Theme: Coercion

  • HOW CIVIL WAR IS PLAYING OUT by James Santagata Fascinating watching this play o

    HOW CIVIL WAR IS PLAYING OUT

    by James Santagata

    Fascinating watching this play out.

    1. Left owns the street, State does nothing.

    2. Alt-right (rather than Cuck-right) comes out and marches. Gets beat up., State does nothing.

    3. Alt-right, regroups, muscles up, stands toe-to-toe beats down left, States comes racing in to save left.

    At some point the State will go toe to toe with the Alt-right and that is when it becomes strategic to make sure that members of the state realize they had better stay home to protect loved ones. That is, go and patrol if you like but your home and family is not safe. Trust me. They will not patrol. Those that do are made a very messy example of.

    That is how the civil war will play out. One cannot concentrate forces everywhere. If you make the responders unwilling to respond, then the only solution is the military, and that is what we want.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 11:11:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND: DEMONSTRATING THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW You don’t really und

    YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND: DEMONSTRATING THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW

    You don’t really understand what is going on. The government folded to the 60’s violence in under three weeks. The right is merely attempting to work within the law to demonstrate that there is no law. Once they demonstrate that there is no law, they will no longer work within the law.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 10:53:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTION COMES As far as I know: (a) the purpose of the event was to respond t

    REVOLUTION COMES

    As far as I know:

    (a) the purpose of the event was to respond to the destruction of monuments to civil war heroes who had fought northern aggression.

    (b) The night before false reports were made by Antifa/BLL members in attempts to cause police to intervene. They fled. The police arrived, determined the demonstrators were operating within the law.

    (c) the demonstrators had a permit for the demonstration and were operating within the law.

    (d) they were moving to the part where they had a permit for the demonstration.

    (e) despite the permit the police broke up the demonstration and drove the demonstrators into large numbers of antifa-BLL who have, in every single meet, been the originators of violence.

    (f) they defended themselves.

    (g) some f–king lunatic got angry and ran over some leftists. And the right will crucify him for it (and is doing so this morning), whereas the left lauds their people for violence.

    You don’t really understand what is going on. The government folded to the 60’s violence in under three weeks. The right is merely attempting to work within the law to demonstrate that there is no law. Once they demonstrate that there is no law, they will no longer work within the law.

    Revolution comes. The era of a single federal government is going to end. Because there is just too much difference between the regions.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 10:52:00 UTC

  • GENOCIDE Here is our license. FULL TEXT: David Cole broke down Abed’s academic p

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/RECIPROCITY: GENOCIDE

    Here is our license.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/

    FULL TEXT:

    David Cole broke down Abed’s academic paper “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered” which was originally published in 2006. Cole says in a Taki’s Mag post:

    Abed reasons, it’s sometimes “morally required” to commit genocide, and he hasn’t been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.

    Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper’s abstract: “Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”

    Morally justified genocide? Abed realizes this might be a tough sell:

    Many will no doubt be shocked by these claims. Surely a view that has such unsavory implications should be rejected. In fact, it ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Reactions of this sort are overblown.

    Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”:

    One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.

    Interestingly and to no one’s shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?

    Peculiar, secondly, because although it was no doubt the case that people were motivated to leave their countries of origin by a wide range of considerations, I suspect that the desire to make a better life for themselves and future generations of their families was one of the most common. If this is the case, then surely there must be something about the traditions, practices and norms of European countries that are valued and respected by immigrants. But then why set out to systematically undermine the social, cultural and political foundations of those societies?… Why would immigrants attempt to systematically undermine norms and institutional structures that guarantee their democratic freedoms, including their right to be culturally different and to practice their religion without hindrance?

    Mohammad Abed is a professor at a public California university who believes it’s morally required to rid the world of evil white racists but Muslims can do no wrong. In fact, he completely ignores how Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to other nations.

    Northern Africa, Indonesia, Iran, just to name a few, were’t originally Islamic nations. They were conquered by Islamic armies. Europe will suffer the same fate as millions of Muslims flood in and out-populate the indigenous people. This Muslim invasion is a Hijrah which is jihad by emigration. Abed knows exactly what is happening, as a Hijrah is a highly meritorious act and it promises Muslims great rewards in heaven.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 13:11:00 UTC

  • OCCUPATION FORCES ARE NOW IMPOSSIBLE —“America never lost in Vietnam, Iraq, an

    OCCUPATION FORCES ARE NOW IMPOSSIBLE

    —“America never lost in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It won decisively on them. But its failed as an occupation force. The last successful occupational power is China (in Tibet).”— Anon

    Why?

    1 – Armies are smaller in number, with greater use of technology and higher dependence upon special forces. IOW they rely on high asymmetry of organization, technology, and skill (just as early europeans relied upon contractual (voluntary) organization and maneuver, bronze/horse/wheel, and professional warriors.

    2 – Advances in small arms – particularly RPG’s and explosives – have made very small numbers of men who can retreat into natural terrain both urban, suburban and rural, very powerful against occupation forces.

    3 – Armies of occupation require vast numbers, where the cost of asymmetry of power assists in maneuver. And concentration of forces (all men are cavalry so to speak), but occupation requires vast numbers of men who are relatively cheap – and a high tolerance for losses.

    4 – Large populations are a detriment not a benefit and this will increase going forward. Population beyond the level necessary to produce a competitive economy, and sufficient surplus to produce a professional military, there is no value to population. Population will increasingly be a detriment. So occupation of territory for other than as a defensive means *against populations and disordered populations* is no longer meaningful.

    5 – The logical tactic is to kill large numbers of unnecessary people in order to obtain access to resources, or to transport resources and goods. Because population, labor, and their market for consumption is now a detriment rather than an asset. Small, homogenous, high trust, high intelligence, technologically advanced, populations where we can concentrate redistribution will rapidly become a primary asset of any polity. This is the consequence of the near zero value of labor, and the near zero value of non-self-organizing population.

    6 – The only thing preventing strategic adaptation to the low value of population and low value of extra territory is the benevolence of major powers under democratic and popular rule. This is because a government who would do such things would be put into question by their own people. But there is zero reason to believe this sentiment will remain.

    7 – The strategy for small states is to create a nearly universal militia, a small special forces military, and a number of nuclear weapons. The strategy for responsible states is to prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons to primitive states and economies.

    The uncomfortable truth.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:11:00 UTC

  • I have no problem with the industrialization of killing by any means necessary.

    I have no problem with the industrialization of killing by any means necessary. But Hate, Rage, and Anger, and inflicting pain, suffering, and terror, all violate the principle of extirpation of hatred from the human heart. And Truth, Reason, Excellence and Aesthetics are enough for us to make the hard choices. *And any attempt to suggest otherwise is to admit weakness on one hand thereby demonstrating you are a danger to your kin, or to leave you susceptible to demand for tolerance of parasitism by women and non kin on the other.*


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 16:59:00 UTC

  • by Eli Harman ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT: “I will bear a cost in order to impose a co

    by Eli Harman

    ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT: “I will bear a cost in order to impose a cost on someone for imposing costs on others.”

    Directly, no one wins, it’s a lose/lose/lose; costs all the way around.

    Indirectly, we all benefit from the maintenance of a normative commons that discourages people from imposing costs, negative externalities, on others or refraining from contributing to benefits, positive externalities, which are shared.

    This is a common human behavior and it is impossible to understand human behavior, or the evolution of societies and polities, without understanding altruistic punishment.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 21:14:00 UTC

  • You know, at present, there are two men on this earth that you do not want to be

    You know, at present, there are two men on this earth that you do not want to be given a mission to end you. Sergey Shoygu and James Mattis. Because they will end you on a scale that your people will never forget. And the only thing that saves you from either one of them is the political interest of the people who they report to: Putin and Trump. And while Trump is a traditional european monarch, and Putin is a traditional Russian Tsar – and the differences those histories entail – you really do not want to provide a moral high ground or point of honor that creates an excuse for either of those men to let loose their dogs of war.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 17:26:00 UTC

  • “Over my dead body.” “Yes, I prefer that outcome actually.”

    “Over my dead body.”

    “Yes, I prefer that outcome actually.”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 10:06:00 UTC

  • “If the meaning of every word is up for debate with moral relativists, there is

    —“If the meaning of every word is up for debate with moral relativists, there is metaphysically zero reason to engage Noel Fritsch

    Ergo, the only solution is violence.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 09:08:00 UTC