PhilO

You don't really want Civil War II

102 posts in this topic

There is no other place to go that they would not follow you.

I disagree. Switzerland has not been invaded in 600 years and still has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. And look at their recent ban on minarets.

I would offer that if the Americans and the British (and to some extent the Russians during Hitler's attempt to invade) did not give Hitler and the Germans such a fight that Switzerland would have been invaded at sometime as Hitler did have plans to do so (Operation Tannenbaum). At the time Swizerland was already making economic concessions to Germany in the hopes that the Germans would think it to costly to invade. Also at the time, Switzerland was already surrounded by German and Italian troops. General Henri Guisan gave a report during July of 1940 that stated that the Swiss Army would only be able to protect the High Alps and that they would let the populated lower lands be taken along with all the financial resources they produced. In other words the Swiss were bascially going to cede to the Germans the lower parts of their country without even fighting. And almost the whole time of the war Germany was invading Swiss air space with no retaliation against them. Not much of a defense system nor has much changed as only about 5% of the people that make up the Swiss military are professionals.

Now, with that said, I do think that Switzerland is a great place to invest and grow one's wealth and possibly even live as they did base their Constitution off of the US Constitution. But if America falls most of the free countries left in the world are going to follow and with a very small defense system who is going to stop the barbarians? So, along with all the other items that I mentioned, and some as of yet not mentioned, I am staying, for now, and fighting the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mountains of ethnographic data show that primitive hunter-gatherer tribes do not suffer from a single incidence of these "diseases of civilization." I mean not a single one. Look at the Kitava study, for example. Cardiovascular disease is absolutely unheard of and cancers are rare, despite 80% of the population being smokers. Not a single person on Kitava is obese, except a few Kitavans who left the islands to live in the cities, ate Western foodstuffs, and then moved back. Nobody has diabetes or insulin resistance. And Kitava is not some freak case--the ethnographic data shows the same results in different primitive populations all over the world. All we have to do is emulate our ancestral dietary habits and some issues of lifestyle (such as regular sun exposure), and we too can be free of the diseases of civilization, diseases that did not exist 10,000 years ago.

Although this is not really the place to have this discussion and to a certain extend I do agree with a lot of what you stated, I do not agree that eating Western foodstuffs is what is making man (who is an omnivore) sick today. Your linked study is no different than the Italian, French, Japanese, Okinawan, Alaskan Eskimos and so many other studies and diets that try and claim some panacea. The human metabolism is so advanced that we can eat damn near anything and it will turn the foodstuff into what we need at that time. For the most part people in the West eat to much food which is the primary cause of the problems that they face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the ban on minarets has been discussed here before. It is not indicative of an understanding of freedom.

No, but it is an example of how the Swiss system would take care of any attempts at destroying freedom (such as the left's continuous calls to ban guns, and to centralise government). Direct democracy, in a country where everybody holds individual rights and small(er) government to be a way of life, is one failsafe against the elite-driven socialisation of America we are experiencing.

So the hope is that they will use these somewhat questionable mechanisms to defend freedom as they understand it. I guess that's something in the short-term, but how long can the defense of "individual rights" by a population that doesn't understand freedom continue?

I should be more specific. Sure, compared to the average food you get in the US (diner? Olive Garden? the awful Italian places that use tinned tomatoes?), most Western European countries are better if it's about getting a quick meal.

But I went through the trouble of putting my observations in the context of surrounding countries. And how did you conclude that my knowledge base comes from the restaurant traditions you seem to be deriding, that the prominence of such places in parts of the USA makes judging food difficult for some significant percentage of Americans, or that I and/or other FORUM members fall into that category?

If Zurich indeed lacks a Michelin star, that only means that it doesn't have a very narrowly defined dining experience on offer. That has little to do with where Zurich's food scene across the entire price range.

On tomatoes:

Some brands of canned tomatoes consistently run circles around 95% of fresh tomatoes in many, many applications. Further, fresh tomatoes, such as they are these days, are constantly supplemented with things like tomato paste, mild acid, sugar, etc. These are factors on both sides of the Atlantic, if not around the world. Last point on this tomato controversy: you don't necessarily have to see canned tomatoes as a sad substitute for good fresh tomatoes; they're two different ingredients, though there is obvious overlap.

Switzerland is not perfect, but it is likely to remain committed to freedom even as the greatest fall (even temporarily). Boring as hell, but at least you keep the products of your life. And for some members of the Forum, I believe the mountain driving there to be unparalleled anywhere in the world :D

I had the time of life driving a new 3-series around the Alps, but current automotive regulations in Switzerland are hardly conducive to either supercar ownership or spirited driving. Given the roads, that's a Crime Against Humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the time Swizerland was already making economic concessions to Germany in the hopes that the Germans would think it to costly to invade. Also at the time, Switzerland was already surrounded by German and Italian troops. General Henri Guisan gave a report during July of 1940 that stated that the Swiss Army would only be able to protect the High Alps and that they would let the populated lower lands be taken along with all the financial resources they produced. In other words the Swiss were bascially going to cede to the Germans the lower parts of their country without even fighting. And almost the whole time of the war Germany was invading Swiss air space with no retaliation against them. Not much of a defense system nor has much changed as only about 5% of the people that make up the Swiss military are professionals.

Now, with that said, I do think that Switzerland is a great place to invest and grow one's wealth and possibly even live as they did base their Constitution off of the US Constitution. But if America falls most of the free countries left in the world are going to follow and with a very small defense system who is going to stop the barbarians? So, along with all the other items that I mentioned, and some as of yet not mentioned, I am staying, for now, and fighting the enemy.

And it's not like the EU won't find ways to pressure the Swiss to either join the EU, or force more of the kinds of concessions Switzerland made recently to regulators and law enforcement from both the EU and the States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the hope is that they will use these somewhat questionable mechanisms to defend freedom as they understand it. I guess that's something in the short-term, but how long can the defense of "individual rights" by a population that doesn't understand freedom continue?

In the specific context of this thread, I hinted (but did not spell out) that Switzerland would be a good short term solution to run to if the US becomes temporarily unbearable (it is my belief that the US culture is such that long term socialism eventually gets destroyed, as the 20th Century proved many times). In fact, it's even less than that. Ray pointed out that there was nowhere to run; I pointed out an option... but I do prefer his approach, and indeed if (when) I find a way to get a visa, I will be living in the good ol' land of the brave and the (formerly) free. There's something about living, working and being around Americans that's terribly energizing and puts you in a great mood, yes, even the Democrats (so long as you avoid politics). I'm afraid the same can't be said of our interestingly-accented neighbours, who make great friends but just don't have that burning urge to build stuff.

But I went through the trouble of putting my observations in the context of surrounding countries. And how did you conclude that my knowledge base comes from the restaurant traditions you seem to be deriding, that the prominence of such places in parts of the USA makes judging food difficult for some significant percentage of Americans, or that I and/or other FORUM members fall into that category?

Please do not imply that this is what I implied. I picked the US because it is what I myself set as the standard (despite not being American). Not because I imply this is all you know. As for from the restaurant traditions I am deriding, it is because, compared to the UK or US (and not just London or New York), these parts of Europe (in which I am living right now) have proportionally a much, much smaller range on offer. Most of which is this traditional fare.

If Zurich indeed lacks a Michelin star, that only means that it doesn't have a very narrowly defined dining experience on offer. That has little to do with where Zurich's food scene across the entire price range.

And I qualified my views accordingly by saying a bit later I (personally - not deriding, merely pointing out my taste) am not fond of schnitzel and rosti. I guess if that is your thing, Zurich has much to offer. But compare it to London, where you can pick a country off the map, even an obscure Central African territory, and find a restaurant that serves its cuisine (or indeed be stuffed with fantastic Korean food in a spotless, fine-dining quality setting for $10 right next to Oxford Circus and Bond Street), or New York, where not only can you find such a wide range of foods, but the "traditional" Chinese etc. types also experiment and sell their very own, very personal version. Versus the European "standard" Chinese/Japanese/whatever foreign food, and local grub.

But as you qualified it also with a time stamp, I must admit I do not know what it was like in the 80s. Nor the neighbouring countries to which it can be compared. I do know that the London food revolution is a very recent thing, mainly to do with the 90s and 2000s booms.

Some brands of canned tomatoes consistently run circles around 95% of fresh tomatoes in many, many applications. Further, fresh tomatoes, such as they are these days, are constantly supplemented with things like tomato paste, mild acid, sugar, etc. These are factors on both sides of the Atlantic, if not around the world. Last point on this tomato controversy: you don't necessarily have to see canned tomatoes as a sad substitute for good fresh tomatoes; they're two different ingredients, though there is obvious overlap.

I cooked with both long enough to taste the difference. Personally, sauce made with canned tomatoes makes me feel a bit sick. Tasting it in Italian restaurants all across New York (95% used it) gave me that feeling. But I don't mind so much, plenty of other options (like non-tomato dishes). I understand that to serve a kilogram of pasta in sauce for $5, you have to cut costs. And I find canned beans just fine. As for comparing it with lower range tomatoes, I have used Sainsbury's "Basics" (think the cheapest range in Walmart, whatever that is) tomatoes, which are basically pale red water containers that you can squeeze. But they don't have this aftertaste. So, still better than a can.

I had the time of life driving a new 3-series around the Alps, but current automotive regulations in Switzerland are hardly conducive to either supercar ownership or spirited driving. Given the roads, that's a Crime Against Humanity.

Nowhere's perfect :D

Perhaps the Autobahns. Worth a shot before they too get limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would offer that if the Americans and the British (and to some extent the Russians during Hitler's attempt to invade) did not give Hitler and the Germans such a fight that Switzerland would have been invaded at sometime as Hitler did have plans to do so (Operation Tannenbaum). At the time Swizerland was already making economic concessions to Germany in the hopes that the Germans would think it to costly to invade. Also at the time, Switzerland was already surrounded by German and Italian troops. General Henri Guisan gave a report during July of 1940 that stated that the Swiss Army would only be able to protect the High Alps and that they would let the populated lower lands be taken along with all the financial resources they produced. In other words the Swiss were bascially going to cede to the Germans the lower parts of their country without even fighting. And almost the whole time of the war Germany was invading Swiss air space with no retaliation against them. Not much of a defense system nor has much changed as only about 5% of the people that make up the Swiss military are professionals.

Ray, whilst I know you are very well read on such subjects, I'd like to add what I have read and what I understand about our friendly richer neighbours who drive so fast on our roads (a regional expression here in the French Alps is "******! he drives like a *** swiss!").

First, my understanding of the Swiss strategy was not that it was a matter of being particularly lacking in courage, but rather a matter of preserving the largest part of the population, and giving the Germans the hardest possible run for their money. The mountains did control a precious road to Italy, an Axis ally. The strategy was simple: fight to the death. Inflict such severe losses on the Germans that the mere cost of the offensive would make them reconsider. Burn or blow up every bridge and piece of infrastructure. Remain in a network of caves which could allow the siege to hold for months if not years. Act in a decentralized manner to stop a single command post from being crucial to the defence of the realm. You've seen what a bunch of mad, dimwitted towelheads can inflict on a large, well funded professional army with centuries of technological advantage in the Middle-East; imagine the problems from an entire country of German- and Italian-speaking, well educated, intelligent, determined and extremely angry men suddenly turning into your enemy.

As for your second point, the entire male population is the Army. They undertake the same basic training as in most other countries, and are required to take regular training on a yearly basis. Sure, 5% of the population is professional, but I have been told that wihtin two hours, the entire country can be mobilized and ready to receive orders. Every house has a nuclear bunker and supplies, as well as every office building. Switzerland is probably the one country in the world most ready for a foreign invasion.

And it's not like the EU won't find ways to pressure the Swiss to either join the EU, or force more of the kinds of concessions Switzerland made recently to regulators and law enforcement from both the EU and the States.

I seriously doubt this. Europeans really do not see the Swiss as European (culture-wise) nor do the Swiss identify with Europeans. If anything, they are considered as separate as the Americans. Not quite the situation of the UK, which as a NATO power and one of the three main forces of Europe almost HAD to be included (I refer you to Thatcher's genial speech in the late 80s regarding this particular political move...)

The EU would love to have Switzerland. All this sound fiscal policy and great, working society of wealthy and productive people to annex! Alas, the Swiss are not ready to join the Germans in bankrolling socialism. Doubt they ever will be. What worked for 600 years can work for a few hundred more, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And it's not like the EU won't find ways to pressure the Swiss to either join the EU, or force more of the kinds of concessions Switzerland made recently to regulators and law enforcement from both the EU and the States.

I seriously doubt this. Europeans really do not see the Swiss as European (culture-wise) nor do the Swiss identify with Europeans.

Well, according to this this, "Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum [on full EU membership]. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time."

There seems to be a movement afoot to get Switzerland in. Whether this is being pushed from within Switzerland or the sort of influence and pressure the EU leadership can exert even though you claim the Europeans don't see the Swiss as part of their culture, the threat is there.

What worked for 600 years can work for a few hundred more, no?

It's one of the possibilities, for sure (I couldn't tell you how likely I think it is.) But we don't have to look hard to see all kinds of historic surprises that would dwarf Switzerland joining the EU in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, according to this this, "Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum [on full EU membership]. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time."

There seems to be a movement afoot to get Switzerland in. Whether this is being pushed from within Switzerland or the sort of influence and pressure the EU leadership can exert even though you claim the Europeans don't see the Swiss as part of their culture, the threat is there.

Yes, amongst other things. But this is why this direct democracy thing is great. What happens is that well-educated elites, similar to Obama, get in power. And then, believing that they must be the one to "change" things, they start trying to pass "revolutionary" or "forward-looking" or "modern" laws, such as banning the guns and militia system that form the core of Swiss identity, or joining the EU. Usually lefties.

But the Swiss, unphased, and used to their decentralized system of government, simply tell the elites that they can go stuff themselves.

(for the record I have nothing against scientific or meritocratic elites that deserve their position as civilization leaders. I strongly oppose academic-trained elites whose sole purpose in life is to enter the history books. Which they do. For the wrong reasons. FDR, JFK, you name it.)

Compare this to our elites, whether in France or the US. Despite almost half the country being directly against this particular health bill, it passed. I bet there are many things passed in Washington that you do not know about, that affect you directly - e.g. do you know what's on page 758 of the healthcare bill? (ok, some Forum members will know - they are far more heroic than me in their efforts against socialism!)

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. .....

Personal remarks like this are unacceptable and off-topic in a posting and I would have deleted the post if I had caught it sooner. Since other posters have replied, I'll let it stand for now. In the future, please communicate PRIVATELY -- not in a posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best men are the only men who count.

I agree and that is why I am so politically engaged -- especially on Facebook where I am very busy supplying information and intellectual ammo.

About 1,000 of my 2,251 Facebook "friends" are Objectivists who basically understand and agree with me. The rest are non-Objectivists who share political goals and other important values with me and I make the most progress and have the most impact with them.

They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

I'm much too selfish to want to "save the world.". I am trying to save the things and people I value by doing what I love to do: shooting off my mouth and firing up my keyboard. I'm also realistically assessing my situation and doing everything I can to protect myself too. It's not either/or.

But that's me and my context. I can also understand someone leaving the country or a doctor deciding to retire 5 years early. All I hope is that everyone reacts in accordance with a realistic evaluation of the facts and his own hierarchy of values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am more optimistic about the prospects for saving the world than PhilO is, notwithstanding the fact that I have a very low opinion of the majority of men. It is the very fact that the majority of men are depraved, that they are impotent. Since they choose not to think, they have no real power, and we who do think can still save ourselves, and, unfortunately, the Immoral Majority also along with us.

Here's a simple question: do you think that the "strikers" were "saving the world"? It was much more than that.

The idea of separating the best men from the rest RATHER THAN trying to "save the world" wasn't first put forth by Ayn Rand in Atlas. Go all of the way back to Anthem. Did Unconquered (and his love who followed him) wait around try to save his crappy little dictator-village after his effort to literally show them the light? No. He left and built a fortress that would kill any of them foolish enough to follow.

The purpose of the strike as presented in the novel was to bring the culture down by withdrawing the people it depended on and was exploiting. But it wasn't to save the world as an end in itself. The strikers wanted the world to be one in which they could live, not knowing how long it would take or whether they would live long enough to personally benefit. While actively working for that end they continued their own personal interests the best they could outside the clutches of the existing culture. During the course of the novel that became the only way possible to pursue personal values. But if the strike as a strike had not been the purpose, the plot of the novel would have been something else.

Likewise, many today try to reverse or slow the trend in government in order to be able to live, not as a sacrifice to "save the world". Some also advocate for Ayn Rand's philosophy to preserve mankind at its best in the future, but that involves different priorities, and different means in a different time scale beyond the shorter term political "self defense". Whether either is still feasible is another matter, but "building a fortress that would kill any of them foolish enough to follow" is wishful thinking.

The best men are the only men who count. They should stop trying to save the damned world and start trying to save *themselves* - and leave the Immoral Majority to the fate they deserve: to be part of the expired dust of history.

The "only men who count" for what and for whom? Everyone should be trying to save himself -- as a moral priority. Those with inverted priorities won't realize that, let alone try. Otherwise, there is still the question of "how", especially as government power becomes increasingly more hostile and threatening. There is no self-sustaining Valley.

I would also add to my post(s) from above that to convince people to change their minds one must exemplify their ideas through action that is in accordance with their statements. In other words, if one is going to lead people to a philosophy of reason how in the hell is that going to happen when the suppposed leader tells them that the war has already been lost? The answer is you cannot change people's minds when all that one speaks of is how unwinnable the fight is.

"Please come follow me to the land of doom and destruction where if you apply my ideas we will still be screwed, and surrounded by disgusting parasites as there is no hope of changing the culture."

Nope, that is not going to work.

The question is "what will work", realistically, in the current cultural and political context, and how long will it take? Phil does not lack courage, he is assessing what he thinks is feasible or not, and what kind of priorities to focus on that may be feasible. Following the right ideas is personally valuable whether or not they "change the culture".

A "fighting spirit" can be invaluable, but only on behalf of goals that are achievable. If they are not, no amount of "cheerleading" will provide the means to the end -- even with a rousing chorus of the Marines' Hymn in the background. Bureaucrats do not react the way they cowered before the speeches in Atlas Shrugged. They crush people. Sometimes you can stop that using proper methods (not dramatic speeches). But you can't always stop it no matter what you do or how hard you try because there are no means by which to do it and no one should be told otherwise. A lot of "drones who choose not to think", as Henrik put it, contrary to him do in fact wield enormous power. This is a factual matter of historical record. We'll all see more of this in the future trying to get a doctor's help under Obama's "hoax and chains" and people will literally suffer and/or die prematurely because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, Betsy and ewv,

The reason I bring the history of what a few people have accomplished in the past is to demonstrate that even battles that seem to be lost can still be won if one takes proper actions to overcome their difficulties. I am not a person that brings psuedo-hope to a conversation as I think people can see right through all the faking or BS. But one cannot get rational people to follow them by stating that the battle is already lost. And the battle at hand is not to change a majority of the people in the world as most are our philosophical enemies. I thought it should be without needing to explain on this forum that attempting to teach people about a rational philosophy would be considered a selfish act, but I guess not. I am not fighting a battle to save most of the human race, but I do need a certain amount to accept rational ideas, in general, if I am going to be able to live a productive and enjoyful life. Letting the world of reason crumble around us without a rational replacement will only bring worse leaders and all one has to do to see that is look at history.

Maybe we have different understandings of what courage is and what it takes to demonstrate it. But when I look into the past and see what difficulties some people had to overcome and the hardships that they went through I do not remember anyone of them stating that the battle was already lost. Maybe we are attempting to accomplish different goals and hence why it seems that some are fighting different battles or have just begun and hence are not ready to admit defeat. But, either way, a leader must lead by exemplifying what he states or the people that are supposed to be following will have no respect for them nor follow for very long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not visited the Forum in quite some time, so forgive me if I repeat something that has been already said on another thread.

I have been chewing the prospect of civil war in my future -- perhaps as soon as ten years from now -- for about the last year and a half. I say ten years from now because one of my Facebook friends pointed out that the health care bill passed on the anniversary of the Stamp Act. It took ten years from the Stamp Act to Lexington and Concord, during which the colonists' grievances were repeatedly ignored. I mention this simply to say that this time frame I postulate is not completely arbitrary.

I see three possible futures:

(1) That activism and possibly mass civil disobedience are the crossroads in turning this country away from its slide into statism and back toward capitalism. In this scenario, a Congress hostile to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda is elected and repeals ObamaRomneyCare. (I call it that to remind myself and others that Republicans have traditionally been part of the problem and not the solution.) Even if President Obama vetoes such an appeal, it would be unprecedented! Much already is unprecedented. I remember being discouraged by the fact that work concerns prevented me from attending last year's tax day Tea Party in downtown Washington, DC. Yet, when I got back home to sleepy suburban Fairfax County, I stumbled upon a Tea Party of about 1000 people who braved cold and rain to attend. This, I knew right then and there, is the stuff of revolution. Also, unlike past statist legislation like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, this bill is very unpopular.

The endgame of this scenario is civil disobedience. When the day comes that Americans are required to pay into this system or pay a fine, I know that I will refuse to pay either. And let the authorities arrest me. I will offer them no resistance. I would hope that at least a million other Americans do the same thing.

But, how optimistic am I that things will play out that way? Not very. I am definitely a pessimist on this topic. But, as Betsy put it:

The best men are the only men who count.

I agree and that is why I am so politically engaged -- especially on Facebook where I am very busy supplying information and intellectual ammo.

About 1,000 of my 2,251 Facebook "friends" are Objectivists who basically understand and agree with me. The rest are non-Objectivists who share political goals and other important values with me and I make the most progress and have the most impact with them.

I have only a fraction of the FB "friends" that Betsy does. But I have been using it to, well, agitate. If I can get one or two people on our side (and perhaps a few lurkers), then that's something. I do this despite my pessimism for the simple reason that I will not go down without a fight. (And I am definitely not accusing PhilO or anybody else of, metaphorically speaking, laying down their arms because they think the battle is going badly.)

But, what if this option does not pan out? Then there are the other two: the Bang and the Whimper.

(2) The Bang. Civil war. Let's be realistic about this. Civil war will not happen because somebody like the people just arrested in the midwest or John Brown commit some terrorist stunt, and the people storm the Bastille in support. It will only happen if military officers of high rank and reputation throw their hands up and say they'll lead an army for their cause. Think George Washington and Robert E. Lee. Such a civil war will involve significant portions of the military fighting each other. It will be nuclear in nature, and America's cities will not survive its first hour. I base this dire prediction on my knowledge of the blood spilled between 1861 and 1865. Oh, and if rational people cannot bring about the first option, then there is no reason to desire the second.

(3) The Whimper. This country passively slides into dictatorship. Need I say any more about that?

So what to do? Good question. The day I'm convinced one of the latter two options is going down, I'll buy a one way ticket to some tropical island and become a bartender.

P.S. Apologies to Betsy, but now I'm going to go completely off topic on two subjects.

(1) IMHO, the biggest reason why the Civil War was so brutal was because, of all things, bullet lube. As I once responded to a friend on Facebook:

Rifling a barrel is a very old idea, dating back to the 1500's. (Caveat Wiki!) The problem was that black powder leaves a hard fowling (coke) in the barrel. In order for a soft lead bullet to grip the ridges and grooves, it has to be within a fairly tight tolerance with the barrel. But after two or three shots, the fouling gets so bad that it becomes impossible to reload the rifle. This fact relegated the rifled musket to the bauble of aristocratic hunters and elite military units.

Until just before the Civil War, when somebody figured out that if you lube the bullet, the fouling stays soft. It has the consistency of lard, at least until it dries. This allows for many more reloading between cleanings. In fact, I started out shooting a .005" delta between bullet and barrel, making cleaning between strings undesirable since the viscous coke between the bullet and barrel increased accuracy somewhat.

(I'm referring to target shooting with my Enfield 1853 replica.)

(2) If you can get a hold of a Swiss military surplus rifle like a K31, do so! Yes, it shoots their arcane 7.5mm ammo, but remember this rifle was made by the same people who make those great watches. The wood, having been dragged all over the Swiss Alps, will be pretty dinged up. But I certainly will not complain about the machining of something I bought for $225.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4) Texas secedes

:D

If only dreams could come true...

The Civil War settled that question. States cannot secede on their own initiative.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If enough of the country is willing to walk over this, Texas may not have to do it on its own. Over a quarter of the states are already suing Congress and ObeyMeCare - excuse me, ObamaCare - isn't even two weeks old. Imagine how many more states will join the fun if Republicans sweep into power at that level this election. As the mandate would essentially spell the end of Federalism and state's rights, they'd have little reason to stay if the SCOTUS upholds it.

Potentially, the states could even amend the Constitution to say that they can secede on their own.

If that happened, President ObeyMe wouldn't have a constitutional fig leaf to hide behind if he ordered the military to prevent them from leaving. Our troops aren't the armies of King George, and I doubt they'll attack their fellow Americans under those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4) Texas secedes

:D

Have often thought about what would happen if the US was to secede along "colour" lines - the red states, and the blue states.

I have a feeling there would be strong migration towards the centre and the south from producers.

Problem is the blue states would also have nukes, and within 50 years when they are reduced to the state of the People's State of Europe in Atlas, that could be a problem.

That, and I love Santa Monica beach. Would be a shame to leave it to the Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain why they think that the US government will resort to using nukes when they have not given the go to use WMD on any of our enemies since WWII?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone please explain why they think that the US government will resort to using nukes when they have not given the go to use WMD on any of our enemies since WWII?

Because if your an enemy of freedom, you get the socialists 'compassion', in which they advocate endless diplomacy since they claim to be anti-violence and want to give away billions in bribes(foreign aid).

If your for freedom, well suddenly any degree of violence becomes acceptable.

Witness their behaviour for George Bush who despite his flaws, is the closest we have had to someone who believes in defending America for a long time and the threats they made towards him, vs their behaviour towards Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That, and I love Santa Monica beach. Would be a shame to leave it to the Dems.

Only for a short time, my friend. :D

When their new nation goes bankrupt, probably can buy it off them and add it to the territory, just like how Russia sold Alaska to the US during the prior century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that is what I did not really "get" until recently. Until a few years ago, I assumed that the majority of the members of mankind were innocent victims. Then I woke up and realized that "The Little Street" and Starnesville were realistic depictions of the majority of the members of mankind.

Do you have a well designed sampling poll to support your conclusion? Your pessimistic conclusions might hold true in some pestilential third world hell hole (say Haiti) but does your conclusion hold in more advanced industrial nations where the level of education is much higher?

Bob Kolker

This is how I came to my conclusion. I have observed a great many people here in Sweden, probably several thousand individuals, over the course of the last 40 years. I have seen that the vast majority of them evidently do not bother to think about abstract issues. Some of them are just indifferent towards ideas in a "bovine" way. Some of them, who are worse, dismiss the field of abstract ideas with humor, they think that I am an amusing person, because of the fact that I am interested in ideas. And still others, the worst ones, are *militantly* indifferent to ideas. They are not only indifferent, but when I try to interest them in such things as Objectivism, they become hostile, before they even know anything about the nature of the ideas I am trying to get them interested in, this type of person strongly resents the suggestion that they need to put forth mental effort.

Now, I have come to the conclusion, based on a large sample of Swedes, that the vast majority of Swedes, do not care to think about abstract subjects. How can I extrapolate this result to the rest of mankind? Well, since I am not a racist, I assume that all men are metaphysically the same. And that must in reason mean that, for example, men in the USA, Haiti, the Gaza strip, Nazi Germany and everywhere else, choose not to think with roughly the same frequency as Swedes do. The choice to think or not is not conditioned by external factors such as culture. After all, the choice to think or not is made before any idea comes into a person´s awareness. So the fact that the USA today has a much better culture than Sweden today, does not mean that Americans choose to think more often than Swedes do.

I think that I can make 2 kinds of moral judgments about men´s moral status. A judgment about their "existential moral status", which depends on the nature of the actions that they carry out (does a man tell the truth or lie, does he work or live as a parasite, etc), and their "metamoral status", which depends on to the extent of their ambition in regard to perceiving reality. Some men are ambitious in this respect, they try very hard to understand the world that they live in. Other men are not ambitious, they go through life without doing much thinking. The former type of person is the type which keeps mankind alive. The latter type is like a drunken driver. Just as a drunken driver is out of control of his car, and is *bound* to get into an accident sooner or later, which harms not only himself, but also others - so a person who habitually does not think about relevant abstract subjects (e.g. the causes of current events, philosophy etc.) is out of control of his life, and is like a drunken driver, he is bound to cause accidents that harm not only himself, but also his fellow men.

Just as it is positively *immoral* to drive under the influence, it is positively immoral to go through life without bothering to think about relevant abstract subjects. And I have, for the above reasons come to the conclusion that the vast majority of men go through life without bothering to think about relevant sbstract subjects. So for that reason I think that the majority of the members of mankind are immoral, even morally depraved, given the egregious extent to which they default on the responsibility of thinking about relevant abstract subjects.

So to sum up: the basis for my making such a wide generalization about all of mankind, is the fact that racism is false. I have no basis for thinking that the many more men whom I have never met, are basically different from the many men that I *have* met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm much too selfish to want to "save the world.". I am trying to save the things and people I value by doing what I love to do: shooting off my mouth and firing up my keyboard. I'm also realistically assessing my situation and doing everything I can to protect myself too. It's not either/or.

I agree. I get a great deal of personal satisfaction from the intellectual activist activities that I engage in every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone please explain why they think that the US government will resort to using nukes when they have not given the go to use WMD on any of our enemies since WWII?

Because if your an enemy of freedom, you get the socialists 'compassion', in which they advocate endless diplomacy since they claim to be anti-violence and want to give away billions in bribes(foreign aid).

If your for freedom, well suddenly any degree of violence becomes acceptable.

Witness their behaviour for George Bush who despite his flaws, is the closest we have had to someone who believes in defending America for a long time and the threats they made towards him, vs their behaviour towards Iran.

I generally agree with your assessement of their mentality. But besides America I have not seen one country, to include Russia, that had the courage to actually choose to use WMD and or push the button. It is one thing to throw people in jails or shoot them, it is a totally different thing to nuke an area and destroy everything within that certain area. I am not so certain that even as corrupt as most of our government officials are that they would choose to destroy a whole city and all the Americans within that city. If they are that evil then all the more reason to stand up to them now before they gain even more power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites