where we stand depends upon who has the guns
Discover more from bad cattitude
where we stand depends upon who has the guns
more alinsky antics
“where you stand depends upon where you sit.”
this saying has grown old and hardened like oak as only deep truths may.
and many of the disciples of saul know this all too well.
let us start with SA’s own words:
The essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot.
When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”
And it was.
-Saul Alinsky “rules for radicals”
saul and his adherents appreciate and ape such aims.
this goes well past the modern ideas of ‘supporting rights when we are in the minority and democracy when we are in the majority” and on into “we will rule by force and once we have the guns, they will all be pointed at you.”
this has been marxism 101 since it first became praxis.
get the guns, use them to rule.
it’s not new, you just don’t think it could happen here.
but you know what the thing that all societies which succumbed to armed marxist or fascist oppression by violence have in common?
they didn’t think it could happen there either.
they mistook the invaders for liberators and invited these vampires in. the orgies of savage blood sucking and societal destruction and degradation that followed rank among the worst calamities in the history of the human species, likely worse even than world wars if only for their sheer duration.
put into this context some recent events in the US that could be mistaken for simply silly or just stupid flexes take on more sinister overtones.
because he who controls the military controls a lot of guns.
and this is an actual training video from the US navy.
it’s stunning in both its childish, sesame street level tone and set dressing. the actors feel like cartoon puppets. it’s clearly not aimed at adults.
i doubt this is an accident.
i see two possibilities:
the people pushing these agendas are really, truly this tone deaf and have no idea how badly this will play.
this was a deliberate shank as a means for rebellious middle ranks to follow new diktat from on high to the letter while simultaneously making it an object of ridicule thought the use of a format so bad and ill-suited to audience as to render it (quite literally) ridiculous. i mean, listen to these two. does anything about them appear poised to command the respect of soldiers?
either way, my suspicion is this:
these new “woke till you choke” impositions are being used not so much as a means to change minds as a screen for ideological purity and a form of signaling about “what sort of people are welcome in the military these days.” if you’re not a “pronouns in email” kind of guy, uh, person, uh, entity, uh, (jeez this gets hard) then ship out. we don’t want you here, won’t promote you, and intend to make your life a misery.
this is a classic marxist playbook move. you start from the top and replace the generals with political hacks, but this is insufficient. the goal is to shape the military to serve your politics and if the rank and file do not believe, they will not turn upon their own. so you get them learning to fight about pronouns instead of learning to win battles on the field. because, in the end, you want a different kind of soldier. you want a soldier who sees a different kind of enemy.
it’s easy to change the top ranks. in peacetime, pretty much nobody gets past (or even to) colonel without being a politician. but the rank and file soldiers are different. many came from humble upbringings. many joined as a path to an education or a better life. many joined because they believe in and sought to defend america. many fought in overseas wars. and those are difficult things to change, especially changing allegiance from combat commanders to political commissars. it’s easier to change people.
so you have to make it a misery as a means to cull them out and “here, your service is now politically correct puppet-shows and while falling asleep on watch is a no-no, mispronouning the pangendered demisexual otherkin who shares your shower is worse.”
the very absurdity of the ideological purity test is what makes it so effective.
i want to be clear here: this is not about self-identity. if you want to see yourself as a man, a woman, a 27 gendered “other,” or an internet cat, knock yourself out. that’s your business. pursue your happiness. i hope you catch it.
but nothing gives anyone the right to force others to accede to their self-image. that has to be earned, not coerced. compelling it does not make it more likely that others will believe you. it makes them less so and it marks you as that most odious form of bully the “crybully.”
and this sets up a no win situation for the rank and file because in the military the rules are not like they are outside in “the world.” if you fail to inhabit the hallucination (or at least act as though you do) you get in serious trouble, your career is hampered, and you generally have a bad time.
this is what makes it such a potent selector for generating the right sort of rank and file and ensuring ideological purity. those who disagree wash out. those who remain are either the sorts of “woke” ideologues you prefer or those who will play along to get along. free thinkers and free speakers are expunged.
selecting for people anxious (or at least willing to knuckle under to) such bullying selects for those sufficiently dogmatic or pliable to fight to impose these wokeshevik ideologies upon “domestic foes” that “oppose the revolution.”
(and btw, i LOVE the word “woke” because it began as a self-descriptor meant to show status and in-group signaling but as the rest of the world got a look at the toxic tenets of wokedom it became an epithet they now desperately see to disavow. their “brand” wound up branding them as self-serving pernicious pestilence. the allegory is a perfect fractal to stand for the whole: self similar at every scale and desperate to avoid real recognition.)
a) Enlistment Oath.—Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
i suspect one would be hard pressed to make the case that such purges render the US military more able to defend against foreign foes. it would seem rather to reduce such capability by defenestrating the backbone of what has been military function and competence.
but what if that is not the goal?
what if, rather, the aim behind replacing patriots with polemicists lies in domestic ends and a conscious reshaping of what groups the military may be induced to perceive as “enemy”?
it has long been an article of faith the the US military would never turn upon “we the people” but this is historically false. it’s one of the first things it did. over taxes. read up on the whiskey rebellion some time.
and this has been longstanding marxist practice. there is a point beyond which the societal and economic devastation of high levels of top down control over production and societal organization become too vast to hide. there is a time when the societal immune system kicks in.
and at that point one of two things happens:
either society throws the authoritarians out or the authoritarians attack and compel through that bullet that which the ballot could not gain them.
now imagine you are an alinskyite authoritarian and you know full well of this impending fork in the road. and imagine that, as they have laid out in their own words you believe that the time of the bullet is coming.
what would you do to set the stage?
might you do this?
or even this?
note that this was the SAME GUY who killed the investigation into the hunter laptop.
the capture of justice and investigative/enforcement arms in service of ideology and one sided political partisanship is the road to one party rule. and “brand political foes as terrorists/reactionaries/enemies of the state” is pure bolshevism 101.
but in the US is runs into some problems:
police forces are mostly localized, highly unionized, and basically untouchable. while this certainly produces a set of problems (many quite serious) the silver lining appears to be that it prevents this sort of nationalized political penetration. the cops will not do what DC (or anyone) tells them. they are a power base unto themselves.
did you think the sudden prevalence of this notion amidst rising crime and crackdowns from federal authorities was a coincidence?
this serves 2 aims: it eliminates a competing power base that appears more likely to side with the people if things ever really got bad and it helps make sure that things keep getting worse.
those pushing anti-sanity policies of legalizing theft, preventing policy enforcement, making it impossible to run business in many neighborhoods, and making people feel unsafe as crime surges are not insane. they just have a plan that is not in alignment with your interests.
they WANT it to get worse because that’s how they “teach” you that their intervention is needed and that more draconian top-down diktat and dictatorship is the only way “back to making the streets safe.”
they are rigging a system to fail so that they can use the failure to “build back bigger.”
this is all about misrepresenting the trolley problem again. you lie about what is tied to the tracks, what happens if we pull the lever, and ignore utterly an notion of who tied this stuff to the rails in the first place.
you vilify and punish outlandishly relatively peaceful protests as dire threats to amercia.
you hold show trials that almost no one cares about to flex your power.
meanwhile, you lionize and forgive the literal burning of cites and the occupation of parts of same for months on end.
see how this all fits together?
take control of the organs of “justice” and the military, prevent police from doing their jobs, make life unsafe, and then brand your political opponents as terrorists.
when we pillage cities week after week, it’s "justice” and even “public health.”
when they push back on masking kids or mill around in the capitol in a bison hat, it’s grave insurrection.
make no mistake: the obvious dichotomy here is no accident. it’s a means to express power and engender fear.
resist us and be punished severely for small matters. serve us and you may act with impunity. grab yourself a TV for your trouble.
i mean, do they not teach russian or chinese history in US schools anymore?
to be sure, many caught up in this movement are reactionaries and useful idiots, but those whipping them up are often quite aware of the full sweep of the game plan. it’s no coincidence that zealots like soros sought to take control of DA offices. he found a weak spot, a chink in the system whereby for very short money elections of greater than apparent value could be won because few paid attention to them. it’s just value stock investing for aspiring alinskyite globalists.
there is method to the madness.
and the other freeing move is clear:
there is a rich history of regimes disarming their populations before imposing all manner of terrible things upon them and the literal purpose of the second amendment is to stand surety against such. it was put in place by people who had just overthrown and replaced a government they deemed oppressive. no, it did not have limits. and yes, you could own a cannon. for that matter, you could privately own probably the most powerful weapon in the world at the time: a ship armed with dozens of cannon. privateers were common and merchant ships routinely armed.
this idea that “the second amendment was never intended to cover modern guns” cuts no ice. one might as well claim that the first amendment was never intended to apply to speech over the radio or the internet.
but those who would seek to prime the stage for the time when “we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” will, of course, not argue it this way.
this is not intended to protect you. it’s foxes pushing a bill to remove the teeth of farm dogs that they may rob henhouses unimpeded.
every time you see this:
what you’re really seeing is this:
no just regime ruling with the consent of the governed need fear an armed populace.
those who do are “the other guys” and they have “other plans.”
the framers of the american republic stood in great favor of an armed populace and in great distrust of standing armies.
they did not fear the cost of armies, they feared the mischief to which they had so often historically been put. (and then had not even seen communism yet)
we can argue about the ability of an armed populace to resist a modern military (though if we do, be sure to ask the afghans about it) but it’s really more about price. even if the US military could defeat the american people (and given where its supply lines run, this becomes a complex question) the sheer cost of subduing against its will a population this heavily armed is all but unthinkable. i’m not sure there is any precedent in the modern age.
and mostly, this is about deterrence.
no reasonable person wants this fight and even the staunchest of statists fears such conflict against such armed opposition.
but some will seek to provoke it because it grants them the right to rule and to impose “by the bullet” aims too antithetical to the public will to ever have the consent of the governed.
and the manner in which this may be prevented is twofold:
keep politics (all politics) out of the military, the FBI, the justice department, and every other facet of the armed state.
ensure the populace retains its ability to defend itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic including and especially the government.
at least one side of this discussion seems anxious to get america to the time of the bullet. (hint: this is always the side seeking to disarm the other side)
let’s not go.
yamamoto may or may not have ever said:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
but regardless of provenance, the sentiment remains accurate as does the idea that any who would seek to make ideologues of the army are never on the side of the people.
those seeking to radicalize armed forces while disarming we the people are never looking to throw a party you want to attend. but if they succeed, believe you me, attendance will be mandatory.
the time to stop this is BEFORE it gets bad and when it can still be managed peacefully (but implacably).
these are not matters on which functional compromise is possible
radicalized soldiers and a disarmed populace only ends in one place.
let’s go the other way.
where we stand depends upon who has the guns
The main reason the US did not see the violent police suppression of lockdown dissenters that was seen in Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, etc. is specifically due to local police control. By and large, municipal police and county sheriff's said from the start they would not enforce onerous dictates and instead would rely on "education" (whatever that means). There were some exceptions but they were the outliers.
Bottom line is that it was pretty rare to see people carted off in cuffs for going to park or not wearing a mask in the US. This was not the case in many other so-called western democracies where even departments that appear municipal in their name are actually controlled at the state or national level.
This is the end goal of "defund the police" IMO. It's not to get rid of all police but those that are locally accountable. Of course they will be replaced with police controlled at the state or more likely federal level.
Agree. There is a whole lot 'they' would like to do but can't as long as citizens are armed. Our second amendment is the only thing holding back a full on attempt at control. Thanks.