It’s On: What Now?
Enemies: A Call To The Colors
Some are keeping score. http://1millionpoints.blogspot.com/
malware alert on that link.
“Victory or death…..upon their” That’s about all I got from google translate. In total, it didn’t made sense to me. Could you tell me the proper translation?
Victory or death. With their shields or on them.
Purge or be purged.
Thermopylae. 300 Spartans. Anywhere from 100,000 to 1 million Persians.
Nobody remembers the Persians, but every student of war remembers the Spartans.
We who have been reading this and other blogs for years are the Spartans. We saw it coming, now we stand in the gap. I am under no illusions as to the chances of my survival (arthritis and failing eyesight), but I can damn sure fight a covering action to let younger comrades escape.
We are ALL Delbert Belton.
“Nobody remembers the Persians, but every student of war remembers the Spartans..”
Also forgotten – the some thousands of other Greeks who fought alongside the Spartans. If you take Herodotus at his word regarding the Greek forces, the folks who should be recognized as the real heroes of Thermopylae were the Locrians and Thespians, who sent (and, with the Thespians, at least, lost) every soldier they had.
Sadly, PR efforts seem to really determine who the “winners” and “losers” in any conflict are.
But…but…propaganda hadn’t even been invented yet.
I find it interesting how it’s only the Democrats we blame for this.
At this late stage of the game folks need to wake up and stop siding with the Republican party, or waiting to be rescued by them, “cause they’re the good guys”.
Blind faith in a worthless political party is definitely a death wish.
“Briefly and bluntly, when two identifiable groups disagree on fundamental moral principles, they must be rigidly separated from one another to avert bloodshed.”
Identifiable by melanin content? Here is proof that Poretto is a collectivist. Race war, the thing he appears to desire, will not leave you with a good feeling. Killing innocents never does.
Treat individuals as individuals. Treat mobs as mobs. Treat thugs as thugs. There is no need to bring race into any of this. Racism is for collectivists, government provocateurs, and fools.
One other thing. Those who live in dangerous environments have a responsibility to protect themselves. If they don’t bother to do it, why should we get upset what happens to them? It’s Darwin at work:
“…No people ever yet groaned under the heavy yoke of slavery, but when they deserv’d it. …The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought. …If therefore a people will not be free; if they have not virtue enough to maintain their liberty against a presumptuous invader, they deserve no pity, and are to be treated with contempt and ignominy.”
— Samuel Adams
Why stop there? Where all the Germans evil? The Koreans? The Vietmanese? The Iraquis? A man of your beliefs can’t be a soldier. Were all the Redcoats bad? How can you shoot at an anonymous line of men? Answer: because they are shooting at you. And that is the difference, one perhaps you can identify with. We were far from home in those other wars. With the Redcoats and now with the Blacks, we have our backs against the wall in our own land. We have tried everything to appease them to no avail.
Taken to a logical extreme your mindset dissolves the Nation State and leads to defeat at the hands of men who do work together. Hopefully you can find a loophole in your own logic that will allow you to do the right thing. As Thomas Flemming of Chronicles Magazine said, Libertarianism is unique in this time and place since it proceeds logically from principles. The problem is that those principles aren’t first principles.
Economics, or the Management of the Household, is prior to modern Capitalism. As is the Nation State. And Race is prior to the Nation State going back into the Tribe and beyond that to the Clan. And since Libertarianism is a philosophy of Modern Capitalism, it can hardly to justice to a Nation and a People. It certainly isn’t on the same level of importance as them.
Gwain, personally I don’t care who does what with whom; I just think thuggery is a bad thing except when it’s in defense. NAP and all that. I do care about faulty logic though…
“How can you shoot at an anonymous line of men? Answer: because they are shooting at you.”
Damn straight. Your problem, obviously, is that you’re including men who AREN’T shooting at you. Or at least I think you are. If that’s wrong, then I retract.
“…leads to defeat at the hands of men who do work together.”
Same problem…that’s right, but you’re including men who aren’t working for the cause you’re (correctly) identifying as “the enemy cause.”
I agree with your sentiment about first principles, since I’m a huge fan of hierarchy. So here’s the very first principle that trumps Libertarianism, Nation-States, and race:
Whether you admit it or not, there are nothing but individuals out there.
On that second link of Porretto’s, I have little to argue with. Just because I am not a collectivist, does not mean I don’t take precautions.
Paul I agree with you.
I got very angry at the discussion we have been having here with the WN’s. I dont know if I communicated as clearly as I would have liked. The tides of events may take us down this path but we should not seek it willingly. The government and media will gin this up to set us against ourselves. Then they will sweep in and “save” the “average american” from the evil racists. We will be the villians and we will be stripped of everything to appease the FSA. It is a cycle that we have seen before. God Help us all.
“I got very angry at the discussion we have been having here with the WN’s.”
Your error then, probably your only one. Save it for an actual battle, cuz you won’t find any benefit in it otherwise. IMO anyway. And one thing you don’t need to worry about…you were very, very clear.
The problem as I see it is that you can proclaim yourself colorblind all you want, but if you act in ways contrary to good sheephood, you will be deemed a racist no matter what. They did it to Zimmerman.
If it brings you some comfort in your heart to know that you don’t harbor any hatred towards any race, then may it bring you comfort, but we should harbor no illusion that people passionate for liberty will be anything other than viciously smeared with the most vile terms those in the Ministry of Propaganda can come up with, “racist” being merely one.
Agreed, I dont consider myself colorblind. I absolutly notice color just like I notice where peoples hands are and where they are looking and what they are doing. This is all a balancing act between focusing on the details and focusing on the bigger picture. Taken at a one on one level were you to face a danger situation you cannot let bias dictate your actions. Were you to be in a crowd at a local shopping mall and face an active shooter you would not single out the lone black guy from the crowd and shoot him just to be sure! You would look for the guy with the gun. There is a danger in letting those preconceived notions drive your actions. Its not just something that can shred your soul its something that can get you dead.
What this all really boils down to is that we are fighting this battle across all aspects. When we give up ground in some areas we are handing over initiative to the OpFor. We are letting them dictate the pace and the tempo of what is going down. We are fighting for the minds of the suburban family. In political terms they are swing voters and if we give in to the storyline that the government is painting then we are losing that ground. They will paint us a racists and the mind of the suburban housefrau will immediately shut us out. Regardless of what we are saying to her she will no longer accept our ideas and our advice because she will see us as evil. She will give in to her desire for security and will seek the government safety blanket. Thats a difficult battlefield to fight on already, we cannot allow our message or ideas to be corrupted by actual racist. The second the housefrau sees posts and comments that state outright biggoted ideas that will be enough evidence for her.
I have been called a racist occasionally, for example when I have argued against “Affirmative Action” (which is of course just another form of racism). It’s pretty amusing when that happens as I have merely to point out my wife of 35 years is a different race than me.
I don’t think we should base our actions on what the enemy might say about us. Hell, if that were all that mattered, we’d be advised to turn all our guns in since our enemies say guns in private hands are barbaric. Just because some bastard says something, doesn’t mean it’s going to stick. Anyway,
Mr. Bonneau, kindly tell us all how war can ever be an “individualist” activity.
There are times when men act in a collective fashion, because individual action has been rendered either impossible, impractical, or absurd. War is one of those times. A war that splits the nation along racial lines might be the most appalling sort. It might be the most regrettable sort. It might be the sort we should strive hardest to avoid…but if it should come to pass, it will be one group against another group — and neither your tender feelings about the matter nor your desire to remain an individual aloof from the strife will craft a safe place on the sidelines for you.
Apropos of nothing, please note that I spelled your name correctly. I’d appreciate a reciprocal degree of courtesy from you, especially when you plan to slander me.
You’re right that war is a group activity; there’s no denying that. The question is, “What’s the thing, or principle, that defines the group?” IOW what do they all share?
A strong case can be made that race does indeed “define the group” for many, including and especially many enemies of those who seek a free society. But that DOES NOT mean that it must be the defining cause for the group that YOU choose.
That’s not to offer any opinion on the matter. I’m just answering your challenge, “…tell us all how war can ever be an ‘individualist’ activity.”
“Individualist” does not mean “alone,” not even close.
Sorry I got your name wrong; unfortunately we can’t edit these posts.
Where’s the slander? If you act like a collectivist, you must be a collectivist – particularly if someone points it out and rather than recanting, you persist.
“kindly tell us all how war can ever be an “individualist” activity.”
The militia serving in the American Revolution was individualist. Each man thought for himself and acted for himself. That’s what Washington hated so much about the militia; they could walk away if they thought he was a crappy general (which he was). War SHOULD be individualist. When it is not, you get outrages like Dresden and Hiroshima.
“It might be the sort we should strive hardest to avoid…” We finally agree, although I doubt you really think so or you wouldn’t be beating the drums so hard.
The difference between us boils down to what to do about the “black” person who is NOT harming you (since we already agree about the one who IS harming you). I think it is evil to attack him and falls prey to the ruling class schemes (like Lincoln maneuvering the North into war with Fort Sumter). You apparently have little concerns that way, “War is hell” I suppose is the attitude. “Collateral damage”, right?
If we go the collectivist, racist route, it will be the largest boon you could possibly give to the ruling class. We have to THINK what we are doing.
Please note that when the time comes, people of color who stand for liberty and the Bill Of Rights(Sowell, Williams, Massie, et.al.) will be swept aside and eliminated by the FSA led by the Sharptons, Jacksons, and Van Jones and his ilk. The perpetrators of the black-on-white violence who have been profiled on this website as well as others, have no clue and do not want to. It’s all about “gimme my free s**t, you white mother f****r.
I saw it as a cop in SoCal. My dad, the firefighter was almost shot off his fire truck in Watts in August, 1965. I saw it at SFVSC when I was a student there in 1969 when the cosmic white commie-liberals brought a whole bunch of “inner-city youths” out to the lilly-white west San Fernando Valley and put them in a college to get: “edumacated” WE can all talk about the virtue and purity of specific individuals of color. The reality, however is what happened in Tulsa, OK to the Aussie ball player and what happened in Spokane to the helpless old man, minding his own business. I am out of the picture here in the rural areas of the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Oregon. Any of you on the fringes of any metro area in Amerika had better start practicing situational awareness. Get prepped, get trained, and get ready..
There’s a difference between assessing a threat by profiling based on pattern analysis and just looking at the color of someone’s skin. If your ability to assess a threat is so crude that you see black and think “threat” and see white and think “friend” you won’t last long in the coming unpleasantness (or in the current run-up to it for that matter.)
Race is only one determinant of what defines us. Environment, upbringing, life experience and other aspects of our individual heritages (e.g., Irish, German, Greek, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc.) are just as important, if not more so, than our racial makeup. Especially when you consider that most American blacks have a pretty heavy shot of white DNA in their own family trees.
Today, if you see a black kid (or group of “urban youths”) in the standard gangsta wannabe uniform you’re correct in ratcheting up your threat level and taking appropriate action to mitigate that threat. But what happens if you see a 30-ish white guy with the typical “shooter” look about him (Oakleys, short hair, beard, buff upper body, “tactical” pants, folder in his pocket, etc.) do you automatically think “friend” because he’s white? What if he’s a cop, or worse, a Federal cop? What if he’s dressed like the “urban youths” in our previous example? Do you think “friend” because he’s white? What if the black kid is wearing khakis and a polo shirt and by his actions and demeanor it’s clear he’s not from the ‘hood (or at least has learned not to act like it)?
Anybody with half a brain will see thug behavior and immediately recognize a threat. That’s a good thing and there isn’t anything “racist” about it. That’s basic pattern recognition that’s hardwired into our brains. But you had better get more sophisticated in your pattern analysis/threat assessment methodology than that regardless of where you stand on the issue of race.
There are plenty of whites out there that are more of a threat to your well-being (by which I mean your ability to stay alive) than the gangsta thugs out there (who, by the way, if you’re talking about the black male 17-24 age cohort only make up about three percent of the US population) because unlike the black gangsta thugs, some of these whites are government thugs, which in my view is a whole lot worse than a street thug.
I’d rather take on a black street thug any day of the week, because if he’s a threat to my life, chances are I’ll be able to legally defend myself, up to and including the use of deadly force. If I have to face the white government thugs I’m screwed.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,779 other followers
Sign me up!