Archive for December 23rd, 2005
Peter
Posted by Bob in How Things Work on 12/23/2005
In reply to my discussion of how fast things change when they change, Peter wrote:
“On something being “congenitally wrong:” as Bob has said, this is how every revolution has looked at the beginning. When we show signs of success, suddenly 95% of everyone jumps on the bandwagon declaring that they were always secretly behind us.”
“Old Westerns are full of this theme. Take a corrupt town controlled by a crook. One man has had enough and takes action. A friend or two appear. The whole town that he is trying to help seems to be against him, but a latchkey mysteriously appears at just the right moment and an anonymous note with critical intelligence is dropped off at the last minute.”
“As Bob noted, Adams was wrong when he offhandedly said that a third of the people were behind the revolution of 1776, a third were indifferent, and a third were Tories. He was wrong because in the beginning, there were really only a handful and in the end almost everyone was behind it.”
“At a local grocery store, they were selling DVDs with two movies on each for $1.00. I got several of the Roy Rogers. I love these movies. Partly it is because it was shot in all my favorite places that I have hiked and explored so I can say oh, that is Melody Ranch, or Golden Oak, Vasquez Rocks, or the back side of Big Bear (it’s easy to sneak quietly onto the movie ranches if you keep an eye out for the dust cloud of a truck coming your way). But as hokey as this sounds, these old movies give me hope. ”
“In these old movies, Roy goes through all kinds of crap, loses everything including his reputation, gets injured, people hate him, but he always keeps his spirits up and sings great music for the ladies. And of course he always wins and the people thank him for helping them.”
Comment by Peter — 12/21
Actually, Peter, there is nothing mythical about the Roy Rogers scenario.
One of the most famous quotes from Texas history occurred when the Texas Rangers were the only law in the Republic of Texas, which lasted for ten years. There was a total breakdown of law and order in one town, everybody armed and shooting.
So the head of the Rangers sent a man there to straighten things out.
A newsman from the United States pointed out that there was a state of total anarchy there, so shouldn’t he have sent more men.
The head of the Rangers gave the reply that has gone down in history:
“One problem, one Ranger.”
The Ranger straightened things out and came on back for another assignment.
The Pax Americana
When I pointed out how right my predictions had been inthe past, some readers ask that I write some now.
Here’s one:
Believe it or not, we are living in what will be called the Pax Americana in the exact same sense that the period from 1814-1914 is now officialy dubbed the Pax Britannica.
Pax means “peace,” and few of us lving today would consider this to be peace.
To those of us living in a Pax of this sort, the term seems strange.
In fact what we now look upon as the Pax Romanicum, from which the later Paxes derive their name, would seem an odd term for those living at the time. The idea that the whole Mediterannean world was at PEACE during the two centuries after Augustus won the civil war and became emperor is what later historians said.
There were constant wars, including the conquest of Britain, which struck the people there as less than perfect peace.
But all three so-called Paxes are very similar. In each case, the following period is called a Pax by HISTORIANS. I doubt if anyone saw them that way at the time.
Pax is a comparative term. In each case, you have to look at what happened just BEFORE the so-called Pax began.
The Pax Romanicum followed a decades-long civil war. Legions fought legions, leaders died, chaos ruled. For over two centuries nothing vaguely approaching it occurred again.
But war was constant on a small scale udring the period historians refer to as the Pax Romanum.
Again, to understand the term Pac Britannica you have to look at what happened just BEFORE it.
The Pax Brittania came at the end of a Europe-wide war and Napoleanic occupation that lasted over twenty years, fought from Spain to Moscow. From 1814 when Napolean was finally beaten at Waterlook to 1914, nothing approaching that endless conflict occurred again.
As we all know, one of the really ironic things that the allies convinced themselves of in World War I was that, if they won, the Pax would return. They seriously called it The War to End All Wars. In the 1920s all the major powers signed the Kellogg-Briand pact stating that war was no longer an option for any of them.
In fact during the first few months of World War II there was a period called the Sitzkrieg after Germany invaded Poland when Germans and French troops just sat there.
Only Churchill kept it going until Germany finally took France out in 1940. He could have made peace with Germany and let Hitler go after Stalin until Germany finally lost patience.
After that came almost half a century of World War II and the Cold War which was fought in every corner of the globe. The resources spent in the Cold War dwarfed those spent in any other war in history.
The lives taken by Communists during that period dwarf those of all the wars before, but they were just a bunch of Russians and Chinese and stuff, so nobody cares about that.
We lost a couple of hundred thousand troops over that period and that matters to historians.
But what really mattered were Jews who died in World War II.
But, despite the fact that it didn’t kill anybody importantm, the Cold War made the whole world unstable and we were hovering on the brink of nuclear war for over a generation.
A nuclear war could have wiped out New York and San Francisco, where REAL PEOPLE lived, so that was a big deal.
What we have right now is what HISTORIANS will look upon as “outbreaks.” They do not threaten important places. where real people live.
If this period lasts long enough, it will called a Pax. But the period from 1918 to 1939 was too short to be called a Pax Anybody.
From a historical point of view, this Pax has been going since the first country left the Soviet Empire without being crushed. It is already about the length of the 1918 to 1939 period of peace.
I think the rule of thumb so far is that a real Pax Somebody has to last a century.
But this one might make it for fifty years, and so it will up to the historical umpires to make the call.
The end of this period of peace will come when Superterrorism ends the whole era of national states.
My article in WOL, “Superterrorism” was written about 1998, and was reused on September 11, 2001. It’s in the old WOL archives.
Peter’s “Rant”
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 12/23/2005
Peter wrote a comment for the blog which was a careful, excellent statement. The only thin I object to is his calling it a “rant:”
“Bob, CL is right. I think you seemed to be saying that not making a Declaration of War is a clever ploy which increases the stronger power’s likelihood of success, as if it would be required to fight the war with an arm tied behind its back. Following is a long rant.”
“Basically this means that if the weaker side simply does not do one small thing, then the stronger side will throw down its arms and refuse to wage war. In the US, this sort of thinking dates to the WbtS, that there would have been no war if SC had simply not taken back Fort Sumter.”
“The thinking continued in WWI, and had the Germans just ignored the armaments on Lusitania, had not taken out full page ads in the NY Times to warn everyone not to board the ship, and had not sunk it, then they would have won the war (clearly and with no armistice).”
“The thinking continued in WWII, when FDR was waging war on Europe with all but US troops and had declared war on the Axis partner Japan. Somehow, if Germany had not countered the declaration with the statement that “a state of war has existed between the US and Germany,” then Germany would have won WWII! However, FDR had found an illegal way around every other restriction of US participation in WWII, so what would hold him back from sending troops now that he had gotten a Declaration of War on an Axis partner? The Germans of the era were known for ridiculous thoroughness and horrible pains-taking. It would be odd if they made this important decision if they saw another option. Further, the Germans believed they would lose the war with the US. However, FDR wanted war against Germany, and was in fact already waging war against Germany, and was escalating that war by turns. Germany was scarcely fighting back (the Communists had their full attention). If Hitler had not made his speech saying that “a state of war existed” there is no reason to believe that FDR would have thrown down his arms. The speech was made to publicize to Germany and the international community just how FDR had been waging war against Europe since 1939. The speech did not give FDR an excuse to wage war against Germany. FDR was already doing that. The speech did not give FDR an excuse to escalate the war. He was already escalating the war. ”
“Had Hitler not made his speech, FDR would have sent troops against Europe anyway under a different excuse, and you would be writing here that Hitler should have declared war right after Pearl Harbor so he could have taken precautions at the earliest possible moment and brought the greatest publicity to FDR’s war by publicizing an account of it right after Pearl Harbor, while the world was watching. ”
“A formal Declaration of War is often only for internal politics. It ensures that war is undertaken legally by a country’s own rules. In the US, it means that the Commander in Chief has the legal right to wage war. Calling a war a “police action” and authorizing troops for the war is just a ruse admitting that the CoC is illegally waging war. If two countries are at peace, then a Declaration can be an eleventh hour tool to encourage an enemy to submit. But if hostilities are already underway, then the enemy does not need the enemy’s Declaration of War. If you are already fighting, a Declaration of War is a little late. If a stronger party wants war, it does not matter if the weaker country declares war or not. Not declaring war would be a feckless defense.”
“Bob’s argument may work in the rare case that a weaker country wants to harm a stronger. A weaker country that wants to harm a stronger country without a full-scale war will not declare war. For example, Mexico is harming the US right now knowing that it has the cooperation of our leaders. Tom Tancredo says that the Mexican army escorts drug shipments and illegal aliens invading the US. On occasion, they have fired upon and threatened to fire upon the undermanned US Border Patrol. These are acts of war. But if Mexico actually declared war, it would draw publicity to the border, and US leaders would be forced to ask Mexico to take a low profile for a while.”
“All the same, the thinking that if a weaker side simply neglects to do one small thing then it will win a war a stronger party wants is not thinking at all. Neglecting certain actions, like issuing an official Declaration of War, or taking back Fort Sumter, or sinking the Lusitania with all its armaments, or allowing enemy weapons inspectors to spy on anything they want only helps the enemy. ”
When a psychopath wants to kill someone, his demands to the victim are made to make the killing easier for him. Thinking that a small country can neglect one small act and so cancel a stronger party’s plans for war is not thinking at all. It is WORDISM.
MY REPLY:
This addition to the seminar is going to make me do some thinking.
In the meantime, you might want to read over what Peter said again.
IN MY OPINION it’s good stuff.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for Friday, December 23rd, 2005
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
Fini Ain’t Finished
Posted by Bob in Comment Responses on 12/23/2005
In my piece below called “Motivation” I ended up by saying:
“Wouldn’t it be hilarious if we ended up being the only real conspiracy on earth?”
Antonio Fini replied,
“I would like nothing better than to be part of a real conspiracy. Conspiracies are fun. But I don’t know how to get the conspiracy out of the Hoffbrauhaus (Stormfront?) and into the street. ”
Benjamin Franklin covered the subject of secret conspiracies with one sentnce:
“Three people can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead.”
I have said many, many times that my enemies understand how dangerous I am to them, but my comrades never do.
Our conspiracy is a wonderful example of this.
Our conspiracy is not oly public, you can read what we have to say in Antartica if you want to.
But, as usual on our side, only this tiny remnant in Bob’s Blog understand what we are doing.
The last thing on earth any of our enemies wants to do is write a book exposing this conpiracy. A blatant act like that might even wake up some of our COMRADES right in the middle of rant about how everything depends on the latest news from Iraq.
So, to use a phrase which has a LOT of meaning in intelligence work, we are hiding in plain sight.
Our side is incapable of noticing that, and the other side is terrified of discussing it.
Bob’s Mantra is more important than anything in or about Iraq will ever be:
” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries.”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I want the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I say that, I’m a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
That is too dull for our side to repeat. That is the LAST thing the other side wants to expose.
You ARE part of a conspiracy, Antonio. It is the only kind of conspiracy that WORKS, one that is hidden in plain sight.
1 Comment