It’s a bit disconcerting, but also enjoyable and encouraging, when I have a post idea in mind and before I find the time to execute it…someone else does it, or something similar.
I haven’t seen a lot of material in the NRx blogs about guns, and how they’re going to be the difference-maker down the road, when the (hopefully Velvet) Great Divorce happens, in the U.S. The disarmed states, like the U.K., will have to work out their problems a different way. But in America, hundreds of millions of private firearms are a backstop, as it were. There’s a point where even the most modest middle-of-the-roader who owns a rifle will say, “This far, and no farther.” Unfortunately, when it’s rather late and the smoke from the burning cities is wafting over his suburban roof; but still.
Free Northerner gets into this in the first part of his A Winning Conservative Strategy. It’s a fun ride, considering how the Republican Party could “hit back just as hard.” The question is, do they actually want to “win”? Echo answers hollowly…but for now we focus on this:
The most interesting fact about American politics is how the Republicans totally dominate all levels of violence, yet are always in a perpetual state of losing. The military is primarily Republican, the police are more split but, at least in terms of front-line workers, are generally Republican, and the NRA, while officially non-partisan, is primarily composed of Republicans. The vast majority of people who own and can use a gun are conservative, yet, in the long run, conservatives always lose to their weaker, unarmed brethren.
It is baffling until you realize it is because conservatives refuse to play by the rules the progressives have set. Democrats can steal bags of votes, implement gang-run politics, destroy crimethinker’s careers, and stage shit-ins (among many other things) with impunity and the Republicans refuse to respond with anything worse than requiring ID to vote (and then getting called evil when doing so).
First, some theory. In “To Win a Nuclear War” Michio Kaku outlined the concept of ‘escalation dominance’.
Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.
As I stated above, the military, the police, and the NRA are conservative institutions. Conservatives, and thereby the Republican party, control the highest level of violence in American political disputes.
Using this, the Republicans should be able to control the escalation and tempo of lower-violence political conflicts.
This topic is worth exploring further, and will be explored here in future.
Speaking of the future, I’ve had in mind a post on my predictions for the future for a few days, but before I actually began hitting the keys, here’s Outside in on Expected Unknowns. While he doesn’t make predictions, thus does not completely usurp my contemplated scrabblings, he does say something well worth remembering:
The most reliable heuristic: plan for the unknown as such. (More on that to come.)
Good; from me, also.
This guy: Wimminz – celebrating skank whores everywhere is the official title – adopts a persona as a 50-something mildly ex-con misogynist U.K. truck driver (and he may well be just that!). Then, when you least expect it, deep no-bullshit pure clarity gobsmacking intelligent sanity leaps out, and you realize you’re dealing with someone:
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
Sadly we have also come to a place where the person in place W can all in their defence the fact that none of the decisions A1 to V1 inclusive, when taken individually, which is they way they took them, were perfectly rational and normal and legal and it’s really not my fault so help me out here.
And in truth, it’s hard not to have some sympathy for that argument, or the person who finds themselves in place W, but there is a difference between feeling sympathy, and excusing.
You and you alone must carry the responsibility for being in place W, and all those decisions A1 to V1 inclusive.
If “place W” is the cell you spend your last night in before heading out to see madam guillotine in the morning, that text in purple will be applied to you.
If “place W” is a senior position in government or finance or service industry, it won’t.
I have long maintained that if you are hit by a bullet, it makes not the slightest difference to you, or the wound, or anything else practical, if it was a deliberate enemy act or an accidental blue on blue chance in a million.
But there comes a point when it comes to mitigating risk a, so Nukinnd consequences where you go from “I guess it is *possible* that could happen” to “It’s only a question of time“, and that fact is if you make decisions in succession as described above, A1 to V1 inclusive, then it is only a question of time.
It only becomes I guess it is possible if each subsequent decisions factors in ALL the previous positions and places, and the additional overall command choice is made, is this going to move me nearer to A or to z, if things go wrong?
We are essentially describing the difference between men, and wimminz and niggerz, I’ve talked before about decision trees.
Even if you have NO other information, simply choosing the option that maximises the future possible choices is always the best option, so nuking Milford Haven in September is better than nuking it tomorrow, something may arise in June that makes me want to go there, I can’t imagine what right now, but that’s the whole fucking point innit.
The options in case of course have to be real, not illusory, so giving me the option of passing up on a fuck with the local village bike, and passing up on a fuck with some gorgeous billionairess Ukrainian sex bomb are not the same thing.
Similarly the offer of a fuck now, and a fuck tomorrow, are not the same thing.
Invariably, when hindsight says that, for example, decision H1 was a bad choice, what it really means is that neither were all the options actually considered, nor were all of the options that were considered unweighted, and considered only on their own merits, and not on a perceived end goal.
Ummm-just read the guy’s archives, there is too much half-crazy gold there to summarize.
Finally, for now, Septivium begins.
Sebastian Pritchard lays down a program. I imagine that if we can individually hit it at the 50 percent level we’ll be ready to take on The Troubles Ahead, as best we can. I haven’t written much about self-improvement here, but one more Future Reference for the road. (Hat tip Jack Donovan for the link to Pritchard.)