Tuesday, September 1, 2015

clans 2 of 3


CLANS 2 of 3

While clans and gangs are not exactly the same thing, they possess similarities enough to generalize.  In a gang, you surrender some individual initiative to receive protection from the group.  Hence, a feud of outsiders against one of your gang members is assumed to be a feud with you ( arbitration is practiced to settle disputes but violence as with blood feuds is the final arbitrator used to settle problems.  It is a more naked form of force than the nation state practices ).  Understanding clan based groups is no different than the “one for all, all for one” concept.  The group protects you and so you have a debt to protect any of the group.  This is really nothing much more than tribalism, or even a pack of monkey’s.  The claim that nation states are less violent rests on the observation that they have such a better energy surplus that they can support a professional army and hence far fewer men die when groups battle each other.  This is true, but that certainly doesn’t make it a better organization.  The individual gives up all say in group governance, in exchange for a much higher probability of staying out of battle, whereas in clans or tribes every male is a combatant and is usually thus not ignored by the supreme leaders.  Neither system is perfect.  In one, to pay for peace a man becomes a farmer or other kind of serf or near slave and in the other to achieve a limited vote the individual must be willing to fight even if never threatened.

*

The US government began quite close to the clannish type of organization, which is why limited government guided by our Constitution makes so much intuitive sense to most of us.  Why gun rights are little more than adherence to the concept all of us belonging to the militia, which itself was how clans protect themselves.  It is why so many of our uneducated brethren are so stupid about their belief in fighting the FedGov for the Constitutional rights they think were recently taken from them.  Truth be told, the Constitution itself was a loss of rights and the founding of the centralized federal government.  We had our clan government hijacked by centralists.  By kings in all but name.  Militia fighting for Constitutional rights is pretty silly when the Constitution was bigger government than the articles of confederation it replaced.  Sold under the illusion of protecting states rights, the states lost their sovereignty to the FedGov.  The Bill Of Rights is what is left over from the Articles.  An area protected by militia is not the same thing as an area protected by a central state army, no matter how many members of the armed forced pretend to care about a smaller government ( you can’t take the kings coin and pretend to protect his enemies.  You might be a clansman while being a soldier, but at the end of the day you fight for Queen and country and not your family/gang [ your allegiance is to your paymaster ] ).  Next article, gangs in our country, living as clans.  Sorry, I got a bit distracted or I’d already have covered it.

END

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year. *The Old Bison Blog: Over five years of work and nearly two million words of pure brilliance: available as a free e-book, but not cleaned up or organized, at Lulu* My monthly newsletter: search at Amazon under Kindle “Malthusian Survivalist Newsletter”
*Contact Information*  Links To Others*  Land In Elko*  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is www.bisonprepper.com
*My books: http://bisonprepper.blogspot.com/2015/04/my-book-links.html
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there

 

5 comments:

  1. "....the Constitution itself was a loss of rights...."
    =========================

    Right, and it did so in the very first word, "We...."

    Nobody gets to speak for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously the prior arrangement involved certain individual rights being lost. But at least one could immigrate if things went too far towards oppression.

      Delete
  2. Came across this site while researching wool blankets James. It's actually a site for the homeless, but it's chalk full of good articles and comments on frugal living, so I thought that it may be of some use for some here as well.

    The blog author has since stopped posting articles, but still approves comments.

    http://guide2homelessness.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems I've run across this one before, but I'm sure it was awhile ago. I'll re-read some. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. Anon 4:13 Thanks. Looks good.

      Delete

COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLOSED