There Are No Barbarians At the Gates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me add my kudos for the essay.

The more I reflect on it, the more I see its truth. Both the GFW's/liberal limpwrists and "us" want to contain the instincts of violence and brutality. They, however, believe it is 1) not the natural state of man (they haven't looked very hard at primitive cultures) and 2) the want to COMPLETELY remove the energy that is behind that instinct. To do so, as stated, is against the natural order of things. The alternative to me makes so much more sense. Channel that energy into 1) productive uses and 2) channel it toward strong defense and, in rare cases, offense.
 
Excellent essay!

One analogy that I have seen (almost certainly here at THR, but I don't remember for sure) is that of wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. The sheepdogs look a lot like wolves since they have big teeth and claws, but instead of using them to eat/enslave/oppress the sheep, they use them to defend the sheep (who are unwilling and/or unable to defend themselves) from the wolves. The look of the sheepdogs often scares the sheep, who resent the feeling of inferiority and the demonstration of their own cowardice, and they often gang up on the sheepdogs to have their claws and teeth trimmed or removed...yet the sheepdogs stay loyal to the cause.The wolves can be any group from foreign armies to the government to mere street criminals, and the sheepdogs can be our armed forces, police or (ESPECIALLY) members of the armed militia who are ready to ensure that we stay free.

We should never forget that we are the Land of the Free because of the Brave. The Brave are the sheepdogs, those who have the warrior spirit and mentality (plus a few of the tools of the trade) and have harnessed it for the good of the peaceful or helpless members of society.
 
Sam Adams said:
The wolves can be … the government … and the sheepdogs can be our armed forces, police or …

Sam, I can appreciate the sentiment behind your post, but I find this logical disconnect both amusing and illuminating.

~G. Fink
 
My favorite history professor made a statement in class one day that I will always remember:

"You can trace the beginning of the decline of every great civilization in history from the point where it became so affluent that it was no longer popular to serve in the military."

I agree with you 100%, Contol Group. Great essay.
 
Brilliant!

I add my kudos to those before me. Very well said, I salute you sir!

This one will be brought to the notice of some of my friends, crediting you fully of course, who still believe (against all evidence) that the Second Amendment only pertains to the National Guard, and who further persist in thinking that police are enough to keep the local barbarians at bay.

I can't wait until your next essay!

Esky
 
Moondoggie said:
“You can trace the beginning of the decline of every great civilization in history from the point where it became so affluent that it was no longer popular to serve in the military.â€

I would like to hear this idea explored in greater detail. When has it ever been more popular to serve in the military than today in the United States? Was it more popular during the draft-era Vietnam War? Or maybe during the Civil War?

Historically, the popularity of military service seems to decline when it is compulsory and/or when warfare becomes unusually bloody. This is more the result of poor political and tactical decisions than a decline in the “greatness†of the civilization. Of course, the resulting military defeats may well lead to such a decline.

~G. Fink
 
Last edited:
Military service has been much less popular

Consider for example the view of the public of the enlisted force from the 1880s through WWII. They were viewed as drunks and undesirables and kept from "polite soceity" at every turn. It began to turn to a somewhat slightly better image from then until early Vietnam era. From '65 until about the late 80s, the view was of unstable baby killers. Only since Panama and Desert Storm has there been a basically positive view, except with the "socially progressive" set. I'd guess right now the view of the force is as positive as it has ever been.
 
"these are the people who will fling themselves into an angry sea to save other peoples children"

with all the "i would get my but out of there" or "I'm not there to protect other people" that i read in many threads of "what would you do?" on various boards, your post really brightens my hopes in humanity. Thank you!
 
Well done. Truly impressive.

So, next step. Get it published. I'd recommend a few big newspapers and some smaller conservative ones. Here are some email addresses. Keep in mind that liberal newspapers are read by non-liberals, too.

San Francisco Chronicle Suprising enough, the editorial board prints some pretty conservative/libertarian stuff.
New York Times Aww, what the heck? :barf:
Wall Street Journal
Arizona Republic

I'm sure that other folks have some ideas of their own. I just grabbed the papers I read on a regular basis. You might also want to submit the article to magazines like the Economist, Commentary, US News and World Report, Time etc.

Lots of folks will tell you not to waste your time, but what good have they done lately? :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top