One of the topics I have seen of late coming from the "black pill" crowd is that President Trump has decided to leave significant campaign promises left unfulfilled because he's brokered a deal with the "real" powers that be to ensure his daughter gets to be President at some point in the future.
There is a Swedish proverb that is relevant, "Those who wish to sing, always find a song."
It might be worth taking a trip to a few years back and remember when similar types of aspersions were being tossed about.
Clown Genius - Dilbert Blog
For years people have tried to find ways to dismiss and discredit Donald Trump. It doesn't seem to matter, does it? That article, from four years ago, if you look at all that has, or hasn't, happened in the meantime, the hindsight can be useful.
People have been theorizing incorrectly about Trump for a long time. While this track record should dissuade, people forget who said what, who claimed what, and that forgetfulness can be exploited by people who want to sell the latest reason to dive into a purely emotional experience.
Being miserable and upset is, apparently, all that some people can feel anymore. As such, they are determined to remain in such a state, but get lonely, and want others to join in with them.
Now, this doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that extra scrutiny needs to be applied to claims made because at even the hint of negativity, these people's brains light up at the opportunity and they'll jump on it and ride it as long as possible. They'll take small things and act as if they're big, if that's what it takes to get their emotional high, or low as the case may be.
In this case, if someone wants to build a case, they'd need to show a history of behavior to establish Donald Trump's patterns, and how this would be an extension of that pattern just playing out once again.
The people I've seen don't do that, so while it's possible someone is, for all the pointing and shrieking I've not seen a source which has been able to provide any conclusive evidence.
Certainly in hindsight, with more data, we'll know for sure, but part of making good predictions and judgment calls is in collecting the pertinent data ahead of time and making choices on what to do now in light of it.
Oh right, don't suggest people do anything, because you might be a fed in a honeypot looking to nab someone, so all we can do is endlessly attempt to diagnose the same problems over and over and over...
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
16.4.19
9.4.19
Protect the nation that cared from the other nations that clearly don't
A simpler solution to the current war of attrition at the United States border with Mexico would be to treat the illegal immigrants as what they are: foreign invaders.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
We saw this with the Civil Rights movement in the United States, where failing to enact change through voting and election, activists turned to alternatives. MLK is contrasted with Malcolm X as two different sides of the same coin, with MLK having cultivated a public image of nonviolence while Malcolm supported more aggressive actions, both in the name of racial equality.
What they were doing was seeking to amend the empire to benefit blacks in the United States, much the same way that the Irish and Germans did before them, and the Hispanics and Asians would do after, and their efforts all provided a precedent for equality on even less tangible terms, such as religious belief and sexual preferences, to where we are today where one's preferred view on reality is given credence, such that a person who identifies as an animal or supernatural being genuinely expects to be accommodated.
The dynamic at play is one which exists in a multi-cultural empire, and that is identity politics.
Identity > Culture > Politics
When a people share identity and culture, the disagreements occur on the plane of politics, and this is why so many people believe that the United States is a "nation of immigrants", or a "proposition nation", or a "nation of ideals", because people are ignoring that prior to 1965, it was also essentially all white, of British descent, and Christian.
When one wants to come to an agreement, things that are shared can be skipped past. If both parties already agree, they don't need to go back over those things, but will instead spend their time discussing the things they disagree on, the topics where something isn't shared.
If everyone is white, of British descent, and Christian, then there is a huge amount of common ground when it comes to values, morality, ethics, rituals and traditions and so on, which will never need to be re-hashed, agreed to all over again, because those things are baseline to being alive at that time.
Parents who are white, of British descent, and Christian will bear children that are white, of British descent, and Christian, and will naturally create a culture that is resonates of being white, of British descent, and Christian.
But what happens when someone who isn't white, of British descent, and Christian tries to live in such a country? They will not only be at odds with the politics, the downstream discussion, but they're also going to possess a different culture, and will also likely possess an entirely different identity as well. They will break laws that seem arbitrary or trite, they will commit social faux pas out of ignorance, and they will view the practices and traditions of the people around them with an extremely skeptical eye.
Now, this doesn't say that any particular trait or practice is good or bad, just that they are different, and that historically such differences were what formed a distinctive nation in the first place.
People who shared blood and God, or gods, had their own way of going about things which was distinctively theirs. They would have allies and associates that may share some of these things, but because they did not share all of them, they were still a separate nation.
Israel existed in Egypt for hundreds of years and yet they did not become Egyptians, but still retained the distinctive characteristics of their nation.
In the same manner, when even legal immigration laws for the United States were changed in 1965 to lift the racial restrictions, there were many nations that saw an opportunity to make use of the wealth and resources that existed in the United States to benefit their own nations, and all they had to do was relocate themselves physically in order to gain such access.
Where before 1965 the only nations present were largely descendants of Europeans or the slaves, after 1965 even more nations joined the mix, and the groundwork laid by the blacks would serve as a template for other nations to try and carve out their own place in the United States empire.
Now, the reason the United States was an empire is because of the first Civil War. Tensions between the "North" and the "South" grew because there were two different nations supposedly being served by the same central government. The "North" sought political unity with the "South", while the "South" sought to retain its own distinctive character and preserve its own nation.
When the "North" defeated the "South", what formed was an empire, similar to Rome's, where superficial distinctions of conquered peoples were allowed, but by force of power many different nations would serve a single state, a single government. While the issue of slavery is used as a catalyst to try and paint the "North" as "good" and the "South" as "bad", the practices were already on their way out the door, as slave labor is simply never really capable of keeping up with technology and dedication. On economics alone, slavery was going to be destroyed,, but it wasn't happening fast enough, and the unity of the states was at stake.
Instead of allowing the "South" to exist independently, the "North" conquered it, and this created the empire of America, and that empire would grow worldwide, given that the United States has military bases around the world, and is the primary supporter and enforcer of the United Nations. Like conquering of the past, the threat of punishment and destruction was offset by a shared monetary system and promises of favorable treatment, and this was supposed to be an acceptable exchange.
And folks wonder why there are people in the "South" who are still upset. They were a conquered people, their distinctiveness outlawed, and they were then forced to abide by the rules of their conquerors on penalty of death.
So the "Civil War" of the United States wasn't really a "nation divided", but the exposure of, even at that time, at least two nations connected by a single government.
And that hasn't changed, but has only gotten worse, since 1965, because each nation that arrives is under the same expectation.
There will be one nation that ultimately serves the state, that defines the values that all the other nations they have conquered adhere to, and every additional nation that came under the jurisdiction of the United States government put even more pressure to remove that which was white, of British descent, and Christian.
The minorities, nations unto themselves, did not seek to conquer from scratch, but to wrestle controls of the mechanisms of conquering, and end up in essentially the same result without nearly the amount of bloodshed and sacrifice of their own people.
War, in other words, but without bullets and blades.
To conquer and rule and have others serve your nation.
Now, the reason that so many foreign nations had no problems accepting these extremely loose terms is that there was no expectation that they change their identity, and so even if they were subservient to those who were white, of British descent, and Christian, they still fared orders of magnitude better than anyone else in their nation in their homeland.
When the Samaritan woman referenced the scraps that fell off the table for the dogs to eat, if the kingdom is sufficiently prosperous, then even the scraps will be of such a quantity and magnitude that "subservience" in the new system will still leave one better off than "freedom" under the old system.
Sure, there will be problems with practices, rituals, and clashes with law enforcement, but even so, it's still better than what they had before.
Until these various nations think that they can do it better.
Until these various nations think that the wealth they enjoy by proxy could be enjoyed in fuller measure if they were at the table instead.
And so that is what the last half a century of political chicanery has been. All the non-white, not of British descent, not Christian nations seeking to "take their place" and reap the rewards.
Only that without the white, of British descent, Christian people at the helm, the whole system breaks down and begins to look just like the homelands that these various nations abandoned, because if those nations could have created such a civilization, they'd already have done it in their homelands and they'd not have had any reason to escape them for something better in the first place.
In their greed, they seek to take the helm and steer the ship as they see fit, not realizing that they lack the fundamental characteristics to keep the ship sailing correctly at all, let alone to find even greater treasures and enjoy even greater wealth.
Each of these nations then is not seeking to benefit anyone else but their own. Where white, of British descent, and Christian people altruistically offered help to the rest of the world, their offers are swatted aside in arrogance and in ignorance by people who think they can do a better job, but are literally too stupid to understand why they cannot.
The altruism of even the two American nations is drowned by the insatiable avarice of the rest of the world, the greed which undermines the homelands of so many nations and directly prevents them from ever gaining any semblance of advanced civilization, let alone civilization at all. Where the "North" and "South" disagreed is downright trivial compared to the disagreements they have with Hispanic, African, or Asian nations.
So the people who jump the borders, what are they? They are soldiers, even if they do not carry guns. They are agents for a foreign nation, seeking to benefit their own nation, never thinking of the consequences to anyone else. They are selfish, they are ignorant, and they have more in common with locusts from a biblical plague than people.
But they are people.
And their plight does demand an action.
But that action is not invading and undermining another nation's homeland.
Soldiers are killed by their enemies during times of war, until a victor has conquered or the participating "sides" lack the resolve or resources to keep fighting.
Instead of deporting, we should be executing.
Instead of encouraging legal immigration, we should be repatriating people to their homelands.
If the civilization that solved to many problems and fostered so much technological advance is to survive, what made it distinct cannot be drowned out by the hunger of peoples who reject the core characteristics for themselves. If a nation does not want to adopt a trait, they should be free to reject it, and live in the consequences that come from it in their own lands.
No nation has the right to extinguish or steal from another.
No nation has the right to rule over or conquer another.
Such actions are acts of war, and should be resisted with lethal force.
And it is for this reason we'll see a Civil War 2, only that the distinction between the nations will be much more stark in contrast.
Instead of disagreements on politics, or even culture, we're going to see identity and race come into play. The nations will redefine themselves to avoid being swallowed up, and those that define themselves and fight will retain some portion of the existing territory for themselves.
So long as they can hold it.
We can't avert this path, because even should we do what we should, the outcry and backlash would ignite the war all the same.
We're on a path with no other options. No way to escape the inevitable. We've cast out bet and thrown the dice.
Be ready to act regardless of how they land.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
We saw this with the Civil Rights movement in the United States, where failing to enact change through voting and election, activists turned to alternatives. MLK is contrasted with Malcolm X as two different sides of the same coin, with MLK having cultivated a public image of nonviolence while Malcolm supported more aggressive actions, both in the name of racial equality.
What they were doing was seeking to amend the empire to benefit blacks in the United States, much the same way that the Irish and Germans did before them, and the Hispanics and Asians would do after, and their efforts all provided a precedent for equality on even less tangible terms, such as religious belief and sexual preferences, to where we are today where one's preferred view on reality is given credence, such that a person who identifies as an animal or supernatural being genuinely expects to be accommodated.
The dynamic at play is one which exists in a multi-cultural empire, and that is identity politics.
Identity > Culture > Politics
When a people share identity and culture, the disagreements occur on the plane of politics, and this is why so many people believe that the United States is a "nation of immigrants", or a "proposition nation", or a "nation of ideals", because people are ignoring that prior to 1965, it was also essentially all white, of British descent, and Christian.
When one wants to come to an agreement, things that are shared can be skipped past. If both parties already agree, they don't need to go back over those things, but will instead spend their time discussing the things they disagree on, the topics where something isn't shared.
If everyone is white, of British descent, and Christian, then there is a huge amount of common ground when it comes to values, morality, ethics, rituals and traditions and so on, which will never need to be re-hashed, agreed to all over again, because those things are baseline to being alive at that time.
Parents who are white, of British descent, and Christian will bear children that are white, of British descent, and Christian, and will naturally create a culture that is resonates of being white, of British descent, and Christian.
But what happens when someone who isn't white, of British descent, and Christian tries to live in such a country? They will not only be at odds with the politics, the downstream discussion, but they're also going to possess a different culture, and will also likely possess an entirely different identity as well. They will break laws that seem arbitrary or trite, they will commit social faux pas out of ignorance, and they will view the practices and traditions of the people around them with an extremely skeptical eye.
Now, this doesn't say that any particular trait or practice is good or bad, just that they are different, and that historically such differences were what formed a distinctive nation in the first place.
People who shared blood and God, or gods, had their own way of going about things which was distinctively theirs. They would have allies and associates that may share some of these things, but because they did not share all of them, they were still a separate nation.
Israel existed in Egypt for hundreds of years and yet they did not become Egyptians, but still retained the distinctive characteristics of their nation.
In the same manner, when even legal immigration laws for the United States were changed in 1965 to lift the racial restrictions, there were many nations that saw an opportunity to make use of the wealth and resources that existed in the United States to benefit their own nations, and all they had to do was relocate themselves physically in order to gain such access.
Where before 1965 the only nations present were largely descendants of Europeans or the slaves, after 1965 even more nations joined the mix, and the groundwork laid by the blacks would serve as a template for other nations to try and carve out their own place in the United States empire.
Now, the reason the United States was an empire is because of the first Civil War. Tensions between the "North" and the "South" grew because there were two different nations supposedly being served by the same central government. The "North" sought political unity with the "South", while the "South" sought to retain its own distinctive character and preserve its own nation.
When the "North" defeated the "South", what formed was an empire, similar to Rome's, where superficial distinctions of conquered peoples were allowed, but by force of power many different nations would serve a single state, a single government. While the issue of slavery is used as a catalyst to try and paint the "North" as "good" and the "South" as "bad", the practices were already on their way out the door, as slave labor is simply never really capable of keeping up with technology and dedication. On economics alone, slavery was going to be destroyed,, but it wasn't happening fast enough, and the unity of the states was at stake.
Instead of allowing the "South" to exist independently, the "North" conquered it, and this created the empire of America, and that empire would grow worldwide, given that the United States has military bases around the world, and is the primary supporter and enforcer of the United Nations. Like conquering of the past, the threat of punishment and destruction was offset by a shared monetary system and promises of favorable treatment, and this was supposed to be an acceptable exchange.
And folks wonder why there are people in the "South" who are still upset. They were a conquered people, their distinctiveness outlawed, and they were then forced to abide by the rules of their conquerors on penalty of death.
So the "Civil War" of the United States wasn't really a "nation divided", but the exposure of, even at that time, at least two nations connected by a single government.
And that hasn't changed, but has only gotten worse, since 1965, because each nation that arrives is under the same expectation.
There will be one nation that ultimately serves the state, that defines the values that all the other nations they have conquered adhere to, and every additional nation that came under the jurisdiction of the United States government put even more pressure to remove that which was white, of British descent, and Christian.
The minorities, nations unto themselves, did not seek to conquer from scratch, but to wrestle controls of the mechanisms of conquering, and end up in essentially the same result without nearly the amount of bloodshed and sacrifice of their own people.
War, in other words, but without bullets and blades.
To conquer and rule and have others serve your nation.
Now, the reason that so many foreign nations had no problems accepting these extremely loose terms is that there was no expectation that they change their identity, and so even if they were subservient to those who were white, of British descent, and Christian, they still fared orders of magnitude better than anyone else in their nation in their homeland.
When the Samaritan woman referenced the scraps that fell off the table for the dogs to eat, if the kingdom is sufficiently prosperous, then even the scraps will be of such a quantity and magnitude that "subservience" in the new system will still leave one better off than "freedom" under the old system.
Sure, there will be problems with practices, rituals, and clashes with law enforcement, but even so, it's still better than what they had before.
Until these various nations think that they can do it better.
Until these various nations think that the wealth they enjoy by proxy could be enjoyed in fuller measure if they were at the table instead.
And so that is what the last half a century of political chicanery has been. All the non-white, not of British descent, not Christian nations seeking to "take their place" and reap the rewards.
Only that without the white, of British descent, Christian people at the helm, the whole system breaks down and begins to look just like the homelands that these various nations abandoned, because if those nations could have created such a civilization, they'd already have done it in their homelands and they'd not have had any reason to escape them for something better in the first place.
In their greed, they seek to take the helm and steer the ship as they see fit, not realizing that they lack the fundamental characteristics to keep the ship sailing correctly at all, let alone to find even greater treasures and enjoy even greater wealth.
Each of these nations then is not seeking to benefit anyone else but their own. Where white, of British descent, and Christian people altruistically offered help to the rest of the world, their offers are swatted aside in arrogance and in ignorance by people who think they can do a better job, but are literally too stupid to understand why they cannot.
The altruism of even the two American nations is drowned by the insatiable avarice of the rest of the world, the greed which undermines the homelands of so many nations and directly prevents them from ever gaining any semblance of advanced civilization, let alone civilization at all. Where the "North" and "South" disagreed is downright trivial compared to the disagreements they have with Hispanic, African, or Asian nations.
So the people who jump the borders, what are they? They are soldiers, even if they do not carry guns. They are agents for a foreign nation, seeking to benefit their own nation, never thinking of the consequences to anyone else. They are selfish, they are ignorant, and they have more in common with locusts from a biblical plague than people.
But they are people.
And their plight does demand an action.
But that action is not invading and undermining another nation's homeland.
Soldiers are killed by their enemies during times of war, until a victor has conquered or the participating "sides" lack the resolve or resources to keep fighting.
Instead of deporting, we should be executing.
Instead of encouraging legal immigration, we should be repatriating people to their homelands.
If the civilization that solved to many problems and fostered so much technological advance is to survive, what made it distinct cannot be drowned out by the hunger of peoples who reject the core characteristics for themselves. If a nation does not want to adopt a trait, they should be free to reject it, and live in the consequences that come from it in their own lands.
No nation has the right to extinguish or steal from another.
No nation has the right to rule over or conquer another.
Such actions are acts of war, and should be resisted with lethal force.
And it is for this reason we'll see a Civil War 2, only that the distinction between the nations will be much more stark in contrast.
Instead of disagreements on politics, or even culture, we're going to see identity and race come into play. The nations will redefine themselves to avoid being swallowed up, and those that define themselves and fight will retain some portion of the existing territory for themselves.
So long as they can hold it.
We can't avert this path, because even should we do what we should, the outcry and backlash would ignite the war all the same.
We're on a path with no other options. No way to escape the inevitable. We've cast out bet and thrown the dice.
Be ready to act regardless of how they land.
10.1.19
You can't take it with you
I recently had a conversation with a co-worker who owns a lot more firearms than me. When asked whether I'd gotten any "new toys" over the break, I said no, I "have enough already." This was met with a mildly derisive chuckle and the declaration that "no you don't."
I retorted with "I already own more than I can carry."
The response I got from him was "I don't plan on walking anywhere."
Now, I quickly realized how stupid I had been and adjusted my responses in the conversation going forward, because you can tell where this would have ended up had I continued as I started. Too quickly I forget that other people aren't interested in a practical discussion, but are more often than not just seeking validation in some form or another.
When it comes to emergency or disaster preparedness, one of the biggest mistakes you can make is investing considerable time and energy into only one possible outcome. It's easy to do, because most folks don't talk about the presumptions going into their assertions, they just take a stance and then challenge anyone to take them on.
For example, preparing for a flood is different than preparing for war.
Preparing for a nuclear blast is different than preparing for an economic collapse.
In every "End Of The World As We Know It" scenario, there are going to be different skills, tools, and mindsets required in order to increase your odds of surviving, let alone thriving.
The simplest example of this is in how people try to decide whether they'll "bug out" or stay put in a time or crisis. Why you would do one or the other will be based on a large number of variables, yet folks want to ignore such subtlety to instead claim that there is a single correct answer, instead of addressing the fact that all they're doing is changing how the odds look for them under a given set of circumstances.
If there is nuclear fallout in the air, traveling is probably not going to be a good idea, likewise if there are foreign armies on the march.
If your house has just been washed down the river, or been burned by rioters, your only choice is to travel.
If you are only prepared for one, you'll be screwed if the other occurs.
If you are relying on a huge arsenal, you'll be screwed if you lose it.
If you are relying on not having a huge arsenal, you'll be screwed by anyone who has held onto one.
The frustration with the conversation, and how many of these conversations end up going, is that folks presume they can predict the future, and have then planned for that future, and have pride in how well they've planned for that future. It's not a scientific thing, it's an emotional thing, because nobody can really predict the future with any great degree of reliability.
If your plan is to be the neighborhood warlord, do you keep yourself armed enough to fight back into your neighborhood? Unless you work from home, or carry around said arsenal with you at all times, you're going to be in scenarios where you don't have the tools and resources you expected to have, and you still need to act. You can't just tell everyone to wait while you get ready.
It can be entertaining to discuss things as if all of our plans will be successful, but nowhere in life is anyone so. In FOREX, for example, one is a great success if 51% of the trades done are profitable. Listen to stories of entrepreneurs about their success rate with inventions and start-ups.
Most plans fail miserably, or are thrown away quickly, so instead of investing yourself into a single plan, develop the skills to create new plans. Don't get really good at implementing one plan, but get good at the "OODA" loop. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.
Then, invest in tools, devices, and skills that support such circumstantial flexibility. People and circumstances can take away what you have, but neither of those can change what you know, or what you can do.
Don't brag about how well you've prepared for what you think will happen, but in how well you can react to the unexpected and still come out on top.
I retorted with "I already own more than I can carry."
The response I got from him was "I don't plan on walking anywhere."
Now, I quickly realized how stupid I had been and adjusted my responses in the conversation going forward, because you can tell where this would have ended up had I continued as I started. Too quickly I forget that other people aren't interested in a practical discussion, but are more often than not just seeking validation in some form or another.
When it comes to emergency or disaster preparedness, one of the biggest mistakes you can make is investing considerable time and energy into only one possible outcome. It's easy to do, because most folks don't talk about the presumptions going into their assertions, they just take a stance and then challenge anyone to take them on.
For example, preparing for a flood is different than preparing for war.
Preparing for a nuclear blast is different than preparing for an economic collapse.
In every "End Of The World As We Know It" scenario, there are going to be different skills, tools, and mindsets required in order to increase your odds of surviving, let alone thriving.
The simplest example of this is in how people try to decide whether they'll "bug out" or stay put in a time or crisis. Why you would do one or the other will be based on a large number of variables, yet folks want to ignore such subtlety to instead claim that there is a single correct answer, instead of addressing the fact that all they're doing is changing how the odds look for them under a given set of circumstances.
If there is nuclear fallout in the air, traveling is probably not going to be a good idea, likewise if there are foreign armies on the march.
If your house has just been washed down the river, or been burned by rioters, your only choice is to travel.
If you are only prepared for one, you'll be screwed if the other occurs.
If you are relying on a huge arsenal, you'll be screwed if you lose it.
If you are relying on not having a huge arsenal, you'll be screwed by anyone who has held onto one.
The frustration with the conversation, and how many of these conversations end up going, is that folks presume they can predict the future, and have then planned for that future, and have pride in how well they've planned for that future. It's not a scientific thing, it's an emotional thing, because nobody can really predict the future with any great degree of reliability.
If your plan is to be the neighborhood warlord, do you keep yourself armed enough to fight back into your neighborhood? Unless you work from home, or carry around said arsenal with you at all times, you're going to be in scenarios where you don't have the tools and resources you expected to have, and you still need to act. You can't just tell everyone to wait while you get ready.
It can be entertaining to discuss things as if all of our plans will be successful, but nowhere in life is anyone so. In FOREX, for example, one is a great success if 51% of the trades done are profitable. Listen to stories of entrepreneurs about their success rate with inventions and start-ups.
Most plans fail miserably, or are thrown away quickly, so instead of investing yourself into a single plan, develop the skills to create new plans. Don't get really good at implementing one plan, but get good at the "OODA" loop. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.
Then, invest in tools, devices, and skills that support such circumstantial flexibility. People and circumstances can take away what you have, but neither of those can change what you know, or what you can do.
Don't brag about how well you've prepared for what you think will happen, but in how well you can react to the unexpected and still come out on top.
21.11.18
Vigilantism is like calling liberals "the real racists"
While folks shouldn't have to, disavowing violence is commonplace for commentators on "the right", because of how frequently sting and honey pot operations have been, and still are, run by domestic government agencies to nudge people on the lower end of the intelligence spectrum into taking action without considering the consequences or context.
The agency sweeps in, claims credit for having stopped something that probably wouldn't have started without their involvement anyway, awards are handed out and people make empty speeches about "duty" and "diligence", and someone decides that the paychecks will continue being signed for at least a little while longer.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it as well: I do not condone the use of violence beyond what is legally permitted by your local Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, should they even exist, and it is your responsibility alone to understand your local legal limitations relating to the use of lethal force.
You have no legal standing to circumvent the existing "justice system", regardless of your opinion on how corrupt or broken it is, regardless of what you think someone else is "getting away with", because unless you're willing to throw away everything and start over from scratch, nothing you do will change anything anyway.
If you want to get familiar with the laws in your state or area, there are many websites which will help summarize the laws in your state, provide references to the relevant laws, and so forth. If someone is attacking you with lethal force, obviously the nature of what laws apply will change, but frankly most people ruminating about vigilantism are not actively being attacked, and are instead planning an act of aggression as a means of retaliation. There are no laws which permit that type of activity.
Now, the reason I say that nothing you do will change anything anyway is that the mythos of the Sheriff from the Wild West is one that resonates with a lot of patriots. The ideal that one man with a gun can make a difference is alluring, but almost entirely unrealistic at the same time. We enjoy imagining the moral struggle of the lawman, having to walk a fine line between upholding order and being willing to embrace chaos and questionable actions in order to do so.
The problem is that the dynamics of dysfunction that we are experiencing today don't show up in any of those mythos. The reason the Sheriff held so much power is because there was nobody else that he had to compete with for jurisdiction. There was nobody else who had the ability to bring circumstances to a conclusion. In a frontier town, or even just on a town on the way to the frontier, there was no overreaching power that reported to Washington D.C., unless they sent someone out, and then they were still limited by what they could carry or get brought along with them.
In the modern world, the centralized federal government has so many more resources on tap to achieve whatever means they desire that the local "lawman" can very quickly be outpaced, outgunned, and outmaneuvered by a centralized government that has amassed power unto itself. This extends beyond just literal law enforcement at the criminal level as well. People can be tried in the court of law and executed without a single bullet fired through the use of manipulation and selective media reporting. Government organizations superficially meant to "help" citizens have the authority to interfere with aspects of your personal life, and they can do unconstitutional things and nobody appears to care because, thanks in large part to the 19th Amendment, safety is now a priority over freedom and sovereignty.
Acts of violence at the local level no longer change the course of local politics, because local politics are no longer driven as a response to local actions in the first place, but instead are a drip-feed of things happening at the national level. This disconnect is part of the inertia of past decisions and consequences which cannot be changed overnight. We can't change who was allowed to vote, who was allowed to enter or stay in the country, what laws were passed or amendments ratified, we can't change the past and the consequences that come from the choices that led us to the circumstances we now experience.
Vigilantism then is not a solution to the real problem of this disconnect. Taking actions locally won't change the local politics, but instead feeds into a feedback loop at the national level where every solution that works in one portion of the country is copy/pasted to the others as a means of creating national unity in word and deed. If you perform a violent act of aggression at the local level, the first reactions will come from the national level, an then feed down. Violence doesn't change the direction that political priorities flow, so anyone tempted to partake in it is largely deceiving themselves in the same way that liberals do when they pontificate about socialism.
The only way that violence returns to being a viable solution is if the national level of politics is completely cut off from the local. Examples of this would include Civil War, natural disasters, invasion of a foreign military, or you being attacked by someone with violence. In each case, the dynamic of politics doesn't matter anymore, not because the dynamic has been eliminated, but because the "problem" is quite literally local.
Only local problems can be resolved by local action, and the decay of the United States is not occurring because of local problems. Attempting to overthrow the existing political dynamic, regardless of your intent or desires, is treason. It doesn't matter if you're a religious ancap or atheistic commie, no matter how you believe yourself to be morally justified, you're seeking to overthrow the government.
You may not believe this is what you're doing with vigilantism, but what you believe doesn't matter. The only way to "fix" the system without breaking it or undermining it must then come from the source of the problem, at the national level, and none of those issues can be fixed with vigilantism.
Immigration diluting the former cultural cohesion in the United States cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
Legislation consolidating power at the federal instead of local level cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
Lobbying having a greater influence on legislative priorities than the opinions and concerns of local populations cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
In short, for the same criticisms that are levied at gun control advocates who want a "feel good" response that doesn't actually do anything meaningful, so likewise would any call for vigilantism be a "feel good" response that doesn't actually do anything meaningful. Playing whack-a-mole on your local crazies and criminals only invites the entire weight of a political system, which has no qualms about crushing individuals or people groups or even entire cultures in its bid to continuously consolidate power, to bear down upon you. It is not bravery or patriotism that inspires such audacity, but suicidal stupidity and inexcusable ignorance.
All of that said, this does not mean you should not be capable of defending your family and your neighborhood when local problems do arise that require a local solution. It simply means you can't proactively resolve national problems through local actions of violence, and that's been true for more than a century.
Certainly, if someone is trying to kill you, there is no legal requirement that you let them get away with it, but even there you have to be smart enough to know how to respond in a way that doesn't end up still hurting you more than those who are trying to do you harm.
Until the current dynamic changes, trying to take the law "into your own hands" will simply result in those hands being chained up.
Unfortunately, while there are ways that the system could be fixed internally, intentionally, this would require a level of resolve and clarity and boldness which has been entirely lacking for many generations. Humans are efficient creatures, and rarely waste energy on developing skills and capacity which aren't required of them, so it's not a surprise that we've "gone soft". What that means then is that, for the majority of people, it won't be till an external circumstance demands more of them that they'll ever rise to meet such a challenge, and many only discover far too late that they can't.
Politically, this means that things will have to become dire and critical before anything is done. Like a fat person who can't seem to start dieting until the doctor gives them so many years to live unless they radically change their habits, so the mortality of our nation will be in full view before folks stop pretending that someone or something will come along to cleanly and easily resolve all of our issues so that we can fall back into a hedonistic malaise.
Strive to rise above the minimal demands of today to meet the higher demands that will come, but do not "jump the gun" and pretend that those demands are already here, or that acting as if those demands are already here will hasten them along or somehow speed up their resolution. Don't fall for the trap of the "easy fix", the "get-civilizational stability quick" schemes, but instead put in the hard work and make the necessary sacrifices in your current pleasure and enjoyment to ensure that you will be better prepared to survive what is coming.
Be the person who decides to eat right and exercise before liposuction and bypass surgery are required, let alone a possibility, and don't ever choose to put yourself in a place where desperation is the only thing that can drive you towards improvement.
The agency sweeps in, claims credit for having stopped something that probably wouldn't have started without their involvement anyway, awards are handed out and people make empty speeches about "duty" and "diligence", and someone decides that the paychecks will continue being signed for at least a little while longer.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it as well: I do not condone the use of violence beyond what is legally permitted by your local Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, should they even exist, and it is your responsibility alone to understand your local legal limitations relating to the use of lethal force.
You have no legal standing to circumvent the existing "justice system", regardless of your opinion on how corrupt or broken it is, regardless of what you think someone else is "getting away with", because unless you're willing to throw away everything and start over from scratch, nothing you do will change anything anyway.
If you want to get familiar with the laws in your state or area, there are many websites which will help summarize the laws in your state, provide references to the relevant laws, and so forth. If someone is attacking you with lethal force, obviously the nature of what laws apply will change, but frankly most people ruminating about vigilantism are not actively being attacked, and are instead planning an act of aggression as a means of retaliation. There are no laws which permit that type of activity.
Now, the reason I say that nothing you do will change anything anyway is that the mythos of the Sheriff from the Wild West is one that resonates with a lot of patriots. The ideal that one man with a gun can make a difference is alluring, but almost entirely unrealistic at the same time. We enjoy imagining the moral struggle of the lawman, having to walk a fine line between upholding order and being willing to embrace chaos and questionable actions in order to do so.
The problem is that the dynamics of dysfunction that we are experiencing today don't show up in any of those mythos. The reason the Sheriff held so much power is because there was nobody else that he had to compete with for jurisdiction. There was nobody else who had the ability to bring circumstances to a conclusion. In a frontier town, or even just on a town on the way to the frontier, there was no overreaching power that reported to Washington D.C., unless they sent someone out, and then they were still limited by what they could carry or get brought along with them.
In the modern world, the centralized federal government has so many more resources on tap to achieve whatever means they desire that the local "lawman" can very quickly be outpaced, outgunned, and outmaneuvered by a centralized government that has amassed power unto itself. This extends beyond just literal law enforcement at the criminal level as well. People can be tried in the court of law and executed without a single bullet fired through the use of manipulation and selective media reporting. Government organizations superficially meant to "help" citizens have the authority to interfere with aspects of your personal life, and they can do unconstitutional things and nobody appears to care because, thanks in large part to the 19th Amendment, safety is now a priority over freedom and sovereignty.
Acts of violence at the local level no longer change the course of local politics, because local politics are no longer driven as a response to local actions in the first place, but instead are a drip-feed of things happening at the national level. This disconnect is part of the inertia of past decisions and consequences which cannot be changed overnight. We can't change who was allowed to vote, who was allowed to enter or stay in the country, what laws were passed or amendments ratified, we can't change the past and the consequences that come from the choices that led us to the circumstances we now experience.
Vigilantism then is not a solution to the real problem of this disconnect. Taking actions locally won't change the local politics, but instead feeds into a feedback loop at the national level where every solution that works in one portion of the country is copy/pasted to the others as a means of creating national unity in word and deed. If you perform a violent act of aggression at the local level, the first reactions will come from the national level, an then feed down. Violence doesn't change the direction that political priorities flow, so anyone tempted to partake in it is largely deceiving themselves in the same way that liberals do when they pontificate about socialism.
The only way that violence returns to being a viable solution is if the national level of politics is completely cut off from the local. Examples of this would include Civil War, natural disasters, invasion of a foreign military, or you being attacked by someone with violence. In each case, the dynamic of politics doesn't matter anymore, not because the dynamic has been eliminated, but because the "problem" is quite literally local.
Only local problems can be resolved by local action, and the decay of the United States is not occurring because of local problems. Attempting to overthrow the existing political dynamic, regardless of your intent or desires, is treason. It doesn't matter if you're a religious ancap or atheistic commie, no matter how you believe yourself to be morally justified, you're seeking to overthrow the government.
You may not believe this is what you're doing with vigilantism, but what you believe doesn't matter. The only way to "fix" the system without breaking it or undermining it must then come from the source of the problem, at the national level, and none of those issues can be fixed with vigilantism.
Immigration diluting the former cultural cohesion in the United States cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
Legislation consolidating power at the federal instead of local level cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
Lobbying having a greater influence on legislative priorities than the opinions and concerns of local populations cannot be addressed with vigilantism.
In short, for the same criticisms that are levied at gun control advocates who want a "feel good" response that doesn't actually do anything meaningful, so likewise would any call for vigilantism be a "feel good" response that doesn't actually do anything meaningful. Playing whack-a-mole on your local crazies and criminals only invites the entire weight of a political system, which has no qualms about crushing individuals or people groups or even entire cultures in its bid to continuously consolidate power, to bear down upon you. It is not bravery or patriotism that inspires such audacity, but suicidal stupidity and inexcusable ignorance.
All of that said, this does not mean you should not be capable of defending your family and your neighborhood when local problems do arise that require a local solution. It simply means you can't proactively resolve national problems through local actions of violence, and that's been true for more than a century.
Certainly, if someone is trying to kill you, there is no legal requirement that you let them get away with it, but even there you have to be smart enough to know how to respond in a way that doesn't end up still hurting you more than those who are trying to do you harm.
Until the current dynamic changes, trying to take the law "into your own hands" will simply result in those hands being chained up.
Unfortunately, while there are ways that the system could be fixed internally, intentionally, this would require a level of resolve and clarity and boldness which has been entirely lacking for many generations. Humans are efficient creatures, and rarely waste energy on developing skills and capacity which aren't required of them, so it's not a surprise that we've "gone soft". What that means then is that, for the majority of people, it won't be till an external circumstance demands more of them that they'll ever rise to meet such a challenge, and many only discover far too late that they can't.
Politically, this means that things will have to become dire and critical before anything is done. Like a fat person who can't seem to start dieting until the doctor gives them so many years to live unless they radically change their habits, so the mortality of our nation will be in full view before folks stop pretending that someone or something will come along to cleanly and easily resolve all of our issues so that we can fall back into a hedonistic malaise.
Strive to rise above the minimal demands of today to meet the higher demands that will come, but do not "jump the gun" and pretend that those demands are already here, or that acting as if those demands are already here will hasten them along or somehow speed up their resolution. Don't fall for the trap of the "easy fix", the "get-civilizational stability quick" schemes, but instead put in the hard work and make the necessary sacrifices in your current pleasure and enjoyment to ensure that you will be better prepared to survive what is coming.
Be the person who decides to eat right and exercise before liposuction and bypass surgery are required, let alone a possibility, and don't ever choose to put yourself in a place where desperation is the only thing that can drive you towards improvement.
7.11.18
Election results roundup and general political level-setting.
Washingtonians are convinced on gun issues, but not climate change. Win some, lose some, I am just glad I've got no purchases planned related to anything now under much closer legislative scrutiny. For those that figured they could wait just a little longer, please do tell us the stories of the loops you'll now have to jump through, and also help us know what you did to help avert the legislation passing other than voting "no".
I do not suffer under the delusion that I can control the outcomes, or that my efforts will change the direction of where things are going, I can just do my part and observe what is happening and adjust my plans to match.
Even so, and this will be a separate post, I am doubtful that the weapons most folks have chosen are necessarily the best for the circumstances they'll actually face, but I'll save that for a "Spotting an r-strategist: Gun Edition".
As of about 8AM PST, it looks like Democrats have won the House, and Republicans held the Senate. Numbers are still fluctuating and sources disagree on what the specific number of seats apparently is, and this is before any recounts or anything else.
Smarter political commenters have been all over the board. Some folks decry the loss of the House, others don't see it as a big deal, and others see it as an actual win, in that the more open opposition within the legislative branch the easier it is for President Trump to show how far down the path of identity politics we've come even in the two years since his election.
The version that sticks with me is that things are going to get more polarized, and the number of people on "the right" is nowhere near what people want to believe, so permanent changes to the direction of the country are not going to occur through the ballot box. Popularity is never something that is of immediate priority for those who trend towards a K-selected reproductive strategy, in that there simply isn't enough free time to banter about such otherwise arbitrary matters.
On the national level, we have an electoral college to try and prevent prevent states which are dense from determining the political future of states which are not. At the state and lower levels, however, no mechanism like this exists.
A case in point is seen if you look at my current state as a whole versus the county level. In Washington, there are not really that many more "blue" counties than "red", but because the quantity of voters in "blue" counties is orders of magnitude greater, they determine the political direction for the majority of the state in a way that the electoral college prevents at the national level.
This is why Democrats focus on states and "flipping" them, and using the same population tactic, but it obviously takes a lot longer. They can't get away with the same exact tricks they can at the local or state level, but they can still make use of Fabian tactics to undermine the electoral college and make it a moot point.
Washington and Oregon, let alone states like California, were all "red" states roughly 40 years ago. All of these states saw massive migrations of people from outside the state, their populations did not grow very much from people having children, evidenced in that their fertility rates are still dropping. What this demonstrates is that, for those who wanted to look and see, there was recent evidence "demographics is destiny" that could not be denied.
When you take someone who is not from Washington and let them make policy decisions, their priorities will be different from someone who is from Washington. This is especially true because of how many high-tech industries there are in the state and the emphasis on "Diversity & Inclusion" that is so prevalent in companies that are still around today. You can't get "Diversity & Inclusion" hiring Washingtonians, people naturally acclimated to rain and changing seasons, you have to import them from somewhere else, and those people are going to get "their say" in the state's political future.
What we can take away from this is that people who are not from an area should not have a say in the future of that area until they have sufficiently assimilated into that area, and I don't mean just immigrants from another country. If you move to another state, or another city in that state, why should you immediately have the same weight and say in the future of where you now currently reside as those who had already been living there?
This becomes especially true when modern "careers" have people moving on a regular basis, never really being able to stay in the same location for very long, and for this discussion a "long time" would be a single generation. Folks move to follow jobs, and being able to stay in the same house for decades is the exception, not the rule.
In getting back to the election results, we're seeing more polarization, although because of how neighborhoods have been mixed due tot he aforementioned workplace dynamics, that polarization doesn't have decidedly clear physical borders in every case.
That will continue, and the divisions which were used to gather political power will only grow more and more important as the grabs for power become more and more desperate, for all involved. If not for social media, this would have spilled over into the "real world", but as of yet the majority of the reactions by both sides have been digital, not physical.
Each side is waiting for the other to make mistakes to justify acting, all the while playing games with useless voters in the middle who pride themselves on indecision.
This mid-term election has showed that aggressive action, outside the polling booth, is what will produce tangible results. That in order to grab power, at this stage in the political game, those on "the right" need to be acting with boldness and confidence.
"But that's not legal!"
If your opponents aren't abiding by laws, it is suicidal to try to fight with one arm behind your back, and God does not look favorably on suicide.
"But you should take the high road!"
If the road you take does not produce results, then any labels applied to it don't matter. Supposedly superior ideals which cannot be manifest are not actually superior when compared to that which can be manifest. The rest is hubristic chest-thumping about how you're going to deny gravity.
"But you'll be called ___ist!"
If you aren't already, just for existing and holding to your views, let alone proselytizing them, then you don't stand up for anything that matters in a way that matters. The only permissible views on the current social agenda fall under agreement or irrelevance. If you disagree on something that matters, and in a venue which matters, whether for good reasons or bad, you will be treated as a hostile threat, and the opening volley is almost always character assassination, due to how easy it is to cast aspersions.
"But what about ____, they're not like the rest!"
Individuals which do not conform to stereotype don't change the stereotype. They're noteworthy because they're exceptions to the rule, not because they mean the rule doesn't apply. The era of being able to measure an individual on their character ended when the demographics of an individual became a means to political power, and won't return until demographic variances are eliminated. Eliminated. Eliminated.
This is the unfortunate end result of identity politics, is that once the distinctions have grown in importance, they don't stop being important until the distinctions stop existing altogether.
So while there are bloodless ways for that to occur, they aren't painless, and for a society fixated on pleasure, we'll invite the most bloody solution at the very last moment possible and then bemoan the apparent inevitability of such tragic circumstances.
The United States will fall unless it has a cohesive identity, and the "last resort" is a hot Civil War. We're cold right now, war is politics by other means and all, but that's where we're headed.
In the past I have doubted that a religious identity would be easy enough to identify, but I am happy to be wrong on that.
The only competing identity other than religion is race.
So the United States can unite on race and/or religion, or enter a hot Civil War where those belonging to the race and/or religion with the greatest will and ability to survive will get to rebuild from the ashes after eliminating all competing races and religions.
Or we could deport everyone who is only here because of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, whether here legally or illegally, which might start the hot Civil War all by itself.
Either way, it seems inevitable that we're headed for another hot Civil War and the only question is how the "sides" will be determined. All the paths to avoid Civil War require massive changes which few are suggesting, let alone getting much support for.
This election is a reminder that Trump may buy us some time, that through material wealth we might keep people busy and distracted long enough to finish our own preparations, but that's all it is. We've been bought just a bit more time, and we need to make the most of it.
So what will you choose to do in this time you've been afforded?
I do not suffer under the delusion that I can control the outcomes, or that my efforts will change the direction of where things are going, I can just do my part and observe what is happening and adjust my plans to match.
Even so, and this will be a separate post, I am doubtful that the weapons most folks have chosen are necessarily the best for the circumstances they'll actually face, but I'll save that for a "Spotting an r-strategist: Gun Edition".
As of about 8AM PST, it looks like Democrats have won the House, and Republicans held the Senate. Numbers are still fluctuating and sources disagree on what the specific number of seats apparently is, and this is before any recounts or anything else.
Smarter political commenters have been all over the board. Some folks decry the loss of the House, others don't see it as a big deal, and others see it as an actual win, in that the more open opposition within the legislative branch the easier it is for President Trump to show how far down the path of identity politics we've come even in the two years since his election.
The version that sticks with me is that things are going to get more polarized, and the number of people on "the right" is nowhere near what people want to believe, so permanent changes to the direction of the country are not going to occur through the ballot box. Popularity is never something that is of immediate priority for those who trend towards a K-selected reproductive strategy, in that there simply isn't enough free time to banter about such otherwise arbitrary matters.
On the national level, we have an electoral college to try and prevent prevent states which are dense from determining the political future of states which are not. At the state and lower levels, however, no mechanism like this exists.
A case in point is seen if you look at my current state as a whole versus the county level. In Washington, there are not really that many more "blue" counties than "red", but because the quantity of voters in "blue" counties is orders of magnitude greater, they determine the political direction for the majority of the state in a way that the electoral college prevents at the national level.
This is why Democrats focus on states and "flipping" them, and using the same population tactic, but it obviously takes a lot longer. They can't get away with the same exact tricks they can at the local or state level, but they can still make use of Fabian tactics to undermine the electoral college and make it a moot point.
Washington and Oregon, let alone states like California, were all "red" states roughly 40 years ago. All of these states saw massive migrations of people from outside the state, their populations did not grow very much from people having children, evidenced in that their fertility rates are still dropping. What this demonstrates is that, for those who wanted to look and see, there was recent evidence "demographics is destiny" that could not be denied.
When you take someone who is not from Washington and let them make policy decisions, their priorities will be different from someone who is from Washington. This is especially true because of how many high-tech industries there are in the state and the emphasis on "Diversity & Inclusion" that is so prevalent in companies that are still around today. You can't get "Diversity & Inclusion" hiring Washingtonians, people naturally acclimated to rain and changing seasons, you have to import them from somewhere else, and those people are going to get "their say" in the state's political future.
What we can take away from this is that people who are not from an area should not have a say in the future of that area until they have sufficiently assimilated into that area, and I don't mean just immigrants from another country. If you move to another state, or another city in that state, why should you immediately have the same weight and say in the future of where you now currently reside as those who had already been living there?
This becomes especially true when modern "careers" have people moving on a regular basis, never really being able to stay in the same location for very long, and for this discussion a "long time" would be a single generation. Folks move to follow jobs, and being able to stay in the same house for decades is the exception, not the rule.
In getting back to the election results, we're seeing more polarization, although because of how neighborhoods have been mixed due tot he aforementioned workplace dynamics, that polarization doesn't have decidedly clear physical borders in every case.
That will continue, and the divisions which were used to gather political power will only grow more and more important as the grabs for power become more and more desperate, for all involved. If not for social media, this would have spilled over into the "real world", but as of yet the majority of the reactions by both sides have been digital, not physical.
Each side is waiting for the other to make mistakes to justify acting, all the while playing games with useless voters in the middle who pride themselves on indecision.
This mid-term election has showed that aggressive action, outside the polling booth, is what will produce tangible results. That in order to grab power, at this stage in the political game, those on "the right" need to be acting with boldness and confidence.
"But that's not legal!"
If your opponents aren't abiding by laws, it is suicidal to try to fight with one arm behind your back, and God does not look favorably on suicide.
"But you should take the high road!"
If the road you take does not produce results, then any labels applied to it don't matter. Supposedly superior ideals which cannot be manifest are not actually superior when compared to that which can be manifest. The rest is hubristic chest-thumping about how you're going to deny gravity.
"But you'll be called ___ist!"
If you aren't already, just for existing and holding to your views, let alone proselytizing them, then you don't stand up for anything that matters in a way that matters. The only permissible views on the current social agenda fall under agreement or irrelevance. If you disagree on something that matters, and in a venue which matters, whether for good reasons or bad, you will be treated as a hostile threat, and the opening volley is almost always character assassination, due to how easy it is to cast aspersions.
"But what about ____, they're not like the rest!"
Individuals which do not conform to stereotype don't change the stereotype. They're noteworthy because they're exceptions to the rule, not because they mean the rule doesn't apply. The era of being able to measure an individual on their character ended when the demographics of an individual became a means to political power, and won't return until demographic variances are eliminated. Eliminated. Eliminated.
This is the unfortunate end result of identity politics, is that once the distinctions have grown in importance, they don't stop being important until the distinctions stop existing altogether.
So while there are bloodless ways for that to occur, they aren't painless, and for a society fixated on pleasure, we'll invite the most bloody solution at the very last moment possible and then bemoan the apparent inevitability of such tragic circumstances.
The United States will fall unless it has a cohesive identity, and the "last resort" is a hot Civil War. We're cold right now, war is politics by other means and all, but that's where we're headed.
In the past I have doubted that a religious identity would be easy enough to identify, but I am happy to be wrong on that.
The only competing identity other than religion is race.
So the United States can unite on race and/or religion, or enter a hot Civil War where those belonging to the race and/or religion with the greatest will and ability to survive will get to rebuild from the ashes after eliminating all competing races and religions.
Or we could deport everyone who is only here because of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, whether here legally or illegally, which might start the hot Civil War all by itself.
Either way, it seems inevitable that we're headed for another hot Civil War and the only question is how the "sides" will be determined. All the paths to avoid Civil War require massive changes which few are suggesting, let alone getting much support for.
This election is a reminder that Trump may buy us some time, that through material wealth we might keep people busy and distracted long enough to finish our own preparations, but that's all it is. We've been bought just a bit more time, and we need to make the most of it.
So what will you choose to do in this time you've been afforded?
29.10.18
When war has been declared, act like it.
Last week there were fake bombs used in a false flag to drum up support for Democrats just prior to the mid-term elections.
These devices were identified as fake rather quickly because they were illogically constructed, folks took pictures for social media before calling in the bomb squads, and these devices could not actually harmed the "intended targets" because those people never actually open their own mail. This is the equivalent of a gun whose only function is to extend a flag with the word "boom" on it. Even so, the event was touted as further evidence that the current President needs to do things differently.
So what happens when the scare isn't fake?
Most false flags aren't fakes at all.
Here's a list of 42 known false flag operations.
Look at the list. People died. Governments, both "good" and "bad" guys in the historical narratives, are present and accounted for.
In almost every case, the acts were done to provide a "moral high ground" for an aggressor to have their subsequent actions justified. If you've just been attacked by someone, then who is going to interfere with your actions to defend yourself? They'd be allying themselves with those who just attacked you!
Look at how frequently a simplistic mindset shows up in the justifications. Look at how frequently personal reasons are used as the cover for political ones.
"We did something we knew was wrong and then were going to blame someone else for it because we couldn't otherwise justify doing what we wanted to in the first place."
Even scripture has a fairly well known story about this, when Joseph accused his brothers of stealing and imprisoned the youngest, who was found with "stolen goods", when Joseph had actually planted the "stolen" goods.
The reason these types of manipulation work is because we are not primarily rational creatures, so when an offense has occurred, our instinct is not to investigate and discern what needs to be done, but to react. Our instinct is to right the wrongs and settle things, and the "false flag" hopes to evoke such an emotional response that nobody takes a closer look at the circumstance to determine what the correct course of action should be.
The name itself is a literal one, from the time when ships on the sea would run the wrong flags to confuse and disorient other ships.
After the fake bomb scare, someone shot up a Jewish synagogue, and there are 8 dead and more injured.
Now, why am I framing that shooting alongside false flags?
Look at one of the responses to the shooting.
Does this sound personally motivated or politically motivated? Put differently, were they specifically targeted, or were political groups they belong to, or are aligned with, targeted?
As before, how often did known false flags have predominantly political implications?
Is their goal to get justice for a specific incident, or to affect a more sweeping change that goes beyond the incident?
Let's divert the train of thought for a bit. I've shared this video before. If you have not watched this video, you need to before you can understand what is going on in this country. You need to understand all the possibilities before you can be sure and take any action, because if you think that how a person behaves in their day-to-day describes the entirety of their capacity, you are woefully ignorant.
Also, in case you didn't read it, Israel showed up on that list.
In a population of an estimated 325.98 million, or 325,980,000 let's presume that, based on Derren Brown's experiment, only a very small portion of a percentage of the population is susceptible to such programming, but those that are will do nearly anything you've programmed them to do, including kill people when your "normal" personality is quite the antithesis of violent or aggressive.
If it's .0001% of the population, that still puts us at about 325 people, 6 per state, if you spread them out. If it's .001% of the population, that is 3250 people, 60 per state, and so on and so forth.
Even seemingly tiny odds amidst a big enough population exposes that we are living in a rather volatile time where peace and civility are more of a coincidence than a result of any intentional effort.
So, how many people are usually involved in a "mass shooting" in the USA? Is it more or less than 6? More or less than 60? Are there enough people that an entire "movement" could be faked to support their own narratives?
When the fake bomb scare apparently failed to move the needle, in that even within 24 hours it was apparent that the reaction desired did not occur, what do you think would happen next if folks believe that the political changes they desire are so important to start running false flags? To try to go beyond merely making new policies available to choose and moving to the extent of trying to persuade and manipulate the mob in order to achieve their goals?
They would escalate. Just look at what happened with women's suffrage in the UK over a hundred years ago:
When any political group ever desires more power, they will follow a very specific path of escalation when they don't get what they want, until the cost of continuing is beyond what they can afford to pay. This is why parents will often start taking away existing toys of a child throwing a tantrum because they can't get a new one, because they are increasing the cost of continuing behavior on the child to then change the motivations of the child.
Does anyone still wonder why positive reinforcement alone fails to raise children into mature adults?
As Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of policy by other means."
Realize that if it's important enough to escalate at all, and they can "afford it", then they will, and they have hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the country on tap who could commit terrible acts that are completely outside their normal character, and that presumes the need for those folks in the first place because they cannot draw from within their own political groups to achieve a goal.
Folks will presume that their victory will surely be just around the next corner. And then the next. And then the next. They just need to try a little bit harder and then everything will fall into place, and just as their efforts grow, so will the animosity for those who, even by appearance alone, stand against them. They've put in so much work so far, it's not that much more. They've put in so much work so far, it would be such a tragedy to see it all go to waste!
A false flag is a means to try and justify further actions being taken which would otherwise be completely inappropriate without the context of "responding to a hostile aggressor". It's for when folks want to take action but don't want the optics of it to be against them.
It's something people do when they've already contemplated doing more but cannot yet justify it.
Yet.
So immediately following the fake bomb scare, a Jewish synagogue gets shot up, and various political groups immediately start making political demands of the President?
We're supposed to believe that an apparently maligned and victimized political group can now make these demands because of this shooting, and past events, and these demands are made before all the details of the investigation have taken place?
We're in a cold civil war, which is only being recognized and acted on at all by one "side" of the conflict. And that "side" doesn't have much power in our current administration.
So how far are they willing to go to change that? They're the only ones that truly know, and the administration has done everything they can to try and defuse the situation.
They'll only end up making it worse. Like Icarus on wings of wax, the higher we fly the farther we fall as a consequence of our hubris.
I'd prefer a negotiated split over no negotiations and "to the victor goes the spoils".
These devices were identified as fake rather quickly because they were illogically constructed, folks took pictures for social media before calling in the bomb squads, and these devices could not actually harmed the "intended targets" because those people never actually open their own mail. This is the equivalent of a gun whose only function is to extend a flag with the word "boom" on it. Even so, the event was touted as further evidence that the current President needs to do things differently.
So what happens when the scare isn't fake?
Most false flags aren't fakes at all.
Here's a list of 42 known false flag operations.
Look at the list. People died. Governments, both "good" and "bad" guys in the historical narratives, are present and accounted for.
In almost every case, the acts were done to provide a "moral high ground" for an aggressor to have their subsequent actions justified. If you've just been attacked by someone, then who is going to interfere with your actions to defend yourself? They'd be allying themselves with those who just attacked you!
Look at how frequently a simplistic mindset shows up in the justifications. Look at how frequently personal reasons are used as the cover for political ones.
"We did something we knew was wrong and then were going to blame someone else for it because we couldn't otherwise justify doing what we wanted to in the first place."
Even scripture has a fairly well known story about this, when Joseph accused his brothers of stealing and imprisoned the youngest, who was found with "stolen goods", when Joseph had actually planted the "stolen" goods.
The reason these types of manipulation work is because we are not primarily rational creatures, so when an offense has occurred, our instinct is not to investigate and discern what needs to be done, but to react. Our instinct is to right the wrongs and settle things, and the "false flag" hopes to evoke such an emotional response that nobody takes a closer look at the circumstance to determine what the correct course of action should be.
The name itself is a literal one, from the time when ships on the sea would run the wrong flags to confuse and disorient other ships.
After the fake bomb scare, someone shot up a Jewish synagogue, and there are 8 dead and more injured.
Now, why am I framing that shooting alongside false flags?
Look at one of the responses to the shooting.
“Our Jewish community is not the only group you have targeted,” the group wrote. “You have also deliberately undermined the safety of people of color, Muslims, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities. Yesterday’s massacre is not the first act of terror you incited against a minority group in our country.”
Trump was fiercely criticized after he failed to condemn white supremacy and asserted that there is “blame on both sides” after last year’s deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.
The group said Trump is not welcome in the city until he also stops targeting minorities, immigrants and refugees.
Does this sound personally motivated or politically motivated? Put differently, were they specifically targeted, or were political groups they belong to, or are aligned with, targeted?
As before, how often did known false flags have predominantly political implications?
Is their goal to get justice for a specific incident, or to affect a more sweeping change that goes beyond the incident?
Let's divert the train of thought for a bit. I've shared this video before. If you have not watched this video, you need to before you can understand what is going on in this country. You need to understand all the possibilities before you can be sure and take any action, because if you think that how a person behaves in their day-to-day describes the entirety of their capacity, you are woefully ignorant.
Also, in case you didn't read it, Israel showed up on that list.
So, let's do some simple math.
Israel was at war with Egypt when it hatched a plan in 1954 to ruin its rapprochement with the United States and Britain by firebombing sites frequented by foreigners in Cairo and Alexandria.
But Israeli hopes the attacks, which caused no casualties, would be blamed on local insurgents collapsed when the young Zionist bombers were caught and confessed at public trials. Two were hanged. The rest served jail terms and emigrated to Israel.
In a population of an estimated 325.98 million, or 325,980,000 let's presume that, based on Derren Brown's experiment, only a very small portion of a percentage of the population is susceptible to such programming, but those that are will do nearly anything you've programmed them to do, including kill people when your "normal" personality is quite the antithesis of violent or aggressive.
If it's .0001% of the population, that still puts us at about 325 people, 6 per state, if you spread them out. If it's .001% of the population, that is 3250 people, 60 per state, and so on and so forth.
Even seemingly tiny odds amidst a big enough population exposes that we are living in a rather volatile time where peace and civility are more of a coincidence than a result of any intentional effort.
So, how many people are usually involved in a "mass shooting" in the USA? Is it more or less than 6? More or less than 60? Are there enough people that an entire "movement" could be faked to support their own narratives?
When the fake bomb scare apparently failed to move the needle, in that even within 24 hours it was apparent that the reaction desired did not occur, what do you think would happen next if folks believe that the political changes they desire are so important to start running false flags? To try to go beyond merely making new policies available to choose and moving to the extent of trying to persuade and manipulate the mob in order to achieve their goals?
They would escalate. Just look at what happened with women's suffrage in the UK over a hundred years ago:
In 1913 some Suffragettes began to resort to the tactic of small bombs. In February 1913 Lloyd George's week-end cottage which was in the process of being built, was target of a small explosion, and in June 1914 a bomb was placed beside the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. It exploded causing slight damage to the chair and the 'Stone of Destiny' below it. Several other bombs planted including one in St Paul's Cathedral, and near the Bank of England.
When any political group ever desires more power, they will follow a very specific path of escalation when they don't get what they want, until the cost of continuing is beyond what they can afford to pay. This is why parents will often start taking away existing toys of a child throwing a tantrum because they can't get a new one, because they are increasing the cost of continuing behavior on the child to then change the motivations of the child.
Does anyone still wonder why positive reinforcement alone fails to raise children into mature adults?
As Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of policy by other means."
Realize that if it's important enough to escalate at all, and they can "afford it", then they will, and they have hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the country on tap who could commit terrible acts that are completely outside their normal character, and that presumes the need for those folks in the first place because they cannot draw from within their own political groups to achieve a goal.
Folks will presume that their victory will surely be just around the next corner. And then the next. And then the next. They just need to try a little bit harder and then everything will fall into place, and just as their efforts grow, so will the animosity for those who, even by appearance alone, stand against them. They've put in so much work so far, it's not that much more. They've put in so much work so far, it would be such a tragedy to see it all go to waste!
A false flag is a means to try and justify further actions being taken which would otherwise be completely inappropriate without the context of "responding to a hostile aggressor". It's for when folks want to take action but don't want the optics of it to be against them.
It's something people do when they've already contemplated doing more but cannot yet justify it.
Yet.
So immediately following the fake bomb scare, a Jewish synagogue gets shot up, and various political groups immediately start making political demands of the President?
We're supposed to believe that an apparently maligned and victimized political group can now make these demands because of this shooting, and past events, and these demands are made before all the details of the investigation have taken place?
We're in a cold civil war, which is only being recognized and acted on at all by one "side" of the conflict. And that "side" doesn't have much power in our current administration.
So how far are they willing to go to change that? They're the only ones that truly know, and the administration has done everything they can to try and defuse the situation.
They'll only end up making it worse. Like Icarus on wings of wax, the higher we fly the farther we fall as a consequence of our hubris.
I'd prefer a negotiated split over no negotiations and "to the victor goes the spoils".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)