is a disagreement.

What is also interesting about this sort of incident is that it highlights that there is a lot of change happening in the West re: Israel.

We have seen, more and more, the loyalties to Israel begin to dissipate in favor of the fresh & new “post-colonial” narratives that you see popping up here and there. These ideas gaining popularity pose a great problem for the Left, in my opinion, because they only serve to hammer home the impracticality of Leftist thought. Are we really prepared to burn our bridges with one of the only functional states in the Middle East just to further some line about democracy, autonomy, self-determination, etc., for absolutely everyone, and to talk about “Zionist oppression?”

What is also really fascinating about all of the talk about Israel is that, no matter how you cut the cake, no matter who you side with, it can come back to pro-Nationalist narratives. Israel sticks out like a sore thumb to the globalists: two different peoples that are finding it rather difficult to live one another and both want to have full autonomy. No matter who you side with, it is not too difficult to talk about the validity of each people having a right to self-determination, which, in the era of globalization, sounds increasingly like a radical position. Radical only because the post-WWII narrative about muh rights above every other consideration now makes the basis of some “collective” having rights distasteful to the Libertarian right and unpalatable to the Left for a different collection of reasons.

It has really been a long time since I have sat and thought about Israel… I have grown, over the years, to be increasingly “centrist” and disinclined towards radical positions on the topic. This has marked a stark shift from my youth when I was a kneejerk supporter of everything Israel and had little sympathies on the sides. I simply want to emphasize that both the American right & left tend to make major mistakes on this topic — there is no reason for us to be unquestioningly loyal to Israel, and there is no reason for us to support settlements that are unfair to Palestinians because it theoretically advances some obscure geopolitical cause that we have.

After all, hasn’t the last decade and some change convinced us of the disaster of our interventions in the Middle East? Haven’t we simply come to some point where we can at last put down the mantle of “democratization” there? Why should we work on furthering some super intense posturing of the state of Israel against all others in the Middle East, when, in the long-term, the real goal should be stability, and there is no stability that can come from promoting fundamental imbalances?

The right has to drastically moderate its stance on Israel because no matter how irrational anti-Israel advocates can be we have to be rational actors. Two irrational people flinging dung at each other do not make a right.

Palestinians have inalienable human rights, just like Israelis, and Palestinians have a right to national autonomy and a future. We should do everything that we can to treat them with dignity and come to agreements that see them prosper. As Israel is already a well established state with a high standard of living, more has to be done to see to the needs of Palestinians, and any process which does not prioritize justice for these people will simply lead to more severe and prolonged conflict.

There is also something slightly sick with the obsession that the American conservatives can get with Israel — I’d really like to sit down and discuss this with my people in real life. There gets to be an unhealthy obsession and a borderline psychosis when it comes to defending the state of Israel, as if it can do no wrong and as if the whole of the world is in conspiracy against them. I can only explain it by thinking that the trauma of the Holocaust has pushed people toward heightened sensitivity, and also that the events of the various conflicts prior to my birth were also instrumental in bolstering it a bit higher. I do not think that they are entirely irrational in their position but they have certainly done nothing to moderate their beliefs on the topic over the years.

I honestly think that my position is hopelessly boring, moderate, and uncreative. But I am sure people will find fault in it — this is Israel/Palestine, after all, a topic just as sensitive as abortion and, even though an actual middle ground exists, people like to pretend that there can be no such middle ground and that to seek it out is folly in itself.

A Generation of Jokers

I made some grave mistakes in my 20s — mistakes that were probably deeply rooted in my the attitude I had from a young age. I also suspect a massive amount of people within my generation, the generation before mine and the generation after mine are in the same boat.
Our parents didn’t want to force anything on us too much; our schools weren’t very serious about the work that we did until high school, and even then the message was this will matter in University. I was never taught to be serious in my relationships with girls, in fact I was told that I shouldn’t be too serious and it is very unlikely that I’ll end up staying with any girl I like as a teen.
This was also the style of Jesus I knew as a Protestant American: He forgives everything and we’re bound to make mistakes. I can learn from all of my mistakes. Nearly everything else about this is irrelevant — whenever you’re asked, say you’re a Christian, say a few prayers for your sick Aunt and occasionally be “thankful” about food on the table — mission accomplished.
Our generation is so uncomfortable with the grave that it is intermingled with the venial and pathetic.  Our weddings are even kitschy. Our clothing and musical tastes tend towards the ironic. Everything seems like a satire — caring itself is as a satire.
Without becoming too personal… I feel that I had not come to the conclusions which I needed to be at until much older, and this is not because there has been some tremendous ideological drift between myself and myself 10 years ago. But it is because I did not treat the topics with the gravity that I should have, and never did I even think it would have been necessary.
Dare I say, this is how elites want their subjects to function: farcical tax farms without a broad and deep appreciation for the political, theological or philosophical.
Be the opposite of your generation — be grave.

Give Me That Old Time Business

I recently took some time to listen to an extensive podcast on medieval guilds which featured the economic historian Gary Richards and it was utterly illuminating concerning the functions & roles of guilds in medieval Europe. The full podcast, of course, can be listened to via player.fm.

Of course, there are countless sociological and historical reasons as to why our ancestors functioned the way that they did… You know, in a more civilized and socially conscious fashion than anyone does today. It is also clear that the idea of getting anyone to behave with the manner & neighborliness of a medieval person is a long shot, but let us pine for the old days together for a moment.

First off, throw the image that you have of guilds out of your head; it isn’t solely an organization of pre-modern businessmen trying to fix prices and pull one over on the consumer. The word guild has  a far broader reach. Any organization at all could be called a guild.

In medieval England, nearly every village had at least one registered ‘guild.’ These can be referred to as ‘societies’ as well, and some of these village guilds were nothing more than a prayer society. During the podcast Richardson stated that he believed nearly every adult in England probably was involved in some guild or another. But, of course, many of these were more so village social organizations, and not necessarily within the scope of our interest as we talk about former business practices.

The guilds that did exist that were associations of, say, pewter makers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc. formed very naturally and lived very interconnected lives. Remember that villages would be organized in a logical fashion — tanners and butchers deal with a lot of carcasses and do all manner of processes to make leather; you’d want them congregated in one area near the outside of town. Blacksmiths were involved in extremely loud work that likewise had a lot of fire and produced a lot of smoke and waste — again, you’d want them in one neighborhood.Thus, these guilds were also on some level neighborhood associations. They encompassed the entire section of town where all of the people of a single occupation lived.

It is also important to note that in the highly religious medieval times the craftsmen were devoted to their patron saints. Believing in purgatory as well as Heaven, the guildsmen would gather and pray not just for one another and their families, but also deceased guildsmen who may be stuck in purgatory. A very strong religious zeal existed within them — and in medieval England the primary threat that came with cheating your guild and being estranged from it was one of no longer receiving the prayers and blessings of the group you are with.

But guilds certainly weren’t just prayer warriors… Guilds offered mutual insurance to one another. If a guild member were to have died early, it is fully known that basic sustenance would be provided for his family and even dowries would commonly be furnished by his fellow guildsmen. There was a distinct sense of great social responsibility within the guild…

Guilds would compete to see who provided the best services to their communities and gave the most mutual assurance. They wished to be prestigious and have a measurable positive impact on the community. it was well documented that on the day of their patron Saints, they would have lively festivals and parades. This would include paying for lavish public performances of plays often depicting the life and good deeds of their Saints. The guildsmen would wear special liveries or badges indicating their membership in the guild — for it was a sign of distinct pride to have such an association with organizations that provided for the community.

Of course, guilds were dedicated to their economic work as well. Their trades were closely held secrets, but what was also important was providing quality products. It was common to put a symbol, emblem or ‘signature’ of sorts upon their products because the markings would have reputations attached to them. Thus, one of the other functions of a guild was to look into the work of their registered craftsmen and insure that nobody was doing things to make their products worst (like putting too much lead into their pewter, for instance).

Of course, this was a very different epoch in human history but as a fan of history I always hope to learn something from it. In this case what is clearly worthy of our attention was how, while the time was not as technologically advanced nor had the comforts of modern times, it does appear that they did their best to take care of one another, and a great point of pride was their ability to Give.

All of these elements stand out in stark contrast to the nature of how our business is done, and it is certainly harder to think of us as being the perpetual superior to these medieval peoples.

EU to Spain: You Can’t Use Force To Defend Border

It is pretty normal and natural that any society can reserve the right to apprehend those who are violating their laws or borders, just as one would expect the Police to use force if someone was beginning to resist their arrest, even if such a crime would not normally seemingly merit violent of action.

It is simply an issue of not allowing anyone to break the law without consequence.

But not the case to the PC EU:

EU Interior Commissioner Cecilia Malmström has warned Spain that it cannot use force to prevent immigrants from crossing the border into its North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. The commissioner said that she would not hesitate to take action if she saw clear signs of European laws being broken, reports the Público online new site.

Malmström’s comments on Monday came days after a controversy flared up over a video in which a sub-Saharan migrant is shown being beaten by Civil Guard officers after he climbed the fence separating Morocco from Melilla.

“Border vigilance measures should be proportional and force can only be used when it is necessary and required in order for agents to continue to carry out their duties, to protect their own safety and their lives. Force must not be used as a deterrent against the unauthorised crossing of the border,” the Swedish commissioner said in answer to a question asked in the European Parliament by a Basque Country MEP representing the Bildu party, Josu Juaristi.

The Local

Basically, a hilarious standard is being created because it gives the Eurocommunists an upset stomach to think that force might be used in the process of arresting a flagrant violator of the standing laws.

Now, perhaps such a statement from a fringe party during a season where Europe faced no immigration issues would be somehow respectable, because, after all, there is no pressing need to curb illegal entry, but even still…

It is illegal to enter the country without permission; it is likewise illegal to use force as an officer to enforce this crime (?).

We are trapped in a world of absurdity because politicians increasingly ratchet up their sense of humanity until ‘force’ itself, when in the upholding of the law, is no longer ‘legal.’

But many of these European states have brought this upon themselves when they have willfully bent their necks to a central authority that is hellbent on driving Europe into the ground.

Politics of the Bible: Romans 13

This is one of the more interesting passages — now, just read it, and I will provide some contextualization towards the end:

Romans 13:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

The funny thing is is that this was written to people living in an officially Pagan Empire that was decadent, rife with sex & indulgence, filled with slavery & all manner of other injustices, and it was written by a man who, while citizen of the Empire, was also a Hellenic Jew who was a former Jewish zealot that persecuted liberal Jews & Christians for not being Pharisees. We are literally talking about the most objective, abstract and divorced from bias opinion possible coming from the mouth of Paul on this one.

His integrity and position are incredible! Mindblowing, even. It is hard to fully grasp what is going on here simply because the fellow had no reason, no motive, to pledge any modicum of loyalty to Caesar or any other authority; indeed, Christ Himself was like the fabled Socrates drinking the hemlock at the command of the authorities.

There’s something to be said of this.

It shows some aspect of fatalism within early Christendom, but it also clearly outlines a devout sense of duty to the traditionalist perspectives of authority like that of Guenon or Evola.

In some sense it illustrates the commitment that these radical Christians had to the almost apolitical nature of Christendom. Truly, a radical passage, and one that also speaks of the Ruler – Subject relationship as it was in that culture.

A lot of things can be discussed via this passage and while I could go on, I still haven’t fully formulated my thoughts, and rather, I invite my readers on Facebook/Twitter and elsewhere to discuss or enjoy the depth and context of this passage.

Rembrandt’s rendition of the Apostle Paul

Russell Brad: Useful Idiot or Legit Rebel?

I am always skeptical when someone becomes celebrated by mainstream media or the news as a potential leader of the people, some icon of rebellion. Chances are, the have been selected, celebrated and endorsed precisely because some Elites have viewed their ideas as appealing to them. And what we know about Elites: they never have any intention to meaningfully give up their power or influence, and would prefer to extend it more than anything else.

Someone has decided that Russell Brand, perhaps, is the sort of useful idiot that can go out and shill for vague values and “revolution,” and is perhaps a good means to making a buck… Or, thre’s the potential that he could be some true rebel that has somehow landed a gig.

Now when someone tells me that the Occupy Wall Street movement was some eye opening experience for them, and I had not heard about their political views before hand… I immediately become skeptical.

I’ve been having political thoughts (albeit bad ones) since a kid, and I quickly became skeptical and repelled by the mainstream issues that were even chosen and view them all as some sort of diversion.

I heard some intereting analysis from a fellow on PoFo not too long ago (by the name of Grassroots1), who noted that e felt that the Tea Party & OWS would have been good allies. For, in the end, both had a similar agenda, and both wanted meaningful change to a culture of public bailouts of private corporations. In that there was some good analysis and potential for OWS…

But what we quickly saw occur was OWS become an incredibly delineated, solitary “rebellion” of just one story within the greater discontent, and we also saw that the organization became embedded and dominated by typical radicals that would never be able to extend their hands to a broader swathe of society.

I am inclined to believe that Russell Brand is just a silly figure that, if we aren’t careful, will be expected to “speak for our generation” (GOD FORBID!!!), and to “lead us.”

I tell you: anywhere Russell Brand leads you will have to do with his personal bank account and book deal (though he might not know or admit it), and it will have to do more specifically with whatever agenda the Elites behind him have in mind.

Don’t buy his book.

Don’t follow his lead.

Don’t pay attention. Unless it is to laugh… Perhaps he is a good comedian, after all, but I see no reason why his gestures here shouldn’t be treated as another comedic gesture.

Not to mention I do not even know of how to make of the douchey-ness that seeps through towards the end of the interview.

Femen Highlights Insanity of French PC Courts

Femen, the radical feminist organization which has garnered fame for utter insanity, has proven itself useful in pointing out the ridiculous nature of the occupied & degenerate Western liberal justice system which, having no regard for any of its own institutions nor any concept of propriety, has essentially sided with Femen and thrown the book at others who have challenged their order.

 

No doubt, a simple watch through the video will reveal just how utterly nutty the Femen tactics are (as is to be expeced) but the fact that after pulling such a stunt they received 1,500 Euros each for being rouged up by guards shows precisely the nature of liberal European courts who have zero regard for the sanctity of some of their greatest heritage sites, but would hold guards to exaggerated standards while arresting such cretins.

And, of course, while the stunt pulled off on the French island is utterly unacceptable, it is a far cry off compared to Femen’s deed, and the punishment that they received was far lesser.

This is why I love Russia Today: it is one of the few reliable, famous sources that will actually go after the hypocrisy of the West, and will point out the negativity of the direction that we have been taking for a very long time.

The level of hypocrisy within Western institutions, and the level to which they pander to the far left and slap their wrists lightly while witch hunting the right wing, is an issue that should be of a concern to everyone who has ever considered that democracy should be a free & fair notion.

This isn’t even really a ‘left vs. right’ issue, but it is one where we are seeing a gross double standard within institutions that should be objective more or less.

Another fun note:

I turn 30 today.

Yay, me.

James Kalb & Defining Of Sexuality

Sexual politics has become a thing dominating modern politics for the last two decades. The irony is that modern man seems to always complain about the lack of privacy that we enjoy, yet at the same time these issues are pressured to become public affairs. There are massive attempts to manipulate public opinion and to force certain agendas down our throats and so, it is with some degree of regret, that I find myself in the world of people commenting on the highly personal.

It is, no doubt, a victory of misguided or nefarious forces to turn the highly private into the highly public, and to shift discussion towards a decidedly individual topic. But, nonetheless, we must present our opinions respectfully when it is relevant, and stand up for our positions.

Some quotations form James Kalb I caught off of a great Tweeter’s feed:

The message here is one that should be rather clear… That to some degree our sexuality does have greater ramifications, and thereby it isn’t some pleasant choice that we make, but it is rather always bearing a large impact on those around us.

Perhaps it could, in some universe, be a private affair, but that is certainly not our universe, and it is certainly not even the will of those who actively engage in sexual politics who attempt to tie everything back to an issue of our individual sexualities.

And it is to them that the suggestion ought to be made that the choices which we make as people do have large impacts on everyone that is around us. Thus, we see why there has always been an attachment to conservative viewpoints on the sexuality of people — to avoid the more pervasive, negative impacts that sexuality can have upon vast numbers of people.

The notion is simple, and something that nearly all of us understand intuitively: to avoid problems and confusions over things we limit the scope of people allowed to use them. Not because we hate people, but because we understand that mistakes are regularly made and the more that people are involved in them the more confusing the situations become, and the greater risk of disaster exists.

Thus: sexuality, regardless of what we want, is ideally restricted to the confines of monogamous relationships that are public and officiously sanctioned.

Love is, as they say, ironically larger than just you or me, it is larger than just any single couple or any single set of desires or preferences, but because of those far ranging impacts, it is something that ought to be minimalized and played down whenever possible.

And it is likewise important to remember that the basis of things that we choose ought not be to obtain pleasure or personal gratification, but ought to likewise be aimed at having a positive impact on those around us. And that such choices are a superior reflection on ourselves when we prioritize a greater social harmony over a personal indulgence.

It is precisely for reasons like these that I have given up alcohol.

I don’t think any of these statements should be treated as controversial, but God knows, even when speaking in the least offensive terms possible, it is common for fault to be found in any words on the topic.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Asked Other Peace Prize Winner to Stop Bombing Her Country (LOL?)

This is the sort of comedy that ensues when you give a Nobel peace prize to Pres. Obama before he started his own Presidency…

For the first time in history, and a point that I hope will not be lost on historians in 100 years, we have seen one Nobel Peace Prize winner ask another Nobel Peace Prize winner to essentially stop bombing to smitherines her country…

… And to just re-emphasize this, let’s also throw into the picture the fact that the bombing campaign is being conducted by bloody robots…. But they aren’t bloody; they fly too high to be bloody.

On Friday morning, 17 year-old Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yousafzai’s prize is well-deserved: she’s been a prominent campaigner for girls’ education for years, and survived a Taliban assassination attempt for her efforts.

But women’s education isn’t Malala’s only cause. She’s also waged a prominent campaign on a topic Americans aren’t talking much about nowadays: the drone war in Pakistan.

In characteristically bold fashion, Yousafzai brought these concerns up in a meeting with President Obama back in October 2013 — one that had originally been held to celebrate her commitment to education.

“I thanked President Obama for the United States’ work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees,” Yousafzai said in a statement after the meeting — before turning to drones. “I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.”

The White House statement on its meeting with Yousafzai left that bit out.

Vox

Again, I merely point out what a hilarious moment in history when two recipients of the same peace prize are in this situation…

Perhaps the absurd decision makers of the Nobel Peace Prize committee ought to be blamed for this situation.