Boots on the ground are insufficient

Joe Huffman estimates that in civil war, the right would have overwhelming military superiority.

As, of course, it would. Obviously. But boots on the ground are insufficient. As Stalin said “Ideas are more powerful than guns”. The problem is not that the federal government has tanks and artillery. That is not doing it much good in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest. The problem is that progressives have intellectual dominance.

The majority of voters are illegitimate and/or non white and/or female and/or illegal immigrants.  What do you do when a violent, corrupt, despotic, and tyrannical government is more or less freely and fairly elected?  For example, the Nazis in Germany, Allende in Chile, Chávez in Venezuela, or … Jerome Cavanagh in Detroit.

Jerome Cavanagh was a white Mayor who was elected because of overwhelming black vote in his favor. The federal government, to reward and reinforce the turn left, poured vast amounts of money onto Detroit and other leftwards turning cities, resulting in his 1965 re-election. However it rapidly became apparent that had the federal government spent the money bombing these cities, rather than subsidizing social pathology in them, it might well have done less harm.

Cavanagh, or perhaps federal funding, or perhaps both, proceeded to run Detroit into the ground, which instead of exposing the economic and political bankruptcy of left wing policies, race baiting, and stirring up racial hatred, resulted in radical movement further left. In an attempt to ensure re-election, he proceeded to ethnically cleanse the white majority of out of Detroit. No right wing revolution ensued. Instead the left revolution naturally devoured its children to move further leftwards. In the next election, the black candidate and the white candidate for Mayor agreed to avoid the law and order issue, which is to say, agreed to avoid any suggestion that voting for the white man would mean less ethnic cleansing than voting for the black man. The 1967 riot never entirely stopped until the white presence in Detroit was reduced to insignificant levels. Whites in Detroit could not resist ethnic cleansing because they could not get a white candidate, white leadership, who would resist ethnic cleansing. Though the national guard theoretically moved in to quell the riots, in practice, its primary job was to protect the rioters from white “racism”.

People just could not think the thought that racially and politically motivated ethnic cleansing of whites was under way, that such cleansing was illegitimate, and that therefore any political and electoral process that could not produce leadership capable of opposing such cleansing was illegitimate. That if “law and order” was somehow not a political issue, despite being the biggest and most important conflict under way, then there was something unacceptably wrong with the political institutions and the political process, that if the issue was excluded from the normal political process, then the normal political process had to end.

28 Responses to “Boots on the ground are insufficient”

  1. With havin so much content and articles do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright infringement? My site has a lot of unique content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it appears a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my permission. Do you know any methods to help prevent content from being ripped off? I’d really appreciate it.

  2. […] Boots on the ground are insufficient « Jim’s Blog /* ') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); […]

  3. […] Boots on the ground are insufficient « Jim’s Blog […]

  4. Bill says:

    I hate articles like Hoffman’s. They are so stupid it makes my eyes bleed. Pure porn.

    And would all, or even most of the military follow orders to fire upon their fellow countrymen? Or would they switch sides and bring their equipment with them?

    If the South seceded again in order to disenfranchise blacks and Mexicans, the US military would trip over itself in glee to go kill white women and children en masse. The Union army did not switch sides. The US military is far to the left of the Union army.

    The total inability to understand propaganda which this sort of violence porn embodies is breathtaking. The US military will, indeed, never fire on “their fellow countrymen.” On the other hand, it will happily drop H-bombs on the evil, racist, terrorist, traitorous OTHER. The fact that, five minutes ago, this particular OTHER was “their fellow countrymen” is irrelevant.

    There is a reason that entertainment is full of evil white people (& evil Christians, & evil Southerners). We are already pre-demonized. There is a reason that entertainment is full of white heroes who prove their heroism by siding against evil white people. They are priming. This propaganda structure is the elite saying (and giving strong evidence for) “We are holding aces over kings.”

    How many FBI agents at Waco switched sides and brought their equipment with them? How many FBI agents at Waco burned women and children to death and were proud to do it?

    There are people in the US military who will switch sides when the US military goes to war with their own kith and kin. We call them Muslims.

    The bad guys are in charge and have been for a long time. We can wait for them to run off a cliff, and we can try not to get pulled along. But fight them? Insane.

    • jim says:

      As I said, ideas more powerful than guns. The left has long prepared for such a war, creating an army that will side with its enemies against their brothers – which is pretty much what happened in Detroit.

      • Red says:

        Jim, why did they fail with the last LA riots? It seemed clear that they planned to drive out the Koreans, yet it failed.

        • jim says:

          Asians are nonwhite. Therefore allowed to defend themselves. Only whites are racist. If white people had been sniping at blacks from the rooftops, imagine the reaction.

          • Red says:

            The Media repeatedly tried to demonize the Koreans and they also tried to shame the cops into doing something about it. The cops ignored those orders out of fear the Koreans would turn around and shoot them. Why can’t whites do the same? Cops would be just as cowardly in the face of whites shooting at them as Koreans.

            • jim says:

              Nothing remotely comparable to the demonization of whites.

              During the Katrina evacuation, a lot of communities created a path for the evacuees that prevented them from wandering into the white community and looting it. They got the full demonization treatment. Cops ignored the Koreans because they felt the rioters had it coming. Ignoring whites would have been more difficult.

  5. Jehu says:

    Once you’ve reached the stage where you can defeat trial by jury, the destruction of the hostile media will happen very naturally. The method of such is left as an exercise to the reader—but suffice it to say that wholesale who..whom nullification will greatly embolden your side’s ‘hotheads’ and ‘loose cannons’.

    • Red says:

      Have you heard of Patricia Cook? Juries vote the way they’re told to vote by the larger society.

      • Jehu says:

        Not familiar with Patricia Cook—but ‘jury lawlessness’ is a key strategy historically for the population to indicate to itself that critical mass for ‘other means’ is near at hand. Such tactics were used during Prohibition I and on a lot of other issues, going back to before there was a US. It’s just a matter of breaking the convention of ‘middle class honor’.

        Interestingly enough when I talk to conservative churchladies lately, I find them a LOT less dismissive or horrified by the idea than they were, say, 10 or 20 years ago. The formulation that the elite and powers that be have broken the rules of engagement and no longer should be protected by same is finding fertile soil. Rarely now do I hear something to the effect of…if we did that we’d be as bad as them…which was so much more common back in the 80s and early 90s.

  6. JG says:

    Then, the first course of action in any conflict is to destroy the media.

  7. elf says:

    Dear Sir,

    I don’t think Stalin meant quite how you understand ideas more important than guns. He was probably referring to his situation, where he was the Supreme Master of Manipulated Procedural Outcomes, god even. Stalin quite understood the importance of guns – The Pope? How many divisions has he got? The Pope he is referring to was able to successfully navigate and circumvent Hitler. He would not have with the Grand Koba himself. And I’m catholic and an admirer of Pacelli.

    I also don’t think you grasp what Napoleon meant vx ratio of moral to physical. The moral he refers to is the feeling of either the throttling hands or the throat feeling itself grasped. Not morality as commonly understood. That’s the morals of battle. It certainly doesn’t refer to the individual soldiers belief structures or code, which is that of a sailor on shore leave. They’ve earned the right. Mind you the same soldier or sailor might be quite religious as well. However pure morals is the code of the Pilgramage of Grace.

    Let the Progs have the Pilgramage of Grace. As they are defending the modern clerisy, it’s their natural place.

  8. Jehu says:

    The embrace of Who..whom is how the non-left of this country can win. It’ll take quite a bit more economic hardship to harden non-elite whites to this position though. As a first step, they need to embrace who…whom in the jury room, both criminal and civil.

    • Red says:

      Jehu, the problem is most people are sheep. They need leaders. I’ve spent a long time reading up on the opposition to the civil rights movement and it’s pretty clear why they failed: They had no leadership. Their leaders were either middle class sheep dogs or progressives pretending to be populists.

      If the right had any actual leaders you’d have your who vs whom all over the country and a lot 3ed world shit heads flooding back into the progressive cities.

      • jim says:

        They need leaders. I’ve spent a long time reading up on the opposition to the civil rights movement and it’s pretty clear why they failed: They had no leadership.

        I have not read up on this. Why did they have no leadership?

        I conjecture, without examining the evidence, that it might have been somewhat similar to the Revolutionary war, where it is clear that General Howe was in cahoots with George Washington. General Howe deliberately arranged for the slaughter of his own men, and made large gifts of gunpowder and shot to Washington. Thus loyalists, who looked to leadership from London and from General Howe, got hung out to dry, as General Howe’s own troops did.

      • Jehu says:

        Leadership and followers are a bit of a chicken and egg conundrum. When the sheep are pissed off enough and hardened enough to accept dropping the ‘middle class honor’ pretense and going full ‘who…whom’… they’ll get the leadership they require. Till then it’s the task of lowly noncoms in the army of reaction to spread the memes and plant the seeds. It might not be good leadership in a cosmic sense, but it’ll be adequate to the task at hand. Really good leadership could get us out of the left singularity without a massive amount of bloodshed…perhaps 10 thousands with another million or so permanently disenfranchised in mocking homage to the Civil War. Bad leadership can get you ‘victory’, but at the cost of 80% or so of the population (such leadership could get said victory with a bare 2% active support of the population). Such a struggle honestly has a high probability of going NBC. The next couple of decades could actually be more dangerous than the Cold War.

  9. Dr. Moreau says:

    Red does have a point. The left hasn’t detroited the entire nation, especially not such areas as San Francisco and New York. In New York in particular, strong crime laws, such as stop and frisk, are permitted, which in any other locale would be met with belligerent accusations of racism. The left doesn’t want to live in Detroit. It wants to live in Manhattan and San Francisco. As for St. Louis, well, it’s just as well they were a part of Detroit, and any other cities full of townies. I think the left on this matter recognizes its past faults and is instead working on a new plan, which doesn’t result in shitting in their nest. They’ll flood red states with illegal immigrants and conservative white neighborhoods in cities with angry blacks, while they quietly transform the downtowns into SWPL paradises, pushing out, with high property costs, blacks and other undesirables, who then move to Stockton or Sacramento, which used to be white working-class towns.

    • jim says:

      That is the plan.

      Police in San Francisco, close to being the leftmost city in America, are straight out of a lefty parody of right wing nazi goons. The left closes its eyes and looks the other way as the San Francisco Police do what is needful to maintain order.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        That’s interesting. The tactics of the NYPD, especially stop and frisk, are well-reported, but one doesn’t hear much about other progressive cities. I can tell you Seattle is weakly policed, but most white progressives live in the white northern part and aren’t troubled much by minority crime.

  10. Red says:

    Up until recently the left has been buying off any natural leadership the right still has. Will that continue? Or will the system of pays offs lead to some actual leadership against the progressives?

  11. Red says:

    If all this is the case, why hasn’t the left Detroit-ed the entire country yet?

Leave a Reply