November 4th, 2018 9:56 AM So to come full circle: (a) Sun Tzu reminds the civil that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. (b) Aristotle and the Fall of the Empire remind us that Morality and impulse are obstacles to survival. (b) Machiavelli reminds the civil that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. (c) Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche remind the civil that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. (e) I”m reminding you, in scientific prose, that that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. Safety Breeds Folly.
Theme: Crisis
-
Safety Breeds Folly
November 4th, 2018 9:56 AM So to come full circle: (a) Sun Tzu reminds the civil that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. (b) Aristotle and the Fall of the Empire remind us that Morality and impulse are obstacles to survival. (b) Machiavelli reminds the civil that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. (c) Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche remind the civil that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. (e) I”m reminding you, in scientific prose, that that morality and impulses are obstacles to survival. Safety Breeds Folly.
-
The Vulnerability Created Within Our Civilization – Twice
THE VULNERABILITY CREATED WITHIN OUR CIVILIZATION – TWICE by Marra McKinney November 6th, 2018 2:55 PM [W]hen lower IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them. Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans, via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce. Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ “Give me, Give me, I’m Victim” people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses). In contrast, low IQ migrants won’t find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything. Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see â open borders, multiculture, diversity, âtoleranceâ, border chaos. In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jewish thought leadership) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in. Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in. Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country. Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females . Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed â whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. Men form tribes. Women join tribes. So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who arenât in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group. Theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females donât care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open itâs borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group. All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.â
-
The Vulnerability Created Within Our Civilization – Twice
THE VULNERABILITY CREATED WITHIN OUR CIVILIZATION – TWICE by Marra McKinney November 6th, 2018 2:55 PM [W]hen lower IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them. Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans, via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce. Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ “Give me, Give me, I’m Victim” people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses). In contrast, low IQ migrants won’t find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything. Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see â open borders, multiculture, diversity, âtoleranceâ, border chaos. In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jewish thought leadership) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in. Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in. Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country. Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females . Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed â whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. Men form tribes. Women join tribes. So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who arenât in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group. Theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females donât care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open itâs borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group. All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.â
-
The Coming Civil War
(FB 1541681949 Timestamp) THE COMING CIVIL WAR The coming civil war will consist of increases in radom violence – just as we are seeing now. Clashes between urban protestors – just as we are seeing now. Stalking and Attacking the Media and Political Class – just as we are seeing now. Assaults on infrastructure including media, data, energy, fuel transport, food transport, road, rail transport – which is likely to start soon after any further escalation by the state. And massive ‘taking to the streets’ (so called ‘chimping out’) with looting, burning, damaging. And finally Mass Conflict in the streets. At which point government, transportation, police, fire, emergency, first responders, the national guard, will be overwhelmed and retreat to their barracks. Once that occurs individuals and groups will be limited to self defense. And at that point the state will meet whatever demands they must in order to obtain order. The problem is, that after 90 days of raiding a large number of males will prefer that occupation to any other. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/08/24/revolution-never-has-an-empire-been-more-fragile/
-
Evidence from Ukraine
(FB 1541697548 Timestamp) Roman trained groups in the woods in Ukraine on weekends and people paid, around $75 for it. He wrote the training plan for the ukrainian volunteers. It spread across the country in a few weeks. The State Dept asked him to stop. Men came out of the woodwork to fight. Especially from the western part of the country. They formed militias with different ‘philosophes’ (degrees of aggression really). They raided military depots, banks, hardware stores — everything for supplies. They paid for some of their own supplies. People organized donations to buy them others. Regular Military worked with them and sold arms. The Russians supplied arms, money, and heavy weapons – and intel. Men need simple basics. Most importantly not to shoot each other. But that said, military trains men to patrol and hold ground and doctrine for guerillas is the OPPOSITE. So it is easier to train the four basic disciplines of riflemen than it is to train groups to select, survey, plan, strike, and retreat as guerillas. What we saw in ukraine as small groups of men take initiative, without telling others what they were doing, and making those raids and returning with high kill counts, but always at the risk of friendly fire. But that is because the area of conflict in the Donbas is quite small. America is huge, and “Deplatforming Cities” (ie: ending their supply lines) and removing selected academics, media, public intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats, and keeping the cash machines empty, the power out, water off, data down, gasoline out, food out, requires local or roaming groups to operate very differently from foot soldiers. I understand how ISIS, the IRA and the Marxists did it. American’s wont follow the Arab Spring model. Heterogeneity prevents it. What we CAN count on is filling the streets. but as the IRA(small), marxists (medium), and ISIS (large), with arab spring (masses) all conducted their revolutions fairly consistently by making the territory ungovernable. All that is necessary is to generate demand for settlement on STATED TERMS where the terms burn the state, not the military or the people. This will happen principally because there are enough men who WANT it to happen.
-
The Coming Civil War
(FB 1541681949 Timestamp) THE COMING CIVIL WAR The coming civil war will consist of increases in radom violence – just as we are seeing now. Clashes between urban protestors – just as we are seeing now. Stalking and Attacking the Media and Political Class – just as we are seeing now. Assaults on infrastructure including media, data, energy, fuel transport, food transport, road, rail transport – which is likely to start soon after any further escalation by the state. And massive ‘taking to the streets’ (so called ‘chimping out’) with looting, burning, damaging. And finally Mass Conflict in the streets. At which point government, transportation, police, fire, emergency, first responders, the national guard, will be overwhelmed and retreat to their barracks. Once that occurs individuals and groups will be limited to self defense. And at that point the state will meet whatever demands they must in order to obtain order. The problem is, that after 90 days of raiding a large number of males will prefer that occupation to any other. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/08/24/revolution-never-has-an-empire-been-more-fragile/
-
Evidence from Ukraine
(FB 1541697548 Timestamp) Roman trained groups in the woods in Ukraine on weekends and people paid, around $75 for it. He wrote the training plan for the ukrainian volunteers. It spread across the country in a few weeks. The State Dept asked him to stop. Men came out of the woodwork to fight. Especially from the western part of the country. They formed militias with different ‘philosophes’ (degrees of aggression really). They raided military depots, banks, hardware stores — everything for supplies. They paid for some of their own supplies. People organized donations to buy them others. Regular Military worked with them and sold arms. The Russians supplied arms, money, and heavy weapons – and intel. Men need simple basics. Most importantly not to shoot each other. But that said, military trains men to patrol and hold ground and doctrine for guerillas is the OPPOSITE. So it is easier to train the four basic disciplines of riflemen than it is to train groups to select, survey, plan, strike, and retreat as guerillas. What we saw in ukraine as small groups of men take initiative, without telling others what they were doing, and making those raids and returning with high kill counts, but always at the risk of friendly fire. But that is because the area of conflict in the Donbas is quite small. America is huge, and “Deplatforming Cities” (ie: ending their supply lines) and removing selected academics, media, public intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats, and keeping the cash machines empty, the power out, water off, data down, gasoline out, food out, requires local or roaming groups to operate very differently from foot soldiers. I understand how ISIS, the IRA and the Marxists did it. American’s wont follow the Arab Spring model. Heterogeneity prevents it. What we CAN count on is filling the streets. but as the IRA(small), marxists (medium), and ISIS (large), with arab spring (masses) all conducted their revolutions fairly consistently by making the territory ungovernable. All that is necessary is to generate demand for settlement on STATED TERMS where the terms burn the state, not the military or the people. This will happen principally because there are enough men who WANT it to happen.
-
I am not trying to be scary
(FB 1541794132 Timestamp) I am not trying to be scary but to speak in actionable terms. it is a mistake to think that this coming revolution will be fought as the civil rights movements and the french-revolution through the 20th century movements have been fought. Those were fights of classes using gunpowder against people. The current era is all against all, eroding the economy and infrastructure, and letting the ‘population load’ of modernity crash into chaos. I mean, look at history, but, the reason the chinese ended up with 100x the fatalities in war was population load.
-
On the Military’s Ability to Control a Revolution
(FB 1541780322 Timestamp) ON THE MILITARY’S ABILITY TO CONTROL A REVOLUTION (from elsewhere) Of course I’ll disagree with him, and so will anyone who looks a the locations of the troops, their numbers the BIAS of those troops, the numbers of the police, and first responders, the size of the territory, the number of worldwide assets that have to be protected from hostile external factors, the fragility of the system, and the success WORLDWIDE OF EVERY 5GW revolutionary force. Look at Syria, the Arab Spring, Yemen, the problem Iran has, turkey had, the fragility of the american grids, the dependence of urban underclasses on availability of cash, food, and digital transfers. The zero savings of the population…. I mean. the entire american experiment is dependent upon maintaining economic velocity that we currently refer to as just-in-time production and distribution due to plentiful information and extremely low cost transportation. There is very little electricity, heat, food, water, and such in the supply chain. Especially if actors function in winter, entire cities can be depopulated in weeks. I mean. It’s not like it takes millions in the streets. Man-on-man warfare went out with napoleon. Industrial warfare went out with the 1990’s. Today it’s just ‘break some infrastructure’ and let population density and the fragility of the supply chain do the work of turning people into rabid animals the male underclass of which will prey on the rest. As an example, one building can consume the fire departments of multiple cities. What if in the same city someone started 100 of those fires? What if that were done while breaking hydrant heads and losing the water pressure to fight the fire? Everyone thinks of millions in the streets but what I learned in ukraine is that 100 people can do all the fighting and just fall back into those people in the streets, in homes, in workplaces, and the state cannot pursue them. I mean, I am not the only person who has studied enough on this subject to make these statements. The military can ONLY concentrate force. There are only 2m. Of those 2m who will sympathize with the state if we offer a solution that restores military influence in the state, and improves the conditions of the soldiers? So the question is, not whether you have some ‘spastic’ uprising. The question is whether you position demands THAT PEOPLE WANT ANYWAY and drive those demands such that the state resists, but he military and police AGREE WITH THEM.