Thursday, September 20, 2018

Es Kommt

h/t WRSA

CA at WRSA and I have some back-and-forth over the import, and possible flaws of a recent VDH essay, this one from the ChicagoTribune.

Ignoring the point/counter-point (for which, go there and read it all), I think there's a bigger issue in play.
Will America keep dividing and soon resort to open violence, as happened in 1861? Or will Americans reunite and bind up our wounds, as we did following the upheavals of the 1930s Great Depression or after the protests of the 1960s? 
The answer lies within each of us. 
 Every day we will either treat each other as fellow Americans, with far more uniting than dividing us, or we will continue on the present path that eventually ends in something like a hate-filled Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans.
Hanson has correctly described a binary outcome:
Either the lunacy will stop, or the country will rend itself.


1, or 0.

And he described it, not to put too fine a point on it, in exactly the terms put forward by Matt Bracken years since:

Bosnia, times Rwanda
we will continue on the present path that eventually ends in something like a hate-filled Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans.

Hanson is not an instigator, he’s a historian.
He’s showing, with painful precision, that following the edge of this straight-ruler to its logical end leads to flying off a cliff into an abyss at speed, unless people see that inevitable denouement, and decide within themselves to turn away.

He argues absolutely nothing for or against either selection, for anyone, on any side.
Societies commit suicide all the time in world history, a fact of which he is well aware.
{cf.: SAfrica, Venezuela, Argentina, North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Germany, Britain, Sweden, France, etc. ad infinitum, just this week alone…}

He’s simply posting a road sign marking a fork in the road ahead, and noting that taking the left side leads off the cliff, because the bridge is out.

Which path anyone chooses is a function of whether or not one has shit for brains, or whether, contrary to most of human history, one chooses to use actual brains.

In short, like the consummate professor he has been for decades, he’s teaching you how to think, and not what to think. Because he knows he’s not going to overcome a lifetime of stupid in someone’s life with just one essay, nor is he going to hand out the answers to the test just to ensure you can pass.
What one’s adversary chooses is similarly a mystery, which is why intelligence analysts worthy of the name are limited to looking at capabilities, and trying to discern intentions.

Because the enemy gets a vote.

The guy just said, in precise and intellectually defensible terms, that Matt Bracken’s description is one of two possible outcomes of this society, given current course and speed.

Not being a shit-for-brains drunken train engineer, and heading right off that bridge, instead of switching tracks or stopping the train, may be inferred from recourse to common sense and self-interest, but Hanson makes no such assumptions.

He’s simply and impartially noting what’s ahead.

Again, Hanson is not suggesting anything; he’s stating with mathematical precision that either things will be done differently, or there will be a conflagration. He is mathematically correct and precise in this formulation.

Having laid out the consequences, I don’t think he’s in denial about the current state of affairs at all.
When one guy, or five guys on the ‘net say “Civil War”, it may be just Tulipomania. When everyone is starting to sound like a chorus, including Stanford historians, there is beginning to be something to it.
Not everyone gets this revelation at the same time, nor with the same reliability as this guy:

Best line in the movie: “Those 5000 ships you say they haven’t got?? Well, they’ve got them!"

The problem with that in a practical sense is that it’s not a simple unilateral formula; it’s a complex one.

The simple (and incorrectly stated) version is

“If bunnies and unicorns, then rainbows.”

What Hanson actually said is
"If D plus R equals 1, normal. If D plus R is less than 1, cataclysm."

And without explaining further, or assigning values to D and R, we can probably agree that variable D in this case has been working very hard to achieve -300M, because it wants cataclysm, while if asked, they would say the exact same thing of R, because “subhuman Nazi -ists and -phobes.”
It is a logical conclusion that regardless of which statement of variable values is correct, the end sum is identical in either case.

Hanson is telling you the product (just as Matt Bracken has).
You may be worried about plugging in the variables.
You may even have them precisely correct, but the greater point is that it's immaterial.

When you put enough U-235 in close proximity (64kg, in point of historical fact), you achieve a predictable result:

In the grand scheme of things, yes, it matters in the vernacular of 1945 that "Japs are Japs" – sneaky, underhanded, backstabbing murderous pigs, "and Yanks are Yanks" – aggrieved, patient, but ultimately intolerant of being wronged; but not so much if you’re just the guy trying to push his cart of wares across the bridge that day at Ground Zero when the gadget goes off.

And unlike Hiroshima 73 years ago last month, it won’t go off 8000 miles away from home. It’ll be happening on your block, and mine.

So then what was suggested was adding a line about “redrawing borders”.

How did that work in Yugoslavia?
How about Rwanda, or anywhere in Africa, in all of history, inclusive?

This isn’t a red v. blue classic set-piece battle, because your town, your block, your apartment building, and in some cases your own bedroom are purple.

That’s going to be Stalingrad, not Waterloo.
Hue, not Gettysburg.
Not Hatfields & McCoys, but rather War Of The Roses.
(Pop quiz: Anyone here remember how that one ended?? Go look; I'll wait. That's where this is headed.)

How about a scene you might be more familiar with:
House to house, door to door, room to room, war to the knife, knife to the hilt, and then hand-to-hand.
Ain’t nobody likes that scene:

That stuff gives you nightmares that last for decades.

That’s why the coming sportiness in Califrutopia is going to be biblical: the state, even now, with illegal inundation and cuckservative flight, is still only 58-42. Even in the “blue hive” areas.

That’s a recipe for motherf**king BOSNIA, Man!

Texas: same thing.
Florida: same thing.
Coast-to-coast, wall to wall.

Great Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, the demographic data is such that, if only millenials voted (like they will in a few short years) we couldn’t hold a single state but UTAH.

And that’s where we’re headed at bullet-train speed every day.

So the question isn’t why.

We know why.

The follow on, which is none of Hanson’s bailiwick to prescribe is

A) WTF are you (for all values of you) doing to plug the holes through which you’re being demographically supplanted, and have been for more than a generation?

B) What are you doing to flip blue chips to red ones, a la #Walkaway, passing on values, and inculcating them to the maturing hordes who’ve been scrubbed and formatted, and left with nothing of substance upon which to live their lives?
(Tammy Bruce pointed out “It’s easy for us. They have to cover all the windows top to bottom and keep their people in total darkness all the time; we just have to poke the tiniest of pinpricks of sunlight in, and their whole plan crumbles.”)
Every one you turn now, you don’t have to shoot in the face then.
It’s a zero-sum problem, and the consequences of planting acorns now could yield a forest in the future.
{cf.: The Starfish Story and my namesake’s favorite about a slave named Androcles}

C) If/when A and B fail, locally or overall, what provision have you made for Afterwards? In a P-A-C-E way? For all the “B”s?
(As noted herein :
Bunches of ball-breaking bastards to batter and bash the bunch of bumbling buffoons on your borders.
That would be a Band of Brothers.”)
If you ain’t got such, you ain’t got much.
Because Es kommt.

That’s why “jaw, jaw, jaw, is better than war, war, war.”
It’s why “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”
It’s why “It is good that war is so terrible, or else we would grow too fond of it.”
And because every day from now until it comes “is another day to sharpen our hatchets.”

I don’t think CA and I disagree on any of that.

As range coaches are wont to say:
“No blood, no harm; no harm, no foul.
Just take your time, and don’t make it a habit.”

And remember:
“A small band of committed men can change the world: it’s the only thing that ever has.”


Anonymous said...

Word. Hit WRSA before coming here. Agree with your assessment.
Trainer's here, gotta work out

Divemedic said...

Except the two sides are so far apart that there can be no compromise. One side wants free markets and liberty. The other wants socialism and all that goes with it. I have seen where that particular road ALWAYS leads.

Some things are simply so repugnant, and so against freedom and decency that I cannot agree to disagree. The point here is that we live in society that claims to value freedom. It has been demonstrated again and again that gun control doesn't work. Background checks don't work. So why continue to do something that doesn't work and deprives people of liberty?

I refuse to agree that it is OK for the left to demand that I give up my freedoms, so that we can agree to disagree as they begin the march towards communism. You see, what they are wanting to do is NOT agree to disagree. If they get their way, laws will be passed that REQUIRE that I do things their way, on penalty of imprisonment or death, if I resist. That is hardly "agreeing to disagree."

Aesop said...


Nor is anyone suggesting "compromise" or "agreeing to disagree".

When two people wrestle for the control of an aircraft, you can bail out, you can shoot the co-pilot, or you can both keep yanking until you ride that bitch into the ground.

In none of them do you get to land, with an intact co-pilot and an intact plane.

Something isn't making it back.

Dealer's choice.

Anonymous said...

Dealer's choice, aye.
I will wait until I have no other options before going loud; not solely because I don't want to do so ( because God Knows there are days, moments even, when I'd like to close up the Jolly Roger) but every day I don't is an extra day to prepare.
Another workout, more training, more reading, more loading.
Boat Guy

paul scott said...

Too much philosophy>> Divemedic is right.
>>Except the two sides are so far apart that there can be no compromise. One side wants free markets and liberty. The other wants socialism and all that goes with it. I have seen where that particular road ALWAYS leads.
Some things are simply so repugnant, and so against freedom and decency that I cannot agree to disagree. The point here is that we live in society that claims to value freedom. It has been demonstrated again and again that gun control doesn't work. Background checks don't work. So why continue to do something that doesn't work and deprives people of liberty?<<

Going to the gym will solve nothing fellows. Some or many of us will die, make peace with your family and as Ol' Remus [woodpile report ] says get the ammunition in.

Allen L. said...

At this point I don't believe it matters what the two sides do. Our society has been so destabilized over the last 40 years that even a low level external event, or a passive internal event, could send things out of control. Since we are now in the state of government driving society, anger and uncertainty rule the day. With that being the case sportiness is but a whisker away.

Those old white dudes back in the day did have a point. They even wrote it down for us. Government, being a necessary evil, was to be bound by society, not the other way around.

patriotman said...

@paul scott

"Going to the gym will solve nothing fellows. Some or many of us will die, make peace with your family and as Ol' Remus [woodpile report ] says get the ammunition in."

What? Going to the gym is going to make sure that when the fight comes, you are in the shape you need to be in order to win. As Aesop always opines, the Benchrest Bubbas who shoot 3oo yards from sleds but weigh 350lbs and can't walk up the stairs without being out of breath are going to be easy picking for those physically fit.

You need to be able to carry your pack, or drag a wounded buddy, or perform a long patrol, or any of the thousand other things needed when the fight eventually comes. To say that going to the gym solves nothing is ignorant. Is it the only thing you should be doing? OF COURSE NOT. But you can stockpile all of the ammunition in the world - just hope that you don't have to walk a mile to your target. Otherwise, the heart attack might get ya.

Anonymous said...

Someone went down shooting.

City of Miami Police and Miami-Dade Police and the FBI were in pursuit of a man involved in a hate crime investigation.

Anonymous said...

When (not if) America falls, it'll usher in a Dark Ages that'll make the one after the fall of Rome look like a little blip.

One of my favorites, from Poul Anderson's story Hunters of the Sky Cave:

"'The measure of our damnation is that everyone of us with any intelligence - and there are some - every one sees the Long Night coming. We've grown too wise; we've studied a little psychodynamics, or perhaps only read a lot of history, and we can see that Manuel's Empire was not a glorious resurgence. It was the Indian summer of Terran civilization. (But you've never seen Indian summer, I suppose. A pity: no planet has anything more beautiful and full of old magics.) Now even that short season is past. Autumn is far along; the nights are cold and the leaves are fallen and the last escaping birds call through a sky which has lost all colour. And yet, we who see winter coming can also see it won't be here till after our we shiver a bit, and swear a bit, and go back to playing with a few bright dead leaves.'"

Mark D

McChuck said...

Lib-Progs can't and won't back down. The best outcome for our side is a bloodbath, where after years of fighting, there are 120 million patriotic Americans left here, and no one else.

It's going to be awful either way. If wevwun, we survive. If we lose, we, all of us, die.

streamfortyseven said...

McChuck - it's not Lib-Progs vs Patriots. Neither side is represented by either of the established parties, *both* have been shut out and *will continue to be* shut out of any serious policy decisions. It's the neo-liberal/neo-con elite that make the decisions, and they've been very successful at shutting out both Reds and Blues - while getting them to fight against each other or at very least, not talk to each other. It's a tactic as old as Caesar - divide and conquer. It's been the game in the US for a long, long time:

"The history of that plan begins in the 19th century when J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller family and other components of the financial elite hatched an idea to control both the Democratic and Republican parties.
“When the business interests … pushed through the first installment of civil service reform in 1883, they expected that they would be able to control both political parties equally,” wrote Professor Carroll Quigley in his book, “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.” “Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence of politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice.”
Understand that Quigley was not only privy to these secret machinations, he was sympathetic to them. He revealed in his book that as part of his 20-year study of the power structures of the U.S. and Great Britain, he had an opportunity to examine their “papers and secret records.”
His book was published in 1966 by Macmillan, which Quigley believed was systematically suppressed. Plates were destroyed to ensure it would not see a second printing, according to a taped interview discovered in Quigley’s archives at Georgetown University by Dr. Stanley Montieth. Apparently some of Quigley’s benefactors thought the secrets he revealed were better left untold. (continued)

streamfortyseven said...

But before the book was deep-sixed, Quigley exposed the little-understood fact that both socialist and communist movements in the United States were funded by the Morgans and the Rockefellers and other financial interests. Quigley was amused by the fact that right-wing populists in the United States mistakenly believed that Communist Party subversion was the root of the threat to national security in the 1950s. In fact, he said, it was simply a symptom of the political manipulation of foreign and domestic policies by the financial elite.
“There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure,” Quigley wrote. “It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists. … These misdirected attacks by the Radical Right did much to confuse the American people.”
Now listen to what Quigley says about the two-party system and its one plan for control of the population: “Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within the very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.”
So why the scam? Why the illusion?
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” he wrote. “Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” " See Tragedy and Hope. Quigley, (1965), p1245.

The current Antifa in Berkeley are a front for BAMN, which in turn is a front for the Revolutionary Workers League, which is headed up by a lady named Shakur in Detroit, who gets money from quite a few major family foundations, including the Ford Foundation. You see their professionally-printed signs? They're paid for with foundation money. It's the same old scam as in the 1960s, with the Socialists and Red-Diaper Babies of those years - divide the people, get them to fight each other, and while they're busy doing that, continue to loot, rob, and steal, and put the $$$ in offshore banks. Simple, eh?

Mark Matis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mtnforge said...

We are "Sharpening Philosophical Hatchets" too...

John said...

I agree with Mark Matis. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Particular emphasis on California.