PhilO

You don't really want Civil War II

102 posts in this topic

Millions whose cognitive faculties either never developed or have been eaten away into swiss cheese by Kant and his descendents, who cannot hear and cannot think straight.

I most emphatically disagree with the idea that anyone, who has a normal brain, *cannot* think straight. No matter how much your mind has been corrupted by the influence of Kant (or Buddha or Muhammed or whatever) you always have free will, as long as your brain is not physically damaged (I assume that a psychosis always involves some kind of physical damage to the brain, although it is often reversible, for example with medication).

Sure, it can be exceedingly, excruciatingly difficult for you to acquire the ability to "think straight" if you have been hamstringed by Kant, for example if you have spent time in a modern day care center. But if only you try hard enough to think, for a long enough time, you can gain, or (as in my case) regain your ability to "think straight". How hard must you be willing to try? As hard as it takes. I do not think that anyone ever has a moral excuse for giving up. That is why I feel contempt for the majority of the members of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is war (which would not be wise today), it may not so neatly divide the parties as the previous American wars did. There could be guerrilla warfare, which would be very ugly and difficult to contain intellectually or operationally.

I wonder if the welfare states of the world could get a "generation civil war". The elder generations in the welfare states, have voted massive "social favors" to themselves over the years (health care, housing, welfare, public education, etc.), which they to a large degree have "financed" with government borrowing. At the same time the elder generation has instituted a pay-as-you-go pension system. This system not only entails that the elder generation counts on being permitted to live on the production of their children and grandchildren, In addition to that, the childrens´ and grandchildrens´ real income is diminished, compared to what it otherwise would have been, since the elder generation "liberates" itself from the need to save for its old age, so there is less household saving to fuel economic growth.

So today´s young in the welfare state are "blessed" with lower real incomes, and they have to carry their parents and/or grandparents on their backs, and to top it off, they are burdened with a massive public debt that their parents´and/or grandparents´ generation has run up to finance its wild party in its younger years.

If I were young today, I would be enraged by the elder generation´s cynical exploitiveness. And if I were a collectiivist, but nevertheless had a sense of justice, I would advocate the gutting of social security. Leave the pensioners high and dry! And be prepared to fight a "generation civil war" if necessary! I am 55, but I am still enraged by the cynicism of it all.

It astonishes me that the majority of the members of the elder generation (present company excepted, of course) thinks that it can get away with it. They may be counting on the anti-education system having brainwashed the young into submission. But if the younger generation lacks so much self-esteem and/or knowledge, that it submits to the elder generation´s parasitism, then how is the younger generation going to manage to produce the goods that the elder generation is going to need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. How hard must you be willing to try? As hard as it takes. I do not think that anyone ever has a moral excuse for giving up. That is why I feel contempt for the majority of the members of mankind.

Do you think blind people could see if they worked hard enough?

Would you not be better off if you were concerned by your performance, rather than the lack of performance of others?

Feeling contempt takes time and burns calories. What do you get for the investment?

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one looks at the roots of war they will find that it is not the rational, trader or free man that starts wars, civil or otherwise. In other words, wars are not started by free men as they have nothing to gain long term through brute force. It is the ideology of statist/collectivist and their tribal mentality that is the root cause of wars and their guiding principle of brute force which is used to conquer or enslave their opponents. So, the more statist a country becomes the closer they will keep moving toward a civil war. If one does not want a physical war to happen then they should take peaceful steps to fight their ideological enemies before a physical war becomes the only route left.

I recommend that people on this forum read or reread Ayn Rand's article "The Roots of War" of which I have quoted a few paragraphs below.

"Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to flight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation."

"The degree of statism in a country's political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone's claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one's wishes are limited only by the power of one's gang. In order to survive under such a system, men have no choice but to fear, hate, and destroy one another; it is a system of underground plotting, of secret conspiracies, of deals, favors, betrayals, and sudden, bloody coups."

Now back to the orginal theme of this thread. Do I really want a Civil War II? No, but when a government or society disregards individual rights and instead uses brute force as their guiding prinicple they leave the rational free man few alternatives. And as long as a country keeps moving toward statism they will also move closer and closer to a civil war, it is inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Millions whose cognitive faculties either never developed or have been eaten away into swiss cheese by Kant and his descendents, who cannot hear and cannot think straight.

I most emphatically disagree with the idea that anyone, who has a normal brain, *cannot* think straight.

I meant it primarily in the present tense. But the fact is that most of those will not spend time in adulthood checking their premises and working to think clearly and logically. Then they go on to elect an Obama and it's bad news for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens,

and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.

The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened

itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.

They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided

the consequences by denying the principle."

James Madison

Source: "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: Works 1:163

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of 31 milliion Americans in 1860, about 650,000 were killed in the Civil War. (Supposedly, 400,000 died from disease and 250,000 died in battle. If we extend that to the 300 million alive today, that would be 2.5 to 6.5 million dead. If anyone thinks this country would survive with that kind of casualty list, he's badly mistaken.

The total death toll was closer to 620,000. The really painful toll was the number of soldiers maimed in combat. In those days of 52 cal. Minnie balls, cannister and shrapnel if one was hit in a limb, it was often amputated. Low velocity rounds did not clip bone, it shattered bone and the only way to save the wounded person was to take off the limb. There were 1.5 million wounded in the Civil War and nearly half of those lost limbs. That kind of butchery was not again achieved until the Great War (WWI). There were something like 9 million killed in that war. I don't have the number of maimed soldiers but it was large. In the Great War, un-bright generals charged machine gun nests in frontal assault. It was dreadful.

Can you imagine what the slaughter would have been like in the Civil War, if the Gattling gun were adopted? The butchery of the American Civil War was done mostly with single shot rifled weapons. The rifles were quite accurate and could kill at 300-500 yards (unlike the smooth bore muskets of the American Revolution).

Bob Kolker

Yes. I've visited several Civil War battlefields and guerrilla warfare was not a tactic. They'd just line up across a field and shoot until enough of them were killed, row after row. Then start the same thing over the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ray K. said.

Thanks, Ray!

I, for one, would infinitely prefer a civil war to dictatorship. In that, am I not following the Founding Fathers: "Give me liberty or give me death" ?

I think dictatorship is near. That Marxist gangster in the White House hates America, and exhibits "every act that may define a tyrant." But I also think massive peaceful resistance to dictatorship is near--in fact, has already begun. We are now in a civil war, in which one side, the criminal gang that has seized the machinery of government, oppresses innocent citizens with unconstitutional so-called laws, and the innocent citizens in response are fighting back with peaceful protests and campaigning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Ray K. said.

Thanks, Ray!

I, for one, would infinitely prefer a civil war to dictatorship. In that, am I not following the Founding Fathers: "Give me liberty or give me death" ?

I think dictatorship is near. That Marxist gangster in the White House hates America, and exhibits "every act that may define a tyrant." But I also think massive peaceful resistance to dictatorship is near--in fact, has already begun. We are now in a civil war, in which one side, the criminal gang that has seized the machinery of government, oppresses innocent citizens with unconstitutional so-called laws, and the innocent citizens in response are fighting back with peaceful protests and campaigning.

If this is what you call a civil war, what would you call the event in which 2 parties in the same country are attacking each other with firearms since the term "Civil war" is already taken for peaceful protests and campaigning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are now in a civil war, in which one side, the criminal gang that has seized the machinery of government, oppresses innocent citizens with unconstitutional so-called laws, and the innocent citizens in response are fighting back with peaceful protests and campaigning.

Taking the concept literally, I don't agree. War involves mutual force. There is unilateral use of force from the government to the population. Peaceful protests are not war, I don't think even metaphorically.

The thing is, if you think you want a Civil War II, be prepared to be at literal war with the majority of America who *actively supports and WANTS what Obama and his minions are doing*. Be prepared to be at war with the hundreds of millions of "Americans" who are American only by dint of birth and geographic location. Washington is the net effect of a prior cause: A majority of "Americans" WANTING what it does.

If the majority of the country wanted actual freedom, there would be a sufficient number of candidates put forward, and a sufficient number voting them into office, to repeal literally millions of pages of choking regulations. Obama and his minions are not a cause. They are an effect.

Consider that it would take less than one thousand men in Washington - one President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court - to COMPLETELY REVERSE any rights-violating laws and regulations that now exist. If your immediate reaction is "Well, that's just impossible!", then you've already implicitly acknowledged that there is *not* - not remotely - sufficient support in America for it. Why would you then expect something far more difficult and horrific, an actual *war* over those ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is what you call a civil war, what would you call the event in which 2 parties in the same country are attacking each other with firearms .......

Uncivil civil war.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Ray K. said.

Thanks, Ray!

I, for one, would infinitely prefer a civil war to dictatorship. In that, am I not following the Founding Fathers: "Give me liberty or give me death" ?

I think dictatorship is near. That Marxist gangster in the White House hates America, and exhibits "every act that may define a tyrant." But I also think massive peaceful resistance to dictatorship is near--in fact, has already begun. We are now in a civil war, in which one side, the criminal gang that has seized the machinery of government, oppresses innocent citizens with unconstitutional so-called laws, and the innocent citizens in response are fighting back with peaceful protests and campaigning.

If this is what you call a civil war, what would you call the event in which 2 parties in the same country are attacking each other with firearms since the term "Civil war" is already taken for peaceful protests and campaigning?

War is defined as "a struggle between opposing forces for a particular end." There is nothing in that definition that states one must use a firearm to commit an act of war. Is not brute force being used against a person when they are threatened to do something they would not choose to do? So, I would offer that a war can progress from brute force through immoral laws to brute force through firearsms and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking the concept literally, I don't agree. War involves mutual force. There is unilateral use of force from the government to the population. Peaceful protests are not war, I don't think even metaphorically.

The thing is, if you think you want a Civil War II, be prepared to be at literal war with the majority of America who *actively supports and WANTS what Obama and his minions are doing*. Be prepared to be at war with the hundreds of millions of "Americans" who are American only by dint of birth and geographic location. Washington is the net effect of a prior cause: A majority of "Americans" WANTING what it does.

If the majority of the country wanted actual freedom, there would be a sufficient number of candidates put forward, and a sufficient number voting them into office, to repeal literally millions of pages of choking regulations. Obama and his minions are not a cause. They are an effect.

Consider that it would take less than one thousand men in Washington - one President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court - to COMPLETELY REVERSE any rights-violating laws and regulations that now exist. If your immediate reaction is "Well, that's just impossible!", then you've already implicitly acknowledged that there is *not* - not remotely - sufficient support in America for it. Why would you then expect something far more difficult and horrific, an actual *war* over those ideas?

No, war involves a struggle between opposing forces for a particular end. And I would offer that as long as people keep denying that they are at war with those that want to enslave them that they will keep choosing to do nothing or very little to stop the oppostition.

Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable. Is not our opposition made up of men? They are not gods, they are not giants, they are JUST MEN! If you do not have support, you create it. If you do not have the funds, you go get them. If you want to win a war, you must engage the enemy. You have one god damn life and you are going to let weak, piece of crap tyrants beat you into submission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable.

Phil doesn't need me to defend him, but I think these remarks should be addressed. I have never taken Phil's remarks in this or other threads to be whining about his lot in life. I don't see him as lacking courage to stand up to opposition, nor do I see that he has made anyone's fight become harder.

More importantly, though, this discussion is devolving--now we are fighting each other. And THIS is precisely the kind of thing I believe the opposition wants to create.

Strong valuers can have strong disagreements, even public ones. But doesn't the anger need to be directed at the real cause of the problems? Lets not forget against whom we are (intellectually) fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable.

Phil doesn't need me to defend him, but I think these remarks should be addressed. I have never taken Phil's remarks in this or other threads to be whining about his lot in life. I don't see him as lacking courage to stand up to opposition, nor do I see that he has made anyone's fight become harder.

More importantly, though, this discussion is devolving--now we are fighting each other. And THIS is precisely the kind of thing I believe the opposition wants to create.

Strong valuers can have strong disagreements, even public ones. But doesn't the anger need to be directed at the real cause of the problems? Lets not forget against whom we are (intellectually) fighting.

You are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, war involves a struggle between opposing forces for a particular end. And I would offer that as long as people keep denying that they are at war with those that want to enslave them that they will keep choosing to do nothing or very little to stop the oppostition.

Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable. Is not our opposition made up of men? They are not gods, they are not giants, they are JUST MEN! If you do not have support, you create it. If you do not have the funds, you go get them. If you want to win a war, you must engage the enemy. You have one god damn life and you are going to let weak, piece of crap tyrants beat you into submission.

RayK, I agree that purposeful and systematic actions to destroy possibilities of rational human action is a war against myself and my loved ones. We are subject to non-objective laws which threaten our fundamental existence in many ways because our rights to pursue rational actions are removed by threat of force. We cannot preserve human life, which by its nature is more than mere physical preservation, without facing significant penalties.

When judgments based on erroneous understanding of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) started to be made, that was when a fight for our rights could easily be won through LTEs and speaking to elected representatives, among other actions.

When ASTM building standards and performance tests for snow loading reflect particular test contexts, but started to be enforced without regard to their relevance, that was when protests and peaceful campaigning were steps which were no-brainer priorities.

In our current context, a rationally selfish individual may choose to spend limited time on the selective advocacy of rational ideas to carefully-considered audiences. This is to simply retain the potential to take actions for literal short-term, survival. Even before one can commit to advocacy for longer-term freedoms. By longer term, I mean committing to changing "net neutrality", FAA noise reduction classifications, income tax, property tax, FDA medical device regulations or some other rights violations, all of which have personally-relevant consequences. The inaction on the parts of those who have lived before me have, in part, resulted in the need for current positive peaceful actions to be spread very thin and anemic. To focus one’s priorities on changing even one of these problems takes more than firing off an LTE once in awhile. Should it come to brute, life-depriving force, I cannot fight a government apparatus. But I can use my mind effectively to save what I value while it is still not a situation of brute force, which for my context means committing a lifetime to creating the circumstances for those values to flourish, rather than exclusively advocating against my opposition for the same duration.

It is each individual’s responsibility to prioritize where they commit their daily courage during wartime. You resort to unjust name calling against PhilO when you have no facts to back up your position. If you have concrete, effective suggestions that can be accomplished without sacrifice, suggestions which result in more than prioritizing attending protests and writing LTEs as if they were ends in themselves or medals of honor for all rational people, I would be glad to read them and work towards taking those actions.

I hope you do have concrete suggestions which would bolster my respect for you, even though I do not think you will post a retraction. However, I deemed this division among the good and right significant enough to take time to post about the nature of your error in hopes that it translates into introspective evaluation and positive actions for readers of this public forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable.

Phil doesn't need me to defend him, but I think these remarks should be addressed. I have never taken Phil's remarks in this or other threads to be whining about his lot in life. I don't see him as lacking courage to stand up to opposition, nor do I see that he has made anyone's fight become harder.

More importantly, though, this discussion is devolving--now we are fighting each other. And THIS is precisely the kind of thing I believe the opposition wants to create.

Strong valuers can have strong disagreements, even public ones. But doesn't the anger need to be directed at the real cause of the problems? Lets not forget against whom we are (intellectually) fighting.

The reason I made those statements is because the people that state that we have already lost this country and that it is time to move on are discouraging those that could possibly help in the intellectual war against our intellectual enemies. To have courage is to have the ability to conquer fear or despair. The term despair means to be full of hopelessness. When someone keeps telling people that our battle is hopeless and let us not even engage our enemies then they are, from my perspective, lacking in courage. One of the reasons I have brought up so many examples of the fighting that has taken place in the past is to show that men that faced immense odds did and still can come out victorious. So, if someone that is supposed to be on the same team keeps telling people that our fight is hopeless then they are making my fight much harder by drawing away possible recruits for the intellectual war that we are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comtemaker, if you read the definitions of the terms I used to describe certain people's actions or inactions you may see that they fit the situation under discussion, or you may not.

We have already had a similar discussion in the past and all I can add to it is that I truly do not care what you think of me.

"A man that is liked by everyone has no moral character."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strong valuers can have strong disagreements, even public ones. But doesn't the anger need to be directed at the real cause of the problems? Lets not forget against whom we are (intellectually) fighting.

Scott, I agree with you as I do have strong values for that which I am willing to fight for. There are some here that might have similar backgrounds as me, but from what I have seen they are very few. I spent two enlistments, over an 8.5 year period, in the Marine Corps fighting for this wonderful country and what it is supposed to stand for. Sweat, pain, fatigue, blood, a broken neck, time spent away from my family (10 months being the longest) and many other hardships all to stand up for what the Founding Fathers thought was worth their "sacred honor" to fight for. Maybe some of the people on this forum think that it is irrational to fight or keep fighting, but I do not. To let our enemies take total control of this country will not satiate their lust for power and they will just keep following us where ever we go. I have studied war tactics and history back to 5,000 BC which has taught me that no war was ever settled through the appeasement of one's enemy, they must be faced and beaten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

62% of Americans want Republicans to continue with efforts to repeal Obamacare, or reverse it in the courts.

68% say they would throw out every congressman, if they could. That includes a majority of Republicans, a majority of independents, and even 52% of Democrats.

Phil O.'s pessimism is unfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you do have concrete suggestions which would bolster my respect for you, even though I do not think you will post a retraction.

There's a massive, perhaps telling assumption in the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
62% of Americans want Republicans to continue with efforts to repeal Obamacare, or reverse it in the courts.

68% say they would throw out every congressman, if they could. That includes a majority of Republicans, a majority of independents, and even 52% of Democrats.

Phil O.'s pessimism is unfounded.

Betsy's right, Bill. You're Levin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strong valuers can have strong disagreements, even public ones. But doesn't the anger need to be directed at the real cause of the problems? Lets not forget against whom we are (intellectually) fighting.

Scott, I agree with you as I do have strong values for that which I am willing to fight for. There are some here that might have similar backgrounds as me, but from what I have seen they are very few. I spent two enlistments, over an 8.5 year period, in the Marine Corps fighting for this wonderful country and what it is supposed to stand for. Sweat, pain, fatigue, blood, a broken neck, time spent away from my family (10 months being the longest) and many other hardships all to stand up for what the Founding Fathers thought was worth their "sacred honor" to fight for. Maybe some of the people on this forum think that it is irrational to fight or keep fighting, but I do not. To let our enemies take total control of this country will not satiate their lust for power and they will just keep following us where ever we go. I have studied war tactics and history back to 5,000 BC which has taught me that no war was ever settled through the appeasement of one's enemy, they must be faced and beaten.

When the Other Side has tanks and we do not, when they have jet propelled fighter bombers and we do not, when they have 6000 round per minute Gattling Cannons and we do not, when they have JDAMs and we do not, when they have flame throwers and we do not, how do we fight them and win? Answer: not by frontal assault. You have to beat the opposition in the mind, not on the physical battle field. You have to get the Gov. Co. Army to not fight the people. It is possible, but it is also very difficult.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the Other Side has tanks and we do not, when they have jet propelled fighter bombers and we do not, when they have 6000 round per minute Gattling Cannons and we do not, when they have JDAMs and we do not, when they have flame throwers and we do not, how do we fight them and win? Answer: not by frontal assault. You have to beat the opposition in the mind, not on the physical battle field. You have to get the Gov. Co. Army to not fight the people. It is possible, but it is also very difficult.

Bob, please point to one sentence where I have stated that we need to pick up weapons and go attack? I can tell that you will not find one. But if all you do is sit back and whine about what is being taken from you without forumlating a plan and taking action then the battle has already been lost. And it will not be me that leads this country into a physical civil war, it will be the government through the same way that Ayn Rands explained it some many years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your seemingly total lack of courage to stand up to your opposition is staggering and hence why people like you are the reason why my fight has become harder. You have reason and right on your side and all you do is sit and whine about how bad your lot in life is and how the fight is unwinnable.

Phil doesn't need me to defend him, but I think these remarks should be addressed. I have never taken Phil's remarks in this or other threads to be whining about his lot in life. I don't see him as lacking courage to stand up to opposition, nor do I see that he has made anyone's fight become harder.

More importantly, though, this discussion is devolving--now we are fighting each other. And THIS is precisely the kind of thing I believe the opposition wants to create.

Strong valuers can have strong disagreements, even public ones. But doesn't the anger need to be directed at the real cause of the problems? Lets not forget against whom we are (intellectually) fighting.

The reason I made those statements is because the people that state that we have already lost this country and that it is time to move on are discouraging those that could possibly help in the intellectual war against our intellectual enemies. To have courage is to have the ability to conquer fear or despair. The term despair means to be full of hopelessness. When someone keeps telling people that our battle is hopeless and let us not even engage our enemies then they are, from my perspective, lacking in courage. One of the reasons I have brought up so many examples of the fighting that has taken place in the past is to show that men that faced immense odds did and still can come out victorious. So, if someone that is supposed to be on the same team keeps telling people that our fight is hopeless then they are making my fight much harder by drawing away possible recruits for the intellectual war that we are in.

"War is only tolerable when one can take part in it, when one is a bit of the target and not a pensioned spectator."

"We cannot cleanse our thoughts of fear by repression of the doubts and hesitations which 'occupy and mock the minds of men' in war. We have to put away any thought of an alternative to the dangerous situation in which we are. We must acknowledge that there is but one thing to do, then we shall go and do it."

Quotes from "The Anatomy of Courage" by Lord Moran. Highly recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites