Thursday, September 5, 2013

but he is our bastard


BUT HE IS OUR BASTARD

Okay, pursuant to yesterday and all the hooting and hollering and general mayhem, I just want to remind everybody: please don’t take any of it personally.  I understand we are all adults here.  It ain’t anybodies first rodeo.  Yet, I feel it needs repeating at times.  We all talk, disagree and yell at each other, but it is a process of trying to arrive at conclusions.  Conclusions which might save our lives or endanger us, so sometimes tensions can rise.  This stuff is important after all.  But when I get too grumpy or impatient, it isn’t personal.  Sometimes I get frustrated at the common notions which go unchallenged.  Sometimes I get frustrated at myself for not communicating clearly ( which plenty of minions can do better than I more than a few times- I kind of wish they’d write the damn thing ).  But please continue to disagree with me and tell me I’m full of it.  I do listen, such as when Idaho Homesteader finally convinced me of the merits of night vision ( providing it was the low cost toy/children’s version ).  Then of course I turn around and yell at her about something else.  But I AM listening.  You are all invaluable on this journey towards understanding.  One last marginal note of interest.  Wednesday’s are now my Laundry Bitch days rather than Thursday.  This works out better at the Food Bank, and as a bonus Wednesday’s are $1 Wash Days at the Laundromat ( normal price $1.75 per wash ).  So, don’t expect much in the afternoon then as far as responding to comments.  I clock out at noon.

*

Sometimes, usually after I’ve read my fifth book on Kindle of utter drivel post-apocalypse novel-wise, I curse Baby Jesus ( He knows I don’t mean it, just blowing off steam ) and the Heavens, wondering why people are so inclined to accept pre-conceived notions.  I’m on my third in the Eden series and Adrian has traveled home from waging his Stone Age guerilla war against cannibals, responding to the SOS that A Huge Marauding Hoard Is Going To Destroy The Village.  This is kind of a bit weak compared to the first two, but well worth the money and still a good read.  But what pisses me off is the authors discussion about women warriors.  Usually he carefully thinks out everything in the books, but seems to falter here.  Oh, he proclaims in wounded wonderment, American men are such idiots, refusing to allow women in combat.  They are overprotective.  It is a perverted American Culture problem.  WHAAAA????  Dude, women in combat has been a culturally prohibited practice since the dawn of time.  You can’t use Joan Of Ark, an exception as a General, as a general rule.  Nor can women terrorists be seen as a norm.  Nor last ditch women defending the homestead against Indian attacks.  And the reason is simple.  It isn’t about men being domineering and trying to subjugate women.  It isn’t about men thinking women are worthless and weak ( I’d be too much of a pussy to pop a kid ).  It isn’t about who is mean tempered or hateful.  It is about breeding.  You DON’T put your breeders in harms way.  Period.  There might be plenty of times it makes sense to throw them in harms way, but there are much more, many more, times when you must protect them.  It is far better, long term, to prohibit women from even thinking about fighting so that they don’t endanger the need to repopulate.  Culture ALWAYS enhances survival.  That is what it is for, and one of mans most important tools.  Keeping the breeders safe is paramount for long term survival.

*

Okay, now that that is off my chest, the other area of preconceived erroneous notions that bug the crap out of me.  Civilized fighters.  That is an oxymoron, yet the norm folks try to sell each other.  How much of survivalists time is wasted trying to put lipstick on this pig?  We’ve done a great job sanitizing the warriors job.  Taking the bite out of the profession by turning warriors into soldiers ( the two are not the same ).  Substituting war machines for weapons ( you know, depersonalizing war such as with high altitude bombers or drones ).  Even confusing farmers for fighters.  At one time, when there was enough wilderness to make hunting more profitable than raising livestock and we had about zero government, the fighting farmer and the militia was a norm here.  Because a fighter can’t live a sedentary, peaceful existence, bowing to the kings men and being a good little subject and still be combative.  Once you make a man meek and obedient, he isn’t a fighter ( soldiers are made with obedient and combative men and the results are usually not effective.  Hence, the need for machines ).  On the frontier, practicing woodcraft daily, militia members were made.  Today, we are all subjects to the crown and none of us are going to make very good warriors.  We are too busy kissing ass of any and all authority figures.  You think our leaders aren’t aware of this?  So, to think we are going to be effective warriors, but at the same time being full time passive farmers, kind of clashes with reality.  But more importantly, our mindset is all wrong.  We are all talking about being Paladins, and that kind of wishful thinking, make-believe world of academics is wrong.  To be a true fighter, a warrior, you need to be, simply put, a vicious bastard.  You just kill anything that moves, as long as they don’t live in your village.  Old people, kids, pregnant mothers, it doesn’t matter.  They are the enemy.  None of us has this mindset.  We want to be peaceful agrarian workers that only take up the sword for a righteous crusade against evil.   And that thinking will make you ineffective as a warrior.  People want and need bastards for their protectors.  All the evil in the world is allowed, as long as He Is A Bastard, But At Least He Is Our Bastard.  There must be a double standard.  One for The People ( your fellow villagers ), and Everybody Else.

END

15 comments:

  1. I've got to say Jim you are wrong on this one.
    Warriors became warriors through viciousness - true.
    Warriors became warriors by practicing their fighting skills - true.
    Most modern man can hack that - wrong.
    Just look around, ALL humans have a vicious streak and most are a lot closer to the surface than you surmise. Many practice fighting in at least theory UFC chamionships, Boxing, Wrestling, Video games, etc. The mindset is just waiting to be tapped. Then the ones good enough to survive the first round (within hours of a complete break down) and give up the palladin complex our society tries to bury it with, will be warriors. Novice warriors but warriors still.
    And that doesnt count the gangs, mafia, cops, soldiers, etc, that already infest our civilization.

    -Grey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just worry that a lot of this is a Potemkin Village violence. A lot of ritualized combat provides protection against really getting hurt. In the worse areas, cops don't go at night-so they have limits how vicious they are. Video gamers are total posers. I fear the mindset is a false promise of warrior-dom ( warrior-hood? ).

      Delete
  2. My bet is there are a whole lot of dead Fyrdmen, kerns, yeomen, longbowmen and other militia men who would disagree with you especially on the last part.

    Saxon Fyrdmen especially were renown for being agrarian part time soldiers and defeating professional raiders like Vikings and Normans. Hell if Harold had just ducked the fyrdman had already won the battle of Hastings for him. And that was after a forced march from defeating the Vikings.

    Part time soldiers used to be what made up 90% of all armies unless they had cheap energy or relied on someone else for the surplus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they are soldiers rather than warriors. Soldiers make the State, Warriors make the embroyotic ( sp? ) State as warlords, gangs, etc. I still think part time farmers make very poor soldiers- you need other advantages to make up for that. Perhaps such as a logistics tail invading an island? ( I bow to you on a much more detailed English history, so correct me if I'm wrong. At one time the Vikings lost their effectiveness, I just don't know from what. More centralized government in target country?

      Delete
    2. In truth I have read studies that would in a way support your claim. Most of the Fyrdmen who were recruited to fill the levies were in fact the same ones from year to year rather than new ones in rotation. This lead to what was eventually called the select Fyrd and the Greater Fyrd. What eventually emerged was in fact a more professional warrior class but back then 90% of even the professional class were farmers to some extent.

      It might be closer to say they were full time soldiers and part time farmers really. Or at least there are some Historians that see it that way.

      The vikings lost effectiveness as 1. The Saxons learned ways to counteract their attacks better ie. the select Fyrd and more landed Huscarls spread out and ready 2. Many Vikings themselves became farmers or land owners so they kinda lost their edge in that department.

      I don't know. It's just that in most circumstances the brigand/warrior types are always defeated and usually by part time farmer/warriors rising to the occasion. I am a perhaps romantic fan of the citizen soldier as the eventual victor in these circumstances.

      Delete
    3. I know the longbowmen had a good infrastructure behind them. They needed mass produced projectiles even if the bows themselves were individually crafted by the user. So, there had to be a centralized state behind that. I just don't have a period of time to tie that in with Vikings or not. All centralized states will defeat warrior bands. Even with terrified untrained drafted farmers. But after the collapse there will be a time with no states due to energy deficits. Until victorious warrior bands go State ( like the settled Vicking did, I imagine ), you can't have a loose group of farmer warriors hoping to defeat them. It takes a State behind the farmers for victory. It isn't motivation on the part of the farmers, but superior logistics. I think Rome is a good example of a State losing power and then losing to bandits/barbarians. The reason we keep having States is because it is the best defense. It is only a happy side benefit of wealth for the bankers and kings and whoever.

      Delete
    4. As noted above, most of the medieval groups that were successful had a fair amount of training.

      The general exception is when for various tactical reasons the militia was able to stand in place, had some sort of either defense or obstacle in front of them, and were not subject to massive missile fire that they could not return. George Washington spent a lot of time trying to get the British to charge his troops when they were behind fortifications- but after Bunker Hill, the British were wise to that one. The classic cases were the battle of Courtrai and the battle of Arques were the Flemish townfolk defeated the French men at arms in the 13th century.

      Delete
  3. Lord Bison of the Great Basin and King of Coiffure;

    Couldn't agree more on today's post about civility and how that civility is a very effective barrier to successful combat operations against any and all opponents. Of course, when anyone makes comments to the contrary, they are labeled as dangerous or worse a pariah to be shunned. This conventional thinking will be the fodder that evil men dream of when crushing their opponents in gleeful delight. All intelligent writers from George Orwell to Robert Howard, describe this in detail.

    For example: "Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. Notes on Nationalism 1945; Orwell and "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!" Conan the Barbarian 1982; Howard.

    These are the voices of experience, these are the voices of saddened wisdom, because they have seen the elephant are were found not wanting at the moment of decision. Though you hate William T. Sherman with a grand passion to rival the hardest Confederate, when we wrote: "I can make this march, and I will make Georgia howl!" he knew what he was talking about to make war prosecution a success. Sherman went to any means, any depravity to ensure he and his forces were successful as history be the eternal judge, and thus is he described as a pariah by most historians to this day, because like you Dear King of Coiffure, he had no limits to ensure victory.

    If I remember Heinlein correctly: "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." This is eternal truth to be passed down through the ages to all, who are concerned with their survival and the survival of their progeny. Keep keeping it real James!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shermin was of course the epitame of Union/Federal empire building. I'd admire him if I wanted the Constitutional Republic to be what it has become. Of course, lets be honest, that is also a bit of losers lament.

      Delete
  4. I saw the words dirty bastard and thought you were talking about me again! ha ha ha ha ha . I don't have a problem with shooting women or children or dogs or cats or grandma. All the good little Mad Max wannabes got all offended when I talked about fighting dirty. While they are all around the campfire singing kumbaya I will be stealing their stuff and setting fires to cover my getaway. Survivalists my wrinkly old butt! the rat a.k.a. vicious old bastard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HEY! Not cats! Grandma has had a good life, dogs are ass-lickers, and there are more fems who can breed out there. But cats are special. You are a bastard, but you are OUR bastard so it is okay. Are you out of the publishing game? I saw a while ago your blog closed.

      Delete
    2. took some time off. I don't know how you keep at it!

      Delete
  5. Lord Bison - I generally agree with you, but I believe there are exceptions and that a society should be open to exceptions.

    Women Warriors are uncommon and often discouraged. Male prostitutes are less common than female prostitutes, and often vilified more than a female prostitute.

    However, it is a free country. Just because a male wants to be a prostitute and a woman wants to be a warrior, I don't feel like there should be a limitation on either of them (assuming they can do the job) just because it bucks the norm.

    Simply put, if the person is qualified for the gig and they want the gig - let 'em have the gig.

    As for "civilized fighters", and I mean REAL fighters, there is no such thing. The whole idea of a "civilized fighter" is a bunch of malarkey that I'll leave to the 'prepper' crowd.

    As a Survivalist, I've cottoned to the idea of sucker-punching somebody, taking their AR-15, and then trading it for a piece of gold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, from a Libertarian standpoint, that's how it should be. But from a group survival standpoint, culture must be rigid to work. Obviously you as a group adjust initially to what works, then "set it in stone". But I'm talking stuff that has worked for thousand or tens of thousands of years. A constant cultural trait that stuck around through history did so for a reason. I wouldn't mind the sucker-punched AR if the ammo supply was steady. It is crap ( for its intended purpose of machine-gun carbine ), but at least it is still a weapon.

      Delete
  6. Screw this.
    Find out what D&D character you really are. Are you a Fighter? Wizard?
    I'm a Neutral Good Human Ranger(7). Damn! I'm gonna die.
    http://www.easydamus.com/character.html

    ReplyDelete