Inevitable


In 2000 the CEO of Blockbuster, John Antioco, laughed the Netflix executives out of the building as well as their offer of a buyout for $50M. By the first quarter of 2016 Netflix was valued at $41B and Blockbuster was celebrating the 6th anniversary of its bankruptcy. Agincourt, Somalia, the Alamo, Trasimene, the invasion of Gallipoli, the Bay of Pigs, Waterloo, Little Big Horn…most have now become synonyms for failure, or at the very least have made it into textbooks as cautionary tales. When outside stimuli are no longer allowed to sufficiently influence your behavior or decision making process, it is inevitable you will eventually make decisions worthy of being used as a cautionary tale. We laugh and mock those who have made such colossal mistakes and some of the smarter ones study them. The commonality between the aforementioned examples is that a) there was a fundamental misunderstanding of facts and b) there was enormous misplaced confidence, the Dunning-Kruger effect was off the charts. The burning question right now is, if protesting and rioting don’t result in prosecution, but don’t result in change either…where does this go next?

uc-berkeley-riotsPeople can often become so invested and intrenched in a specific ideology or belief that aside from rational arguments, they are simply unwilling to change because of the time invested and the power the idea has on their psyche. One can become so wrapped up in a particular idea or label that it in a very literal sense, defines them. The weaponization of identity by the progressives has created not just a social conflict in America among many of my generation, but also an identity crisis. If I walked into the crowd at Berkley a few days ago with a sign that said ‘I am _____.’ and asked the people to only fill in one thing, I would almost guarantee you it would be in identitarian terms. I am white. Therefore, I am responsible for slavery, famine, and probably eat children. I am male. Therefore, I am responsible for slavery, famine, the ‘gender wage gap,’ sexism, rape and probably eat children. When I was pulled from the womb I became guilty of all those things, despite never actually having committed them. Conversely, if I checked the appropriate box, then my own potential discrimination cancels out some of the guilt I was born with and puts me in the good category, provided I don’t espouse heretical political beliefs like Milo. I hope you can see the religious overtones to the ideology, it relies very heavily on a perversion of the Original Sin concept with the zealot being responsible for his redemption through works and appropriate rites like virtue signaling.

The current crisis is one of Tolkien magnitude to the True Believers. Their entire worldview, and to borrow from Freud, super-ego is wrapped up in either self-flagellation or flagellation of those who have not sufficiently repented of their Original Sin. If I had to fill in a single thing about what I am, my race and sex don’t break the top ten. This is not the virtue signaling we see so often among the right, in a vain attempt to prove they are the mythical colorblind creature so many pundits and politicians pretend to be. I believe you are what you do, and even then it’s only part of the story at any given point. Most millennials were too young during the George W. era, though there was only token resistance to the idea at all. The vast majority have known no other president that Barack Obama who was equally as zealous in his belief of Original Sin, as indicated through his many remarks about the scourge of Western ideology on the world and in particular his desire to fundamentally transform the country. To people like the Berkley rioters, I believe many simply do not contemplate that there are communities that might differ in politics from their own little bubble. One can see this effect inside the Beltway, Hollywood and other conclaves where it is inconceivable that someone is not a True Believer. Many don’t know what they don’t know. The rest can simply afford to ignore what they should know…for now.

We have vainly attempted to approach this problem from the wrong angle, as a policy debate rather than a psychological one. Trump’s actions are irrelevant to the legacy media and most of the people we are discussing here. People pointed out the ‘Muslim ban’ wasn’t, and I doubt very seriously even those writing articles on the executive order actually read it. Facts. Do. Not. Matter. You simply cannot reason a person out of a position they were never reasoned into. Particularly if that position is such a significant part of their self-worth that it is them. So rather than attempt to refute ideas and accusations that no longer make sense to even the most tortured misreading of plain English, it bears contemplating what a person in psychological distress will do. We had a march on D.C. with an entertaining amalgam of costumes and near incomprehensible ramblings by the celebrities du jour and those looking to resurrect their relevance.  I honestly believe many there expected some kind of sea change and shift in policy. It didn’t happen. There were protests about a temporary ban on visas. There were riots over a speaker in Berkley and people were beaten, one assault could be categorized as attempted voluntary manslaughter. The response from the state and local government was nothing less than tacit approval of the violent escalation in Berkley, and the response from the federal government was a snarky tweet. Still, Trump remains in power and his agenda looks to be rolling on.

rjs7d6gpbjdy.pngThus far the escalation from screaming, to marching to rioting has occurred and there certainly doesn’t look to be a deescalation to discussion any time soon. The progressive wing of the statists look to have learned very little from the Trump victory in November and absolutely refuse to acknowledge their version of reality is not measuring up to the facts of the situation. A more stark example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I cannot think of. The people protesting have the misplaced idea that Newton’s third law does not translate on a sociological level. The election most are so upset over is proof positive that a segment of America feels very attacked and very marginalized, and over the last eight years has not only showed up to the voting booth but showed up to the gun store as well. I don’t pretend to be able to read the tea leaves. However, there will come a point when the violence will elicit a reaction from either a state actor or non-state actors, or both. Starbucks and Berkley may not bother to defend their private property, but there will inevitably be a Korean shopkeeper moment. What would have been the response in Berkley to dead protestors and someone who claimed he feared for his life? Half the country would believe them, half would call him a murderer. The facts would be irrelevant either way. If ‘looking like a Nazi’ aka a Syrian student in a suit, is enough to warrant assault then what would be their likely response to dead or injured colleagues?

You get to laugh Netflix out of the building once. Reality is a cruel mistress, and often makes very stunning examples out of those who scorn her. The laughing is beginning to stop on the street, though it continues in the legacy media and among the pundit class in their gated communities. The next evolution will show us how many true believers exist, as many choose to continue to escalate to violent behavior rather than face a crisis of identity. The crisis of identity has been a generation in the making, and inconvenient facts will not reverse a generation raised on political tribalism. Escalation is inevitable because it is the only course left. Trump was the third way Glenn Beck is so obsessed with, a peaceful, albeit crude, stopgap. Unlike peace, war only requires one party to acknowledge the fact. People will die at some point, as a beating gets out of control or a building catches on fire. Trump will feel the need to respond and will likely involve federal agents or possibly the National Guard if the situation escalates even further. The echoes of Kent State are strong here. The moment boots on the ground show up the movement is legitimized and the color revolution has the optics they need. What happens after that is anyone’s guess. One thing is for sure, it will not go away.

 

Jesse James

 

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Inevitable

    1. They weren’t shooting the right people at Kent state.
      Those who burned down the building and started the rioting were not Kent state students.
      Some of the students participated-you can’t have a riot unless those inciting it get the crowd worked up enough to participate.
      There were some small groups of students on campus who were all for rioting,breaking windows and looting stores, burning down the ROTC building,etc. Some of these students were from on campus groups such as SDS, but most of the agitators were from elsewhere.
      That’s how it was explained to me by someone who not only was there,attending classes on May 4th,but took a round in the knee as he was walking across campus.

      Like

      1. I don’t doubt what you say is so.

        Communists, supporters, sympathizers, Liberals… How do you distinguish? You don’t. Or, as one general of La Junta said, “We’ll make mistakes.”

        “Dirty Wars” were my specialty. And in answer to the objection, “You can’t kill people because of what they think,” the answer is, “Yes you can.”

        One either defends civilization, or it gets murdered.

        S//

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Steve.
          you cant just stir the pot without the rest of the story, give them references to chew on.
          Not everyone will take your short comment and research for them selves. fewer still even know what questions to ask.
          they have been fed “democracy” since birth and foolishly think their thoughts mater
          Long live the King.

          Like

          1. Mike,

            Frankly, I agree with you.

            One problem I’ve found is that people simply don’t read any more. Even if they do read they most likely cannot discern whether what they’re reading is true or false because they don’t know how to disassemble an argument. So if it agrees with their a priori opinion they say it’s true; if it contradicts their a priori opinion they say it’s false. Just look at the “mosh pit” on WRSA (yes, Pete knows I call his comments section the mosh pit). I ask you, what makes them different from the Berkeley Antifa? I say, nothing; for the simple reason the “liberty” crowd believes everything Antifa believes. (I’m writing that up in more detail — it promises to be hugely unpopular.) Witness the shouting down of more sober heads.

            You’re right. They don’t know what questions to ask. And as you say really that is not their fault. But you would think that somebody who is otherwise intelligent (if you told them the glass of beer you gave them was only 1% poison they wouldn’t drink it), when it comes to ideas they don’t have the wherewithal to ask, “I’ve never heard this before, how did you arrive at your conclusion?” I which case I would explain patiently. But that doesn’t happen but rarely. [Yes, JJ, I know I owe you a letter.]

            There is truth. It is outside of us. We must conform our intellect to it. Unfortunately, the “mosh pit” subscribes to the “Enlightenment” (and modern) philosophers who insist that truth (or reality if you wish) is “inside me” and must conform to “me.” Or as St. Paul called it, “…the operation of error.”

            If I started referencing the Fathers, Doctors, Councils, Popes, and Schoolmen in support of my blunt assertions do you think the mosh pit would follow up to see if my claims were true? I’m willing to give it a try.

            Thank you for your thoughtful response.

            En nom Dieu vive le Roy!

            S//

            Like

            1. ‘There is truth. It is outside of us.’ The 1° of deviation that has eventually landed us here. We abandoned that and ‘truth’ became subject to the capriciousness of man. It all boils down to that. There is no anchor point to anything and man is adrift mentally, spiritually and psychologically. Keep stalling on that letter and the usury is going to be lunch. I kid, I’ve read to much about the practice. 😊

              Like

                1. Steve if you and JJ are agreeable to it could you cc; me on that letter, I cant say that you Steve opened my eyes but you did shed light on several new avenues of study that I might have missed otherwise

                  Like

            2. Steve
              I say cut it loose and sit back and enjoy the show.
              Those with the needed intellect and willingness to confront their own frailty and mistakes will profit greatly from it.
              What was it I told you,a while back?
              I do not fear what I will find.
              Life is a search for truth the end result should be salvation should it not?
              If you find just one or two have you wasted your time.?
              Not to mention it is fun to kick the hornets nest from time to time.
              Mike

              Like

            3. Steve, I think “people don’t read anymore” is true- my older kids (13,14,15,17,21) would rather watch a youtube video than anything else online- no one reads anymore- and don’t even try to get them to look at some double-blind scientific study- they won’t even try. But I guess that’s my question lately- and Jesse touched on it, and you touched on it: “there is truth. It is outside of us. We must conform our intellect to it.”

              Maybe I need it distilled a little more- this idea that they are not interested in truth or reason- How do people get to the point where you can’t even reason with them? They don’t have an “open mind”- and after the election, none on the left are even telling anyone to keep an open mind.

              And I guess my follow up statement and question would be: I’ve seen instances where people do a 180 and actually do open their minds and take in new information and form new opinions and discard old opinions. How could that be explained? What is the catalyst for a person changing their mind?

              And I may know the answer partially to it- when people are emotionally attached to an idea, they tend to entrench themselves when the idea is attacked. But if you can present facts in a way that is not emotionally threatening, intellect can kick in, and you can reason with people. The problem is these snowflakes have had everything taken care of for them- even their emotions have been carefully coddled- so that now, after being taught that the “truth is within them” (along with all the emotions), they are not equipped for reasonable thought sans emotional attachment.

              A bit of a ramble, but I’m interested in feedback.

              Like

              1. ‘The relationship between emotion and reason is commonly thought to be a problematic one. But the latest thinking challenges that assumption.. Instead of grouping all conscious and unconscious activities of the brain into one – and terming them the ‘mind’ – some argue that it should only be those things we consciously involve ourselves in which should be termed ‘the mind’, for example, reason, memory, and imagination. More basic and primitive reactions – such as rage, fear, joy, and so forth – do not involve any conscious input from us, so should not conceived of as part of the mind.’ (http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/ways-of-knowing/emotion/the-relationship-between-emotion-and-reason/)
                The point is that when communicating, and trump knows this, it is easier and far more beneficial to appeal to emotions rather than reason. His ‘Make America Great Again’ is total nonsense, but has great emotional appeal. No logic, no reasoned debate, just ‘USA – USA – USA’. no definition of ‘great’, no plan of how to do so, just throw out words. ‘Build a wall’ already there are tunnels 1500 feet long under the wall. ‘Ban Muslims’ (until we get a grip) the fact that all the attacks had FBI involvement and were under surveillance make it meaningless, but we all feel that it is the Muslims. And so on and so on.
                If he wants to convince or change any of the left, or you want to get your children to change, then you have to provide an emotion that either overrides or is more appealing than their current one.
                The Trumpers really do not understand why the Californians are so upset, after all only illegals have anything to fear. There may be 30 million illegals each of whom have built some form of life and have connections to another 30 million Americans. whole families, communities will be torn apart and most relegated to some ‘refugee status’ in Mexico or Guatemala. This is why the refugee ban is so emotive to them. They feel just one traffic ticket away from being a refugee in a refugee camp in a foreign country, where they know no-one and can’t speak the language, because their papers are not in order.
                People laugh about the ‘safe spaces’ and ‘trigger words’ without having the first understanding of why they are so important to these people. If you truly are fearful and you live in constant fear, then the least little thing can set you off. It is inculcated PTSD from birth. If you are a young black male on the street, then a policeman is a very terrifying apparition. Just as to a white person on the street, 4 or 5 young black males in ‘gangsta’ outfits are terrifying. 999 times out of a thousand, the policeman and the ‘gangstas’ will be friendly and not harm you, but that 1000th time you may be dead. Your emotions are going to control your actions, regardless of the fact that you know you are in all probability way ‘over-reacting’.
                Until Trump starts responding to the left in supportive emotional language and actions, he will only aggravate and exacerbate the divide.
                Obama’s speechwriters said all the right things, that he in fact lied through his teeth became irrelevant, he made them feel safe. You can lecture and argue and reason all you want, the first emotion is the one that will dominate, just as first impressions of people are made in the first 4 seconds and are very difficult to change, so emotions are kicked in, in the first 5 – 10 words and (you and) they stop listening, you just marshall your responses.
                Until the right and Trump recognise that they have to provide some positive emotions and overcome the negative ones, it will just get worse. ‘Man up’ ‘F* you’ name calling (snowflake) just will make things worse. Until you understand why Trump saying he wants to grab a woman’s genitals is worse than Clinton actually raping someone, you cannot communicate with them.
                The right is scared of the employer taking away their jobs and the bank taking away their house, the left is scared of the government throwing them out of the country. They are even more petrified of discovering that everything that they have learned and everything that they believe is wrong.
                They crucified Christ and would have done the same to Twain if they could have got away with it.
                “You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?”
                ― Mark Twain
                But we still believe.

                Like

                1. I’ve read through your comment several times. Are you contending that everything boils down to how we “feel?” And that the way to convert Liberals (if it were possible) is to find some emotional argument that appeals to them?

                  I’m struck by your conclusion (I can only accept that that is your argument); “They crucified Christ and would have done the same to Twain if they could have got away with it.”

                  “They” (it wasn’t the Romans) crucified God for “blasphemy.” [!] I’ll say that if somebody had dragged Twain (I’m sure he got roaring laughter and applause) off the stage and shot him for what he said there would have been no crime — and certainly no sin. And the shooter would have been lynched by the outraged mob. After all the shooter spoiled the show. Thus Americans.

                  How can we still believe if we let Twain gets away with public blasphemy? How can we still believe if we let Communists, etc., “express their feelings?”

                  S//

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Sorry, what I tried to express is that the emotion attached to words and symbols over-rides reason.
                    For instance you use the word ‘Communists’, I lived in Romania and Bulgaria in the early 2000s. Many (Many, many) people had a better life under the USSR than they were having 12 years later. They had had no concerns about health care (and their hospitals were excellent), their children would go to university for free if they showed aptitude, they had 3 weeks paid leave at the coast with all things provided, guaranteed pensions and the feeling that all would be well with the future. In 2000 they were scared and poorer, had no way to put their child through college and no way to protect themselves against the future. They wanted to go back to the way things were.
                    Yet from our ‘brainwashed’ perspective, ‘communism’ was both terrible and evil.
                    PS, many people, nurses, dentists and teachers went to the west for a number of years and hated it. They returned to their countries because the ‘dog eat dog’ culture literally drove them crazy.
                    It is virtually impossible to have a rational conversation about communism and capitalism as societies, not as a philosophy, as both eastern and western minds had been poisoned.
                    I threw in religion as it is a surefire trigger. Check each persons responses when you talk about Christianity or Islam, you will see how rationality disappears and emotions strike out. Be prepared to duck.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. I understand your objection.

                      I have many older Russian friends who speak wistfully about the Soviet Union and how things were much better then. (They also despise the West — I don’t blame them.) They too miss the State Welfare System.

                      But here is the thing… Communism never really “took” in the Soviet Union (or other Eastern European countries). How do I make that assertion? Because having studied this thing called Communism for over 40 years the conclusion is that Communism is not a political system, nor is it an economic system. Communism is a _social_ system.

                      There is no contradiction in the assertion that one can have “democracy” and “free markets” and a thoroughly Communized society. Like the US. (Marx greatly admired democracy, and if one actually _reads_ Das Kapital — both volumes — he hugely admired Capitalism; all he did was point out that it necessarily leads to Socialism; and doesn’t Marx’s “withering away of the state” sound eerily like Libertarianism? [!]).

                      As to religion… The State will either be confessional, or it will be an atheistic revolutionary hell hole of “legalized” immorality, amorality, depravity, and degeneracy. Like, well, the US.

                      Or, as I remarked higher in the comments, the first Communist revolution began in 1775. It was called the American Revolution.

                      S//

                      Like

              2. When I was younger, my answer would have been that when a person’s paradigm has been sufficiently crushed that to to retain their mind’s continuity with their perceived reality (all sane people have to do this, the sticky wicket is squaring your worldview with reality) they will alter their viewpoint. If the last decade has taught me nothing it is that the human mind is capable of going to nearly any length to justify an idea. PJ is right, I fear. The nurture aspect of the nature/nurture dichotomy of the person can’t just be completely rewired IMHO. A lot of it can perhaps, but one can look at the victim’s of child abuse/molestation as an example of how lasting and influential trauma is to the psyche when the mind is still forming. In a lot of ways I think the left has traumatized a huge swath of Americans with the garbage fed to them from pre-K onward and created a generation entirely unequipped to actually face reality without mental injury. How you come back from that, I don’t know. I suspect PJ and I may disagree on religious matters, but his comment deserves far more attention that it will likely get, unfortunately. Many seem to be unable to divorce themselves from their own worldview and take a stroll on the other side of the aisle to check out the view from there. Someone may be totally in the wrong per the immigration law, but that emotion and personal connection absolutely will override the more ‘reasonable’ position. Do I agree with it? No. Can I convince them with a Venn diagram and an absolutely watertight legal argument that they, indeed, are in the wrong? Nope. People are terrified of flying, despite it being the safest mode of transportation commonly available. We have forgotten how to think, and we have forgotten how to reason.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Thank you,
                  My point is – was that having been brought up in the Christian tradition and dogma it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion on morals with someone raised as a Hindu or agnostic. Reason doesn’t come into it. I pressed someone’s buttons and ‘triggered’ an adverse response, by writing about Jesus and the Bible, rationality goes out the window. Please someone give a rational basis for worship on the ‘Sun” day, and observance of ‘shall not labour’ on that day.
                  Having been raised in a ‘humanist’ tradition (8 hours school, 3 hours TV, only dogma supporting books and arrrgh ‘comics’) for 12 hours a day, to expect a 20 year old to throw it all out and start talking heresy (grow a pair, be tough, we are all victims, it is your fault) is crazy, or at least unrealistic.
                  It is not that they don’t reason, it is truly that they (and CNN) reason from a different set of facts.
                  Here is a simple test for all. The best way to lie is to poison the well and tell the truth.
                  Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot all said ‘Onions are extremely good for you’. Convinced?
                  Compare to ‘Nelson Mandela says that onions are good for you.’ How about now?
                  This is the ‘Russia hacked the emails defence’.
                  Because they used the Russian defence, the left don’t care what is in the emails, they must have been tampered with and changed. The right looked at the contents as they did not care what Clinton said.
                  Now the same is happening with Iran and Trump. Iran has done nothing warranting even comment, never mind the WWIII, and yet …..
                  First I have to get over your emotional barriers to begin a rational discussion. Which by the way, is even more difficult if we start out from a shared perspective. It is easy to find fault with Clinton, and ‘entitlement’ but hard, from my perspective, to find fault with ‘hard work and self reliance’.
                  All I am saying that that until people understand that emotion is far greater and more effective than reason, nothing will change. The right are just as guilty of this as persons on the left. It is a ‘human’ thing, not a flaw in ‘the other person’s character.

                  Liked by 1 person

              3. “…this idea that they are not interested in truth or reason…”

                That’s just the point. Back to the beer analogy. Give them a beer and tell them it’s only one per cent poison and they won’t drink it. They’re rational on the _material_ level. In the realm of ideas, in the realm of _thinking_ their minds are adrift (or as you say, “open”). They’ll spurn a poisoned beer; they’re “open” to just any nonsense.

                You and I say that is insane.

                But what is the difference between poison in beer and poison in ideas? Poisoned beer will kill your body. Poisoned ideas will kill your soul.

                S//

                Liked by 1 person

                1. One man’s poison is another man’s sustenance.
                  We have a soul?
                  Will the new idea poison our soul or free it?
                  Once you start with ‘curiosity as the prime emotion, then everything changes.
                  I was fortunate, my father was a school teacher and most of the visitors to the house were teachers. I saw first hand what a bunch of illogical irrational and down right stupid people they were. It made my school life difficult as I did not believe a word they said. Turns out I was right, the stuff they were teaching was nonsense.
                  My brother, who I deem the only true Christian I have ever met, is a DD, hooboy do we have fun.

                  Like

                  1. I agree with everyone above – that emotion is (currently) stronger than reason. Love the examples- “onions” – ha! And this fact (that it is “currently” stronger than reason) shows how weak (in reason) society has become. The ability to consider facts and truth sans emotion is a skill that can be taught and developed (“Can be”, being the key phrase – and the “can” is the difficult part to teach), and I contend it is one thing that sets humans apart from animals. I still contend and agree with JJ that truth exists outside ourselves.

                    Like

                    1. ” truth exists outside ourselves.” I agree, but each individuals perception of that truth is unique to the individual.
                      Our realities may be close,but never identical.
                      In addition, it is the differences that move us forward.
                      The main element to me is to have different opinions, ideas, ethics and religions (and even facts) but to be able to disagree without rancour and certainly without hatred or fear.

                      Liked by 1 person

                  2. ” truth exists outside ourselves.” I agree, but each individuals perception of that truth is unique to the individual.
                    Our realities may be close,but never identical.
                    In addition, it is the differences that move us forward.
                    The main element to me is to have different opinions, ideas, ethics and religions (and even facts) but to be able to disagree without rancour and certainly without hatred or fear.”

                    That is precisely _why_ this country is a hell hole.

                    I’m interested to know what Lodge you belong to.

                    S//

                    Like

            4. “…what makes them different from the Berkeley Antifa?”

              I’ve been browsing the local and state Antifa bookface and web places. I must admit that I agree with much of their philosophy and opinion on our (largely or overly) controlled economy and who is to blame. On economic freedom, I agree with much of what they state. Now, I don’t see the value in breaking out BofA branch front windows but, I was 20 once so I get it. That part is simply fun for some young men.

              I had a similar thought. What has actually changed in the past 2 months? Very little. Was I ready to burn it all down six months ago? With the right catalyst, in the assurance of righteous self defense before a Holy and just God, Yes. Does the change of boss make me suddenly switch to a pro-state apologist? These are the questions I’m asking myself. I humbly submit them for your consideration in your own search for “what or who is actually different”.

              Fred
              Member, Liberty Crowd. (smile)

              Like

              1. I’m not searching.

                I’ve rejected the whole Constitutional Republic thing in its entirety, the ideas that underpin it and the philosophies that inform those ideas. I’ve rejected them as such. I’ve also retracted and renounced my “oath” to “defend the Constitution.”

                It’s refreshing to hear one of the “Liberty Crew” admit they are no different than the Communists in their intrinsic rebelliousness (well… with the exception of breaking windows).

                “Self defense” against what? The system you embrace?

                S//

                Like

                1. “Self-defense” is a state that exists in nature when an external stimulus causes a mode of self preservation to over take one’s senses. Now, poorly defined, the ‘thing’ against which self defense must be mustered is not really measurable beyond the personal. I have a pretty good handle on what the line would be in certain circumstances. Being shot at most certainly qualifies. Politically, at what point is a justified determination of self defense reached, is something mankind has struggled with since recorded history began. What is rightful self-defense against a ‘managerial’ state sending out swarms of officers to eat out our substance? It’s personal based on circumstance. I’m not hungry, the water is potable, jack boots are not at the door. So, I do what little I can until ‘shots fired’.

                  Some cities in America are not this way. The water is not potable, the jack boots are at the door, and the means by which one acquires the medium of exchange to feed oneself and family has be regulated out of reach of the common man. In these cities, I say, the people are at a self defense threshold where, if they dragged their city council and mayors and administrators out into the streets and hanged them from the neck until dead, I would not bat an eye. They must make peace with their god, but they have the right to live. Thus the shooting of police. This is lashing out at the nearest and available symbol of the tyrant state. Now the city dwellers don’t articulate it this way but it’s the case.

                  I struggle, politically, for firearms rights. I have money and time and personal investment in it. I find new shooters and encourage them on their way to being armed at the level they feel comfortable with, I call and write my state and fed reps on gun rights. It’s my little monkey wrench in system sort of speak. One must pick a manner by which to fight prior to shots fired.

                  Since everything, literally, is regulated, tax, outlawed, banned, licensed, or otherwise prohibited pretty much everything is now a defensive act to one extent or another. Get the license to avoid fines – defensive act. Don’t get the license because they have no right to require it – defensive act. It’s war, without the bullets, so far. I will tell you this sir, I have my King and he has me. It’s a wonderful state of being indeed, to serve no man. We are all felons every day without our knowledge. That was not a condition of my choosing. It was cast upon me by men that consider themselves to be my betters. If they be better, why all the rules and men with guns to make me less. They are small. I choose what I would.

                  Like

  1. Thank you for this article and the effort in creating it.
    At last, a rational comment on what is happening.
    If only those in power (are you listening Donald) would understand and then tailor their actions and response to the fact that ‘Facts Do Not Matter’.
    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Trump is still in the land of ‘If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.’
    If you try to convince or argue or persuade them, it is not going to happen. Their beliefs are not based on ‘Reason’ (yours may not be either) but on an internal ‘worldview’.
    First, Trump and his adherents have to get inside the CNN – Clintonista mindset and see the world as they do. Then only can you begin to form a strategy to change the world they live in.
    If this does not happen, if people carry on treating them as ‘spoiled children’ just because they behave like spoiled children, then the only outcome is serious violence. They are your children and grandchildren, do you really want to kill them because they are being stupid, because you failed in your duty toward them?
    I think that a cleaning of the Hollywood – TV ‘Augean Stables’ is necessary. A creation of a new
    ‘reality”.
    Trump has taken the first step, Betsy DeVos is being put in place over the screaming resistance of the Democrat Senator ‘infants’. It may take another Billy Graham and another Joe McCarthy, with all their faults, to bring back some semblance of sanity.
    The alternative is 1984, ‘A boot, stamping on your face, forever.’

    Like

  2. Go after Soros, go after the DemParty and the best way to fight them is under the doctrine of vicarious liability, in which one can be liable for a tort committed by a subordinate or by another person who is taking instructions. Bankrupt them.

    Like

  3. Ah, grasshopper, but Trump DOES know his enemy, and himself. In less than a month in office, his way of defeating the enemy is plain to see, but his enemies do not see it yet. He baits them, he provokes them, he draws them and their screaming meemies out into the open, to resist what he wants done. And then, having the juice and the law behind him, he defeats their every effort. Look and see. He can do this EVERY TIME. He has the Patriot Act, NDAA, and a hundred other things to fall back on, and they can’t beat him. They have no power to do so. It is THEY who have overestimated their power, and it is THEY who do not yet know him.

    Like

    1. Hi mtn,
      The run-up to WWIII is very like the run-up to WWII, and the best commentator was RH. Like Bill Shakespeare, he clothed his wisdom and prophecy as fiction. I like the full quote :

      “I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy…censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
      Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
      “If This Goes On—” Chapter 6, p. 401

      And in light of the discussion above even, more relevant :

      “How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?”
      “Life-Line”, p. 15; originally published in Astounding Science Fiction (August 1939)

      “He seeks order, not truth. Suppose truth defies order, will he accept it? Will you? I think not.”
      “Life-Line”, p. 16

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s