Internal War Is Now On The Horizon For America
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence - that we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a cliché. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists, that would just complicate the narrative.
My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, and that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but also that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.
As I write this, China’s stock market has crashed 7% and was shut down by Chinese authorities who are once again initiating outright intervention to stem the tide. U.S. markets are quickly tracking lower. Oil is plummeting.
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term. With the U.S. in the middle, "taking a side" will be a demand. I believe the U.S. government will NOT take a side, and this will elicit a furious response from Saudi Arabia (a currency depeg).
The Obama Administration has just made introductory announcements on new gun control measures through executive order. These announcements were rather light on details and heavy on crocodile tears. Their vagueness is clearly deliberate. Psychological evaluations, redefining who is a lawful firearms dealer, "expanding" background checks; all of these measures could be interpreted broadly to mean almost anything. We will probably know more in the coming weeks.
And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters. Emotionally manipulative arguments abound because there are no tactically rational arguments to be made, which tells me that the plan was doomed before it was implemented.
As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people (not many but some) in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.
I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy Ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters are being perceived as the invaders, not the defenders — and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them NOT to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon will end in a very different fashion.
I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to "come and get them". Again, there are right ways and wrong ways to fight tyranny. Simply being willing to fight is not enough.
Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war they should do it over draconian gun control measures such as the use of classified government watch lists as grounds for denial of 2nd Amendment rights, rather than using a family who did not want armed support to begin with as a means to an end.
Keep in mind that watch lists are entirely arbitrary. There is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesn’t like and belong on a naughty list. The changing of gun dealer laws could be used to erase gun shows and private sales of firearms as well.
A standoff scenario based on these issues would be a much more practical concept than what is taking place in Oregon.
As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I and other analysts have been warning people about this for years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed the first working thermal evasion suit available to civilians to give people half a chance against advanced weaponry. I have no illusions that a peaceful solution exists. I know that there is no such solution at this point in the game. But when the fighting starts, I also know that those who navigate the storm intelligently rather than allowing their emotions to get the best of them are more likely to survive and succeed.
I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But, I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as this storm rises.
False Leadership And Irrational Leadership
You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real “tip of the spear.” First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but don’t jump blindly into any situation.
If his plan seems poorly thought out, don’t follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, don’t follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, don’t follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, don’t follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and questions your “patriotism” when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him. Remember, it is the job of this leadership to CONVINCE YOU of the legitimacy of their plan if they are seeking your support. The burden of evidence is on them. It is not your job to support them blindly just because you want to avoid being called a "sunshine patriot".
To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first, and make sure his planning is solid.
Hotheads And Imbeciles
I’ve found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense, and the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some events requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action.
The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warrior’s mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them and they will destroy allies in the process of their pursuits.
I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with a long term strategy in mind, then you have missed the entire point.
Factions And Tribes
Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. That said, if a “tribe” or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead.
The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they don’t have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people.
Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, you will be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur.
Governments Will Not Disappear
I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the government’s tyranny.
Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, if we fight we must fight TO WIN. This means not deliberately searching for an Alamo. Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed prophets will only lead people to disaster.
Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, when the fight begins, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely.
(45 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I voted with my feet. Left NYC, got the fuck out of finance and the land of the Lying Left, and headed home to be amongst my people. The great philosopher Alan Jackson described my action in his lyrics to 'Gone Country'. When the times get interesting, it's important to know who the guy next to you will be shooting at.
So you got fired and went home to live with mom and dad?
I did not know your tar paper shack had internet UniBummer.
If I couldnt hack it on Wall Street, I wouldn't have been employed there for 17 years. Thereafter, I wouldnt have been able to start a business with clients I met over that time. Took that 'home', too.
Human nature does change – slowly. It’s called evaluation.
The understanding of human nature does, however, change relatively quickly. Changing from deterministic/fatalistic paradigms (religious, biological, psychological etc.) to social engineering/construction paradigms (sociological, psychological, anthropological etc.) – and the many mixes of them. Depending on who you ask about human nature, you’ll get a different answer = human nature is not a constant.
The interesting thing is not the nature of humans, but how we chose to relate, develop and use what we have been given from nature. That’s what’s unique about humans. We’re not just nature. We’re also culture – language, history, artifacts, art, philosophy etc. In other words, we have – in contrast to the rest of nature – the possibility to transcend nature.
I think a more honest way of looking at it is to say we possess the ability to destroy nature for our own aggrandizement. That is not transendance. It is a temportily cushy ride on the road to extinction.
+1. Excellent, pithy comment.
@Memedata,
i'd say your "evaluation" of human "evolution" is linear and dimensionless. i'd also say that human nature is a constant; but instead of a single value representing a static position, try and understand the constant of human nature as a function, a formula with exponents and sundry factors multiplying dependent variables.
reflexive and reactive in its fundamental nature, it remains fixed within given parameters but is parabolic in its flux. so let's extend my metaphor of human nature as represented by a function. for every value of "x" (a plot-point marked in time of history), there is a corresponding value of "y" (the 'value' being a given reflex of human nature at a given time according to the interplay of the various exponents and multiples affecting "x"). taking this a step further, we can from this function extract derivatives to understand the contours and idiosyncrasies of human nature's time/reflex/response function at a given time "x" under given circumstances "y" understood according to the idiosyncrasies of y & x's intersection (a dimensional calculation), wherever the parabola of human nature's function falls in time and space.
in other words, the same natures that were driving chariots and chucking spears are now flying fighter jets and firing icbms. the results will be the same in nature but distinct in character and dimension.
it was the best of times/
it was the worst of times,
janus
Read a book about evolution.
or a book about human / simian physiological behavoir: "The Naked Ape". Seriously good useful information
http://down02.putclub.com/virtual/backup/update/Download/Literature/%E3%...
Or, if you feel like ruining your own mating life, read "The Evolution of Desire" by David M. Buss. "Twirl that hair, baby..."
Brains are predictable and very far from perfect.
Tribalism is one possibility, and apparently the one that is a hot button for you ('reflexive response' in psychology).
There are other possibilities. In my case, the Reflexive Response would be 'Elitism'.
Barnaby said: "That's simple tribalism. Kind of a relic. Evolved humans have learned how to overcome animal instinct. Eventually, tribalism will sink into humanity's history, much like rape and infanticide."
And you've been here 4.5 years and believe that tripe? Bwahaha. Human nature is THE only constant in this world. Always has been, always will be.
Barnaby your wishful view is simply not born out by history that exists within my living memory. Cambodia and Rwanda come to mind. I suggest you read James Waller’s book Becoming Evil. http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Evil-Ordinary-Genocide-Killing/dp/0195148681
As times get tougher we will devolve back into our basic instincts. Those instincts are survival instincts after all. In every instance of collapse, kidnappings, murder, rape and robbery rise. In Weimar Berlin there was a whole street occupied by mothers and daughters who would rent themselves out just to survive.
Ask yourself, what would you do to keep your wife and children alive? We will devolve down to tribes, clans and immediate family.
Silly Barnaby - you sound like Barbara Lerner. I wonder, does she gloat as Sweden overcomes its tribalism with an epidemic of rape? But wait, I thought you said those two were mutually exclusive. Methinks maybe you are a proprietor of rape and infanticide.
its called the PNW (Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Washington) where sane white people are moving to get away from the muds and leftists
no debt you are on to it, segregation through wealth. its the last bastion of the productive and intelligent. avoiding the new mixed race mongoloids is the best and safest way into the future, segregation works. equality is a lie, diversity is an attack on whites, and forced multiculturalism is an ideal not practiced by its proponents anywhere on earth.
You are an idiot.
From my what I understand from what you say AND "I COULD BE WRONG"
You are describing "Hunger games" where you are willing to survive being in the twelve districts because you think you will be OK with like minded people but in the mean time you are getting fucked in the ass by the elite class.
Those radical thinking people are the ones that followed Katniss Everdeen,
"Give me freedom or give me death"
The reason for open borders right now is to bring the third world country borders to everywhere in the United States except for places like San Francisco for even most people cannot even afford a place to live, the border lines between poverty and the elite will be county lines..
We are at this point in time are actually living in The Hunger Games.
% NoDebt, thank you for picking up the example of Elysium
A splendid concept from continental europe, very difficult to explain to foreigners, but lo and behold!... taken over by Hollywood and now meaning something completely different in the US
Meaning that Schiller's "Ode to Joy" is now even further away from the American cultural understanding then before
In this very interesting article, the author mentions Internationalists, Nationalists, Globalists and Pacifists, as well as the US Liberty Movement and Preppers
I'll try to explain what those words mean here, in the EU context that is often misunderstood even by the English (interestingly, the Scots have less issues with that)
A Pacifist, here, is more often then not a socialist or sometimes a liberal*, more seldom a conservative
Note: we do not have the American phenomenon of armed pacifism, and we do not have the phenomenon of the armed ultra-liberal**
A Nationalist, here, is typically a conservative. The Right. But we make a difference between the Right and the Far Right. We see that difference as... huge
A Globalist, here, is more often then not a liberal* or a socialist, but practically nearly never a conservative, and for sure not a Nationalist conservative
Now enter the european clubs of sovereigns, be them the first Coal and Iron Ore Clubs, or the EU or the eurozone
Those clubs are Internationalists. in the sense that it is about international relations and cooperations among european sovereign countries and then them vs others. but they are not Globalist
You can find centrists like me on the continent of Europe that are against Globalism, particularly in it's form of globalization, which is a typical primarily liberal* demand, or in it's form of "global governance" up to "global government", which is a typical primarily socialist demand
Why? well, first, any Nationalist here has less problems about treaties then Americans
Our very understanding of sovereignty is steeped in the first treaty that set the concept, the Peace_of_Westphalia
And that concept of that sovereignty is called, accordingly... Westphalian_sovereignty
Where is the difference? Well, our concept of sovereignty was born by a treaty after a huge and ugly war, and after every further major war reaffirmed by a treaty, or set of treaties
Meaning that we understand history as either having war among ourselves, or having a Concert of Europe, i.e. diplomatic relationships through treaties
Even simpler: in our understanding, Nationalism, taken too far, leads to european war. Internationalism, done properly, leads to peace in europe
So we generally cheer about international treaties and international diplomacy, and frown about national leaders that refuse to speak with counterparts
Quite the opposite of Isolationism in the US, which is a doctrine that says that the less "entanglements" a country has, the less wars it will have
The EU? it's still steered by the EU Council. Which is nothing else then our national ministers having... by treaty, i.e. national law agreed as common among sovereign members...
... to meet. For a Diplomatic Concert. A Continuosly Permanent Scheduled Summit. And we feel better both because they do meet and because They Have To... "it's the LAW" (to make a point the way is often done in the US, but not here)
So we have the Nationalist, here, that is nevertheless up to a certain point... an Internationalist, but not necessarily a Globalist, and more often then not opposed to it
We also have the Internationalist Pacifist, while the US and in particular the UK knows the phenomenon of the Globalist, straight, and the Isolationist Pacifist (pure US phenomenon), while the argument here is that Peace Is Done Through Alliances And Treaties, a bit like the citizens shouting:
"Do Proper Diplomacy Immediately And Get That Idiot Minister At The Diplomatic Bargaining Table, Drag Him There If Necessary"
He is, after all, a minister. That means Our... servant
( *liberal used here in the continental european sense: translate to Classical Liberal. **ultra-liberal used here in the continental european sense: translate to US Libertarian or neo-liberal)
+1
Separated by a common language and I daresay mindset. Americans are the only people I know who use a word describing the advocacy of freedom of the individual and equality as an insult.
glad you liked it. well, Americans have a different history. and history does shape perceptions. You Brits, for example, are special in many, many ways because of history
you carry, for example, the lack of a written constitution in the same way as others a lack of an appendix. and in a way you have a continuos institutional revolution because of that
note that now the EU Commission has been pushed by EU member countries to criticize openly the way Hungary and Poland are restructuring their constitutional setups, making entrenchment of a dominant party more easy and dislodgement more difficult. it's a kind of "political machine" corruption in the same way for which Chicago was famous, once, and is still widespread in the US
on the other side, from a British perpective, less of a problem, then it puts the dominance of parliament square and center. but you have a queen, and this little fact does allow constitutional setups that would easily degenerate into the typical South-American presidential quasi-dictatorship
the title of this article is chilling: "Internal War is Now On The Horizon For America". I hope Our Dear Cousins get a grip on their internal affairs, if not only because otherwise they might lose the grip on their external affairs, which is even more chilling
"they might lose the grip on their external affairs, which is even more chilling"
I don't know. Isn't half the problems we face in the EU caused by their grip on their external affairs? It isn't so far fetched to suppose that our politicians are compromised by years of NSA surveillance on their private communications. It's not a secret that the CIA and the US State Dept have been busy training, funding and supplying terrorist nutjobs in the Middle East to destabilise the region leading to the refugee crisis we face today. It's not a secret either that Victoria Nuland and her zionazis have been busy in the Ukraine leading to the useless and ultimately economically self-defeating Cold War II with Russia.
You're not far wrong about Britain and we face the double ignominy of being the lapdog of the Empire of Chaos, so as far as I'm concerned another civil war over across the pond would be a relief from their government's constant influence in my life.
yes. and yes. and yes. and yes. I could picture a possible future where the British Bulldog tries to be petted by the US and China and the left-behind EU... equally
but the Five Eyes aren't the Fourteen Eyes, remember? external influence is... a given. Once Moscow had immense influence, and now it is regaining some
at least Britain does not allow us bloody Popists to be Prime Minister! ;-)
eliptically and unrelated, the whole discussion in Germany now is also about police cameras on public squares, and of course IDs for everybody, and the police being allowed to stop and ask for ID without a specific cause, what the Germans call "Schleichfahndung", and throwing out immigrants at the first crime
mispost
:) I don't know whether having a PM we can identify as one of us is necessarily a good thing, considering the fact that Tony Blair converted to catholicism in 2007 and is still a disgusting criminal I wouldn't let in to my house. I would much prefer a decent human being, if one could be found in the cesspool of politics, of any religious denomination or even none.
As for Germany, it's a sad state of affairs. I've had a soft spot for Germany since I was a child going on ski trips to Zell-am-see and St.Johann. I still visit Mainz whenever I can. I consider the traditional teutonic respect for academics the highest cultural expression of a decent society. West Germans, as I know them, beguiled me with their insights into the human soul and easy going ways.
It's not such a bad idea to throw out criminals and it's cheaper than putting them in prison. If you're wondering why I'm not joining in with all the muslim-bashing, it's simple: I only have a low tolerance for criminals, I hold no malice for the vast majority of innocents in one group or another.
Ghordius,
that was a brilliant breakdown of europe's psychological/political disposition contra temps. i have to say, you've distilled things to their elemental composition -- with succinct and coherent structure, i might add. you say you're belgian (if i remember correctly); if so, are you of the flanderses...flanderites...flanderinians?...i can never quite remember how those cagey demi-nords referred to themselves. they remain for me a mystery.
okay, so, you really snagged my attention with the Shiller reference...and i remember my Shiller-phase vividly (my Shiller-phase being a function of my russian-phase -- the russian greats were all well-versed in Shiller...and i reckoned it vital to familiarize myself with Shiller such that the russian greats could be better understood -- so i think i know what you're trying to say).
for my part, here's a superior ode to Joy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wod-MudLNPA
but i do know the two are related...one the function of another -- so you have a point.
my question is, do all these disparate components of these treaty-based & broadly unionized europeans understand the unintended consequences of their positions, especially given the necessity of several among all making substantial concessions to their first-principals in order that any sort of coherence may govern effectively -- diluted though it may be by the amalgamated composition of its constituencies? this friction of necessary coalitions is now most acute in neighboring france, with unholy alliances bedding down together to forestay the inevitable (though unintended) consequences endemic of their hubristic philosophies.
you mention Shiller, janus submits Kierkegaard:
"boredom is a root of all evil."
europe is suffering something of a malaise. in strongly advancing a pan-european identity, the planners in brussels assumed its virtues and appeal would be of such a quality that the cause would of itself take and flourish into a continental ethos, a cause sufficient of itself.
things haven't worked out as well as had been hoped. the most immense barrier being the lack of a lingua franca. absent an agreed upon tongue, the lesson of Babel is always before us. in much the same way america is splintering under the weight of its own hubris viz. its attempt to infinitely expand its sense of identity, the brain trust in brussels went too far too fast.
so, i'd like to know, by what coalition will these disparate europeans forestall the emergence of the european right? they won't, Ghordius.
janus hates to be the bearer of grim tidings, but a united europe is far too important to let petty nationalism stand in the way. each among the far-right sectors spanning the continent will -- individually and in their own country -- be suppressed; but because of the spectacular events involving arabs and the pressure of their political supression and the compounding effects of inverse proportionality (i.e. the political pendulum), these far-right groups will burst into prominence, not as individual organs within their respective nations, but rather, due to the necessity of forging coalitions, these far-right groups will be welded into a single and cohesive organization that is sophisticated, rational and severe and above all pan-european.
it is by this means that your continent will be galvanized into an indivisible entity. the far-right, after sucessfully purging the land of these hordes, will afterward fall (much like Churchill post WW2) and give rise to a far more liberal/progressive ethos, broad in its europeaness -- the groundwork having been laid by those far-right 'westerners' who laid aside their petty and insignifican individualities for the cause of western christendom.
be prepared for brussels to move to rome.
europe will be the new ecumenical hegemon.
just playin devil's advocate, Ghordius. you know how highly i regard you. you're just too good for your own good. read Shiller again; but with the mind of a janus...much more will through that prismatic perspective be revealed -- same goes for the Bible.
oh, and, since english will be europe's linga franca, i must kindly pass along a bit of advice...but i do so out of friendship, not as pettiness. english being your second language, this is an easy mistake to make. you've confused "then" & "than".
"a Pacifist, here, is more often then not a socialist..."
iit should be "than"; otherwise, it was a brilliant piece.
janus cannot wait to see the glorious land of europe. i intend to sleep with at least one among each of your ethnicities...yes, even a flanderinian frauline!
ciao,
janus
janus, I'll try to keep it as short as I can
yes, europe is suffering a malaise... but one that can be shrugged away. the key goal is still the same: cooperation, not war among us
if the Far Right parties manage to have the same kind of cooperation between themselves... well, they can have their influence, then. note that the premier party of that kind is Marine Le Pen's, which is strongly focused against what she calls "ultra-liberalism", i.e. neo-liberal globalism. in short, if a "petty nationalist" can cooperate with the other "petty nationalists"... then "pettiness"... ceases
that "stongly advancing a pan-european identity" is imho still a mis-perception. with exceptions, most europeans are nationals of their country first, and then, as a matter of alliances and treaties and orgs, "europeans", and that as a far second. in short, only because some pol in Brussels blathers about europeanness... does not mean that too many take that seriously, here
the key compromise is still the Four Freedoms. and it's a compromise among all moderates, be them socialist or conservatives or liberal or any combination of them. nationalism as understood as being above them is only a matter related to England, and frankly there is a strain of Commonwealthism and (Trade-) Globalism in that
"galvanized into an indivisible entity" is utterly unnecessary. a good alliance with an exit door is more stable then a marriage without divorce. but it needs more care
the lack of a common language has two interesting counterparts: first, you mentioned English, the new global lingua franca. second... translations make for slow and clear talking. many diplomats will attest to that: the very process of translation clears the minds, focuses the thoughts and might help diplomatic efforts
"...give rise to a far more liberal/progressive ethos, broad in its europeaness..." that was Churchill. a good example of an Englishman, an aristocrat but also one with American heritage. his wish is very typical Anglo-American, with emphasis on liberal and progressive and shared identity, like the UK and the US
my little essay up there is not quite the same. it's continental, and centrist with references to conservative point of views, post-French Revolution bourgeois (which in my case it's hilarious) and with small touches of criticism to both liberalism and progressivism, when taken to far. we don't strictly need that US/UK ethos
alliances. properly made, they can be done by any kind of group of polities, and serve their scope, in the same way as Sparta and Athens were able to forge alliances... if they felt the need for them
hence confederative structures while keeping sovereignty and lending it through treaties (with open exit doors) for a set of reasons. that's reasoned, targeted cooperation
janus, I'll try to keep it as short as I can
Someday I'm gonna buy you an editor amigo.
well, I am bad at keeping it short. just answering adequately to janus about Schiller and Beethoven would have taken books. Beethoven wrote a symphony in honour of Napoleon. The Third. Fitting... to the "Third Roman Empire", of which Napoleon declared himself the First Consul. Later, this very thought was took by people that tried to force a Third "Reich". And that was a bad attempt as well as an abject failure
To be fair Beethoven reneged on his admiration for Bonaparte
after he lost the run of himself and crowned himself Emperor.
but the 3rd is brilliant. you hear the thunder of cannons and cavalry.
Ghordius,
i will first thank you for your failure to keep it 'brief'. i agree, your response was tidy as could be expected -- considering the sweep of what i'm suggesting.
and instead of bouncing back point-by-point, i'll pick up here, where you left off: Beethoven & Shiller & Napoleon & that failed 3rd attempt.
both Napoleon and Charlemagne knew something that all men of sweeping vision understand -- much like music, and in a way similiar to the composition of a symphony like Eroica, the power-potential in the human spirit and ones ability to conduct it is in direct proportion to the character and composition of those who submit their passions to it; a force -- or movement in a symphony orchestrated by a master-genius and preformed by a large and illustrious symphony -- must first be formed as a distinct motif, or in the case of a society, an ethos; that symphony's movement, and the crescendo of a society's spread and glory, are accomplished in phases. when Napoleons or Charlemanges arrive on the scene, much of that preparation has already been accomplished either by design or the natural flows of sentiment in the spirit of humanity or a combination of both.
be that as it may, the persons attempting to unite under a reich had to first define the essence of that reich, hoping it was on the one had narrow enough to permit definition as a motif or ethos and on the other hand broad enough that it could be embraced by all the potential constituents.
all have failed to so far reckon with the might of britain and have flagged for want of a common enemy. and if past attempts share a fatal flaw, it is a naive misappraisal of the brit's determination to occupy a principal position of leadership and the inadequacy of religious schism or the jew or communisim to serve as a sufficently terrifying catalyst and cause. who's to say, the swarthy arab may do the trick.
one more thing, i think you may be giving your european brethren a bit too much credit...sure, they're more informed on global politics and such, but not so textured as to be familiar with Schiller. but you know better than janus.
by the way, you never confessed to my accusation. are you or are you not guilty of flanderism?
it is interesting to note that Beethoven scratched out all references to Napoleon once he declared himself emperor. but, really, can you blame the feisty corsican? after all, what's an empire without an emperor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt4jtYpTHWM
janus
janus, that's the point of Beethoven's expectations on Napoleon and later rejection of him. An empire is one thing, an emperor a completely different one
He acclaimed the First Consul of the Third with the Third... and rejected the Emperor (of the French) as a traitor to the Third. see this comment of today: 7016186
agree on the credit thing. not really that much from Flanders, it's a few generations away. but yes, agree on "flanderism", guilty of that, on both counts, having ancestors on both sides of that
the true Roman and European Hero of All Times is... Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus. Americans knew, once, and dedicated a city in Ohio to him
i've been writing since long before dawn and am too weary to make a stout defense...suffice it to say, our principal division, at least with respect to rome (that thing that was, is not and yet will be), seems to concern the station of emperor and the inarguably evident necessity of it. i just cannot see how a man of your capacity for thinking things through a sequence of inevitability hasn't concluded similarly. please take no offense, but there is every chance you're thinking's been tinctured by the religion of pax american...democracy is in no way sacrosanct -- it is only an incubating phase for the hatching of greatness.
the great man savors the static-equilibrium endemic of 'democracies' (that've fermented into oligarchies) wherein all are reduced to a base and common denominator. what better contrast for greatness than half-assedness as a society's defining characteristic?
i'll go so far as to say that an empire, as such, isn't such independent an emperor. it is otherwise a republic (or something worse); and while republics may in some ways share traits with empires, they are radically different in substance.
here's a peek into the future, Ghordius: why do you think europe's leadership has suddenly skewed in a decidedly vaginal trajectory? the answer is that it may serve as contrast to the emergent masculinity, authority and majesty being at this moment prepared.
art does not imitate life, my friend...it is most assuredly the other way round.
and so, since Julius fell on march's ides, did the empire from his demise benefit? i think a properly read Shakespeare would beg to differ; for in his eponymously named play, it was clear to janus that in saving the 'rebuplic' brutus and his conspirators doomed the empire of Julius, and it was from then on to endure the agony of atrophy. God only knows what Julius would've done...it's hard to fathom the treasure and glory and exotic animals and fair maidens that would've been paraded down the apian way. all we can for sure say is that nero, caligula, tiberius and alot of other reprobate mischief sufficed in the stead of what would've succeded from the unmade edicts of Julius, had not the soothsayer doomed him.
Edward Gibbon, i think, would share in this belief.
Shakespeare was telling us, in no uncertain terms, if ever another Julius appears, keep your conspiratorial daggers away from his gizzard; lest your fall to rot and ruin under nero.
but that's just one man's opinion.
my nap beckons.
janus
Indeed, there is nothing new under the Sun. Round and round it goes, from the knowledge of good and evil. But man will continue chasing his tail until the experiment fails, as it must, and is self evident for all eternity. Man cannot be God.
so true, my friend...and your last sentence "Man cannot be God." is often by us interpreted as a dare. we just take things far too far.
the lesson of icarus isn't that he dared to fly; it's that he flew too close to the sun.
Sometimes I think you might be Nigel Farage in drag, G. '-)
(It's my new pirate look)
Nigel Farage is a weasel, nevertheless. He never passes a chance to score a political point, even if it's completely unfactual
there are differences between him and me. he is a (trade-) globalist, for starters, and he is a champion of "special" British nationalism, and a crypto-Commonwealthist, of the kind that considers the whole continent behind the Channel a "market", i.e. an oyster to take and suck away, pirate style. and there are many things on which we agree, particularly over a drink in the pub
meanwhile, you and I agree on alliances, on several levels, which is rare on ZH, for lots of reasons. which makes you a pirate... not
We don't screw around with pirates G.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es_KyFbL5BA
+100 NoDebt
I'm not sure why anyone should feel obliged to live under the customs and traditions foreign to them except by choice. I sought and found an area of the Country populated by like minded folks and moved there, never looking back.
I did the very same thing. I move away from the part of town that has over the last ten years started to fill up with people of a radically different social order from myself. I moved to an area of town that falls more in line with my economic status and ideology. From being in business for myself I have met a lot of different people and I have learned where all the people like me generally live. So that's where I went. I do not go to parts of town where these other people live and congregate if I can help it. If I want to go to the mall, I go to the mall filled mostly with people like me. Less of a chance of a riot happening or gang violence to break out. Now don't get me wrong, I am not a racist, and I am not talking solely about black people as some may think by using the terms gang and riots. The part of town I moved from is very mixed, but full of low life's. It has a good mix of Vietnamese, blacks, whites, white trash and to a lesser extent, Mexicans. I call them "low budget motherfucker". And not necessarily poor (but most are and drug users). 'Low Budget" to me is a mindset. I know poor people, but they are not low budget. I know people who are OK financially (or could be if they got their fucking life straight) and are low budget motherfuckers. I refuse to live around these people and keep my kid away from them. I live in an area of mostly white and lots of religious people. (just about everyone I come across talks about their church) The class structure is middle, upper middle, upper class and high class. I live in the area where I don't go a day with out seen one or the other like a Ferrari, Bentley, a Rolls or a Lambo and multitude of 100k plus Mercedes. Most people can't tell a entry level Merc from a top end Merc, but I can. There is a little saying that I heard once. "For those who know, Know". Funny, there is a stretch of road here that many many people travel on from (what I call) north county to head to Work in Tampa and St Pete. People use this road in some places to park their cars for sale. They just leave them there with signs in the windows FOR SALE. I have seen, among regular cars, BMWs, Lexus, Classic cars, even a Merc S500. And nobody steals them or fucks with them.
Brandon you had better go out thee and straighten things out. Your dynamic is just what is needed.
So the author is blaming me for the stealth corruption?
The real fuse will be lit by a totally unplanned, unscripted and unforseen event.
Yeap, or the control system shooting its own foot in its hubris.
That qualifies as a totally unplanned, unscripted and unforseen event.
I wouldn't be so sure. There are quite a few things nearly everyone in this country can rally around against the Fedcoats. For example, I believe that if a march were to be organized against the NSA domestic spy center in Utah, that they probably wouldn't march alone.
These fat fucks cant walk to the end of the street. Fuck them. NOTHING will change thse poples minds, they have already decided.
Would "the people" support military action against a renegade state?
I went to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, to find out how normal citizens thought about the matter.
Find out here: https://youtu.be/klZmx10h1-A
Of the three Americans, two to one against secession. Pretty good odds in secession's favor, given that the central government is still widely seen as successful. And really, so far so good on the surface. Should that change however....
Exactly. Real change always happens regardless of what people want or don't want. As Martin Armstrong is fond of saying (by paraphrasing Thatcher) "It's Just Time". It doesn't matter if the Oregon Ya'll Qaeda is "wise" or "makes sense" or not. When the time for change arrives details and pedantic bullcrap won't matter, it will just happen, and much quick than any player in the game will realize.