SUPER NINJA WARRIOR
Our modern era has been really beneficial in some ways. Who doesn’t love snacking on five thousand calories of fat and salt a day? Who wants to give up unlimited TV or electronic libraries? Who amongst you would willingly give up your motor vehicles? Of course we all know the downsides. We hate each other, there is little truly enjoyable trouble free human interaction and our lives lack meaning beyond what we can accomplish despite the ruling paradigms working against it. Oh, and just one more thing ( Colombo reference )-quantity over quality, which has been true for about six thousand years now. Ever since the Agricultural Age became firmly entrenched as centralized empires wiped out the last hunter gatherers in all but the most marginalized areas ( even North America was ruled by agricultural empires other than in certain regions-what we saw as colonizers was the aftermath of a 90% die off from Western diseases, the empires dissolved theretofore ), we have been relegated to survive as a species we were not evolved into, that of the soil grubber. Digger Indians being the most modern insult highlighting the difference between hunter warriors and asparagus growers.
As all Militia Porn/Imperial Stormtrooper worshipey as most preppers are, it amazes me that they so love the idea of being farmers. Yes, of course, they are trying to duplicate the settler/farmer/Indian Fighter of yore, but historically farmers have just been serfs under the control of the warrior or priest castes. There are exceptions-there always is. But exceptions to the rule. Mountainous New Guinea, Yeoman farmer longbowmen, American militia. All well and good, But why do preppers seek to emulate the exceptions unless they believed they would duplicate them? No, the expectation of duplication is incorrect. If a government run military can control an area, they will. And that includes the majority of areas that can raise food surpluses. Since transportation will once again be returning as a true bottleneck, if your area can locally grow a surplus you will be conquered. If your area doesn’t contain a transportation corridor, AND isn’t suitable for excess surplus farm production, only then will you have a hope of escaping oppression.
I am NOT saying farming is bad, because as much as I’d love to return to our hunter/gatherer social system I understand that it is militarily impossible. Once the seeds and animals that could be domesticated were, the genie could never be stuffed back into the bottle-storable food surplus enabling centralization is the military ratchet tech you can’t lose. And it is superior in all the prime farming areas of the globe. What, you think the rain forest hunters are there because it is a paradise? It is a disease laboratory with poor soil and more substandard food than it is a hunters paradise. They were pushed there by agriculture empires to substandard land. But you must understand the geopolitics of farming. If you can’t do that, you will fail. Now, more to the point of today’s topic, one side effect of living in an agricultural empire is that almost none of us have an inkling of our forefathers warrior culture. Hunting and warfare are complimentary, just as passivity and civilization are. Imperial subjects are raised to be subservient to the rulers, and there is no other way to have a civilization.
If you think you are the exception, follow Americans path West. Once enough rail allowed enough areas to be settled and civilized, individualistic behaviors began to be systematically repressed. Is it a coincidence that the closing of the frontier ushered in mandatory public schooling and woman’s suffrage? Of course not. To tame the unsettled areas, warriors were needed. And once they no longer served a purpose they were culturally neutered ( even if the process was slow ). Political Correctness is merely a post Peak Uncivilized overcorrection. Even if you were a soldier you were never in danger of being a warrior, as the very definition of state militaries are unthinking obedient masses. Following orders isn’t necessarily a tactical requirement-of course this would vary by degrees with weapons and social culture-but it certainly is a necessity to harness the soldiers to the yoke of the state. Not that they had much choice, as state warfare is dependent on state run logistics and surplus, specialization of trades and the like, but a centralized economy must centralize and the military is no exception. Plus, it never hurts to tame a potential tiger, even one without fangs.
Every time we have a discussion here, you can tell it is a round table between state subjects rather than individuals. We all parrot the approved attitudes. You might talk of tribes but you think of government. Tribes don’t have governments, even if they can control the individuals to an even higher degree than a centralized governing body can at times. The rule of tribes is cultural and the enforcement is consensus. Government is a monopoly on force to ensure compliance, where tribes enforce through the need to belong in the tribe. Big difference in motivation. In one you are forced to stay in the walls and in the other you are trying to stay within them. We don’t think like warriors, but subjects, or obedient serfs. This is great for civilized society as it provides the soldier caste the means to acquire surplus by force outside of their area, or defend others trying the same, and if the subjects never see any of that surplus at least they are seeing a higher level of safety than they would living independently. But what of the process of the state disintegrating? That is the period in which individuals lose the protection of the state ( one good proof is in the persecution of vigilantes, as when governments lose control they overreact in all ways such as their grasping to the monopoly on violence ).
At this point, being an obsequious subject is counterproductive. I’m certainly NOT saying we should rebel or take the law into our own hands or act in any unapproved manner. The State has been our enemy for some time, it’s capriciousness and wantonness growing with its centralization, then exponentially increasing after that as its ability to hold that power waned. It is still very demanding and very dangerous. What I am saying is that there will come a point in time when the state loses its power and other players rush into the vacuum and you either choose the winning side ( or play both sides, as do business owners paying both taxes and mafia shakedowns ) or decide it is time to fight the bastards and secrete yourself to an area out of their control. And if you aren’t complacent you had better be ready to embrace your long lost and long suppressed warrior. To most of us, no matter how well armed, this will be impossible due to our long imprisonment by the centralized authorities.
To a select few, and I submit that there will be no way of you knowing prior to the fact, you can free your mind of being a soldier. We are all used to living in a society where we must conform. All groups follow rules. Equalitarianism merely means all men share equally in decisions rather than a few. But once decided, the rules agreed upon by you or the rules you were born into, you still must abide. But the difference is soldiers follow the few elites and warriors follow the band made of equals. That provides an environment different from each other. Soldiers kill on orders and warriors kill on consensus. But more importantly, warriors are not expected to forfeit their lives on orders. They must risk their lives for the betterment of their tribe, but they are not expected to do so for the betterment of those commanding them. I hope you can see the difference. A warrior dies for his extended family and a soldier dies for strangers. There is no fundamental difference except that your family is always reciprocal and strangers are not. It is accountability in one and not in the other. One is the difference of the herd sacrificing some for the good of all and the biological unit sacrificing for only those there is a direct interest in.
In the future, you will be a serf, or a soldier, belonging to a government, but you still won’t be free unless you are a warrior in a tribe. And since you were never allowed to be one, it is a bit too early to tell if you can become one. If you hesitate to kill because you don’t have orders, you’ll always be a soldier. Look where you are now. You are complacent and compliant, and that is mainly because you will be killed otherwise, but that still means you are a good little subject. Whites, baring a change, have already lost the race war to inferior numbers, as the Blacks both are organized tribally AND fight as warriors. They aren’t even racist but xenophobic, and as we fall all over ourselves to deny being xenophobic since that equates to racism, we have no cohesion against their attack, even if we were warriors rather than soldiers. We can’t win wars as a nation states due to the decline of that organization and the dominance of the guerrilla as we can no longer fight with the logistics of the industrial age. And we have no defense against local guerrillas as we deny they exist as we are blind to all but other state sponsored soldiers. And come the collapse of the state we are without a structure to fight, unless we can move over to a tribe, WHILE jettisoning our state mentality.
END ( today's related link http://amzn.to/2wHqeQm )
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
You are getting better and better, Jim. I was military for 42 years, first three in the USMC, the rest USA. Never, never would I have referred to myself as a 'warrior.' In the Marine Corps we thought of ourselves as 'professionals;' which meant we killed, or fed, on orders, without other motive. It wasn't personal; just business.ReplyDelete
As a matter of fact, life as a solider was quite cushy; I didn't make many decisions that had any personal consequences, unlike any one who runs a business. I found a career path in the Army that pretty much made me a free agent in Europe on a nice expense account. And almost 20 years of my service in the Army was either going to school or teaching school.
Fat city. Enjoyed it. Your taxes.
Thank you for the vote of confidence, and glad my taxes helped out :) I never really regretted leaving the service, even looking back at how much easier it would have been. Just too opposed to listening to idiots try to get me hurt or killed. I guess I am so cynical and paranoid I just KNEW I would be in harms way, way back when. Turns out it probably would have worked out that way. I should have gone into EOD when offered-I would have enjoyed the danger then as it would have been in my control.Delete
And just think of the useful skills you would have mastered. Knowledge they could never take away, like they can badges, rank, and pay. I’m quite ignorant of explosives and it makes me very nervous to handle such stuff. So I avoid it.Delete
Knowledge: portable wealth; better than diamonds. I don't mean vowel frequency in Beowulf or electrical engineering; I mean plumbing, basic house wiring, framing, welding; stuff like that. You talk about being free (which you often do): not having to buy such useful services goes a long way toward being free.
It took half my life before I saw the value of skills. Oh, well, better late than never.Delete
I can’t recall where I heard it, but the claim was that the Earth can only support a population of 2 billion on organic soil inputs. Assuming that this is correct (it seems like a reasonable claim) a hunter/gatherer society would probably require this number to be halved. Worst of all is that the population still continues to grow at an exponential rate, with this additional population being kept alive with petroleum. The entire system is being held together with one big oily petroleum Band-Aid, and when it gets ripped off, it’s gonna hurt!ReplyDelete
Instead of bombing the rug pilots, we should be dropping contraceptives in the major waterways over Asia and Africa. Yeah, I know. That’s the sort of talk that gets one labeled a “raciss”! But face it; that’s where the heart of our population problem lies.
I think your 2 billion is far too high. That might be more a max of 1 billion with 500-750 million more like it. The half billion seemed to be more of a long term number historically-but now you have to factor in damage from overpopulation. The soil needs 500 years to recover ( on its own-you can goose that with intense inputs ). I wouldn't be surprised if 50-100 million is the max for awhile. On contraception, everyone would be better off with less folks, but we are programmed to breed, but more importantly cultural adaptations implore us to breed profusely as a survival mechanism. You can't change cultural conditioning so fast. Not even after fifty years, looking at the efforts ( plus, add in the perception White colonists are trying to depopulate your country to control it easier ).Delete
Actually, cultural reprogramming for lower fecundity rates is a doable thing in less than 3 generations. It is exactly what has happened to europe and anglo-americans. in 1920s having a family with 9 - 12 kids was seen as good, and more or less normal. by the 1970s having a family with more than two or three was seen as too many kids, with an implication of single child families being better.Delete
Woman's lib plus the price of children raising may have led to smaller families in three generations, but you don't see either of those things rurally, or one of those in urban areas, in Third World nations.Delete
that cultural reprogramming was done through eugenics programs though. Dont know how to sell that to Africa and the Mid EastDelete
Lord Bison, great post. You are very perceptive about soldier vs warrior. I enjoy reading your writing. Thank you.ReplyDelete
Thanks for still reading. Keep going-the rabbit hole is infiniteDelete