Ideological Precedence

[Speaker to Animals]

You always focus on the implements of violence, namely men, but how many “wars” have been won by clever manipulation, by assassination, by alliances, by genocide, by paying of tribute, by sheer oratory. One man has often defeated armies. The sword is the last device available to the less intellectually capable.

Oh, certainly.

But at the core of the human condition, ALL civilization and complex culture, and even the remote h/g tribes, are the creations of warriors. The warriors made this, and I think it silly that we pretend otherwise. '

For instance, I really get a kick out of those congressional hearings where politicians, with lower public approval ratings than STDs, excoriate generals who typically enjoy very high approval ratings.

When this shit no longer can hold its shit together (and I suspect that day is coming sooner rather than later), then the Army is going to take over. Same as ever.

And the core of the army is the reality of the gang. A hierarchy of men who sacrifice together for the sake of the gang, and who divide the resources and loot according to the hierarchy. That's all this is. The democracy bullshit you see on television is a farce.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Army could just as easily turn you all into peasants that work for them and do whatever they want. That's what the Soviet army did to the Russians. That's what the Venezuelan army is trying to do to Venezuelans. You are blessed that the men who actually serve and lead the American armed forces believe in a higher good and sacrifice for your welfare.

I just happen to think the deal is utterly rotten for the majority of people who actually make this possible, and it's only a matter of time before they say enough is enough.

[Speaker to Animals]

This is your nascent aristocracy right here:

Due to the growing divide between civilians and those who serve, it’s from a small set of geographic regions and families with ties to the Armed Forces that our all-volunteer force is recruited.

Military service is increasingly shouldered by a small subset of the population — a “warrior caste” of multigenerational military families — and that population is shrinking. According to a Nov. 11, 2016 Pew Research report, the number of veterans has fallen by half since 1980, and as it declines, so too does the share of Americans with close ties to the military — those most likely to volunteer for service.

Roughly 80% of recruits entering the military have family members who served in the military; between 22% and 35% are children of veterans, depending on which service you look at, according to an Aug. 2 Slate analysis. Among Americans under 30, just a third have a relative with military service.

This uneven recruitment is also keenly represented along geographic lines, with a disproportionate number of new troops hailing from rural towns or the South. In 2010, rural Americans accounted for just 20% of the population, but were responsible for providing 44% of military recruits, as Task & Purpose previously reported.

https://taskandpurpose.com/vast-majorit ... ry-service


20% of the population makes America possible. It's not a random percentage either, but generally the same families serving one generation to the next. That's a warrior caste.

Meanwhile, over 70% of the remaining population is literally unfit for military service, and fears serving in the military to the point of hating the military and its veterans. That's a peasant caste waiting to happen.

The business class becomes the merchants once again. Plenty of economic power, but literally zero political power.


How do you stop this from happening??

[Smitty-48]

The ridiculous supposition that someone like me could have succeeded like I did without The Enlightenment is breathtaking. If I had lived past puberty, I would have been executed for insubordination in the military, or some mutterfukkers would have burned me alive as a rebel or a witch.

I served in the military to defend the Enlightenment, otherwise known as the Free World, against the threat of totalitarianism, so that guys like you could succeed, with the caveat that I would get a pension if I served the full tour.

Without the likes of you, there's no pension for me, so thank you for your service.

[Martin Hash]

The alliance working.

Fulfilling a contract obligation requires no thanks.

[Smitty-48]

Fulfilling a contract obligation requires no thanks.

That's exactly what I say to people who thank me for my military service.

Contract fulfilled, no need to thank me, I was paid in full and all is square.

Particularly in the context of a monarchy.

Wherein I didn't actually serve the public but rather only the Commander-in-Chief.

[Smitty-48]

Also another exhibit as to why Canada doesn't exist anymore.

Thank You For Your Service is a fundamentally American republican paradigm.

For Britons to thank the Soldiers of the Crown for serving the Queen, is fundamentally Un-British.

[DBTrek]

You must be thinking of those days before eating halal was fundamentally British.

[Smitty-48]

You must be thinking of those days before eating halal was fundamentally British.

That was British from very early on tho.

United Kingdom is 1707, Treaty of Paris 1763 is the Empire. India was Britain.

The Raj has simply come home to the England which incorporated them.

None the less, the Soldiers of the Crown have always been mercenaries.

The Gurkhas, the Sepoys, the Highlanders etc.

[Smitty-48]

Bear in mind that the British Empire actually operated as Rome did.

When you defeat an enemy, you incorporate them as mercenaries into your imperial army.

Mercenaries are a proud British tradition.

It's just Britain that is dying, in the face of inexorable America and the republic.