ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Mailvox: on balkanization

An informative email from someone who witnessed the most recent Balkan wars from the front row:

I am writing you because whenever somebody talks about war in Yugoslavia or I hear balkanization, I think people misuse the term. So I would like to tell my view on the subject. I am a Croat, and I was a teenager during the war.

Balkan and balkanization as a term is specific of its geography where there are lots of small valleys, and a history of Ottoman rule, which together produced clannish behavior in Balkans. Croatia has roughly third of the country that can be considered balkanized and Bosnia and Hercegovina is epitome of the term. Thus war in Croatia was regular army vs clans in valleys, and war in Bosnia was clans free for all. Clans were excellent in defending their valleys (knowledge of the terrain and faith in fellow clansmen) against other clansmen. Croatian regulars which started with no weapons, when armed easily defeated clan-people in full frontal attack over wide front. Bosnia was a mess where Croats owned half of the land (17% of people) and were supplied from Croatia, Serbs (31%) had the most guns but little land and Muslims had 43% of the people and lived in cities and near a river bordering Serbia. Since you cannot hold occupied territory without removing original inhabitants, Serbs cleared Croats from north of the Bosnia and Muslims from the river bordering Serbia and populate those areas with Serbs who fled from Croatia.

Two main things influenced Balkans: geography and Ottoman rule. Geography is very important because most of the Balkans consists of small valleys trapped by high mountains. Ottoman ruled over most of Balkans for some 300 years. Ottoman reach can be roughly correlated with Hajal line. This had consequences on characteristics of its people. Geography and Ottoman rule made people clannish, i.e. most important allegiance was to 5-20 thousands people who live in the valley. Funny enough these people referred to each other as "zemljaci", derivative of "zemlja" which means both country and soil. Up until WWII there was not a lot of movement between areas so these characteristics were preserved.

After WWII Yugoslavia embraced a toned down form of socialism and government companies and government itself grew at accelerated pace. Clannish behavior demands that if somebody of the clan gets any managerial position he is required to employ its "zemljaci" foremost. Since this was going on for some 40 years most of the people in the police, military, and other government positions were from the other side of the Hajal line. The problem was clearly evident in Croatia because roughly the third of Croatia is east of Hajal line and most of those people were Serbs (in numbers Serbs were 12% in Croatia and majority in the areas east of Hajal line). It was no wonder that Serbs participated in police and government disproportionally to their population. When socialism fell these Serbs rightly thought that if Croatia gained independence their share in government will be reduced to their population share. Sprinkle a little incentive from Milošević and support from Yugoslav army and you have a recipe for a war.

War in Croatia was vastly different than war in Bosnia. Croatia was a functioning, Catholic, almost western country albeit without any armament (one year before the fall of socialism, Croatian government gave up its weapons to Yugoslav army, as opposed to Slovenia whose socialist leaders were not traitors). Serbs were 12% of population but in defendable valleys with ample weapons and ammunition. It took several years for Croatia to rearm itself and take over Serb-controlled areas. In the final battle, evacuation corridors were established so all Serbs that felt the need to flee can leave. Proportion of Serbs in Croatia went down from 12% to 5%. After siege of Vukovar and Dubrovnik the end result was never in question, only question was will reintegration be peacefully or not.

Siege of Dubrovnik is excellent example of the war. It was a turning point in the war after which Serbs never won another battle. The crucial battle was battle for Srđ, which was a battle for a Napoleon fort overlooking Dubrovnik. Numbers are interesting: there were 880 people defending Dubrovnik (some 50 000 civilians), forces in siege had 30 000 people and 100 tanks (hard terrain meant the tanks were of no use, and most of the soldiers were forced recruits). Actual battle for the fort started on Dec 6, 1991. 600 people and two tanks were stationed to attack the fort, but only 40 soldiers of the Yugoslav army special forces were directly involved in fighting. 42 people defended the fort. After a lot of artillery on the fort, two groups advanced to the fort. The advancing tanks were quickly neutralized, but after some fighting fort was overrun, defenders were out of bullets so a broken arrow order was given. After artillery died down defenders started to sing patriotic songs so attackers were in disarray, several wounded, without knowing who shot the mortar on them. Attack was broken and attackers retreated. Fort was resupplied by carrying ammo up the 600m hill on foot and the battle was over at sunset.

War in Bosnia was different because, especially in the beginning, there were not a lot of official armies and usually there were no established frontline but each valley established paramilitary and defended itself. This is very consistent with clan theory and defenders were very efficient in defending their valleys, because they knew the terrain, they trusted their flanks, and if they did not defend they would be slaughtered like in Srebrenica valley. When it was evident that the war in Croatia was over USA gave a go-ahead to defeat Srbs in Bosnia as well, but then stopped the attack after Croatian army swept some 40km of territory in one day, fearing flight of all Serbs from Bosnia.

Key takeaways: The number of soldiers in active fighting was low on any side. Clans are best in defending their territory but ineffective in attack. If you occupy a territory you cannot hold it unless people originally there leave or die. Trust that your flanks won’t desert their position is crucial, which would mean that homogeneous nation is essential for a successful recruit army, especially for defense.

We can draw a parallel with western Europe where ghettos can be equated to valleys and people in ghettos show similar characteristics to clansmen. Croatian victory shows the path, coordinated attack on all valleys at once and established corridors for retreat of the civilians.

Labels: ,

99 Comments:

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 22, 2017 1:12 PM  

Thanks to the reader for sharing this. It really is some of the best analysis I've seen this side of some military papers. The media of course screwed it up entirely.

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 1:13 PM  

A very interesting read. Sadly I'll have to re-read it with Infogalactic handy in order to remind myself the geography and who was who.

A question I had was, was the writer's definition of balkanization meant to be, if not how it's currently used? Is it to refer to small localized clans defending their own small area?

He gave an interesting account of how the war went, but I'm not understanding how it was supposed to relate to his very first point, if it was at all.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 22, 2017 1:25 PM  

We talk too commonly about balkanization as a redrawing of political maps, without understanding the importance of clans and geography.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 22, 2017 1:25 PM  

@3. Student, I think it's right here:

"Balkan and balkanization as a term is specific of its geography where there are lots of small valleys, and a history of Ottoman rule, which together produced clannish behavior in Balkans."

Yes, it's a multi-faceted description.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft February 22, 2017 1:27 PM  

When we think of "balkanization" we think of an entity shattering and being divided into opposing factions, more or less.

He's saying that they were never a single entity to begin with, if I'm reading him correctly.

Blogger Sillon Bono February 22, 2017 1:35 PM  

I always understood Balkanization as the eventual breakup of a country made of several regions after WWI in several pieces due to rising nationalism.

But that was me.

Very informative post.

Anonymous WeAreTheWest February 22, 2017 1:36 PM  

This is why VP is the best blog.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable February 22, 2017 1:37 PM  

Great analysis of something I never understood well at all. Thanks.

Anonymous Eduardo February 22, 2017 1:38 PM  

I know it is meant to be CRO-AT but my bad Engrish made me read, CROWT. I lol'ed at myself U_U
Funny, Herzegovina is written with a C in English?

So when will the Whole Reconquista begin? Is Europe there yet? Do you guys have to breed some more? Why not simply built your own Vigilante-Punisher Commando Units and leave very clear messages that if the Foreigners do not live, there will be repercussions. Like listening to One Direction for 24 Hours or O_O BEST YET! A live reading of ALL John Scalzi Books.

"And the Snark saved Europe..."

Anonymous Eduardo February 22, 2017 1:41 PM  

Man what is up with these Bots and MINH doing a shameless PLUG at his own Blogspot, that probably is some sort of a money generating site...

Shoo! Shoo! Be gone!

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 1:45 PM  

@6. Benjamin Kraft
He's saying that they were never a single entity to begin with, if I'm reading him correctly.

But that's basically the use of "balkanization" to begin with. It's a redrawing of political lines to more accurately reflect the inherent divisions between cultures and genetics, often resulting in a more heterogenous state. (I won't call it "always resulting" because I'm not 100% sure on that.)

Thus, balkanization in the US refers to the different inherent cultures breaking up and forming their own sovereign state. It's not like East Coast is the same as the South or the Midwest after all.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 22, 2017 1:52 PM  

Last night Hunter posted a blog entry from Dreher where someone he knows who works at a Christian school saying it's scary how the boys talk alt right

I said if true and not a troll job then it means Yugoslavia times ten

Blogger Orville February 22, 2017 1:54 PM  

The artificially constructed Iraq is another example. Shia, Sunni and Kurds, yet the Neocon "democracy" exporters wanted a single country after breaking the strongman who was forcing it to hold together.

Blogger Timmy3 February 22, 2017 1:55 PM  

So the ghettos in Sweden are rioting to protect their ground and clan. Time to boot them out.

Anonymous Weak February 22, 2017 1:58 PM  

In talking with both Croats and Serbs who have emigrated to the US, there was never a homogeneous "Yugoslavia". The only reason the various clans and ethnic groups were unified was because of how much they hated Tito, their common enemy/oppressor.

My brother lived in Belgrade for a while. He said a good way for Americans to understand the region is to think of the Serbs as Oakland Raiders fans. Once he did that, the Serbs made a lot more sense to him.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 22, 2017 2:07 PM  

The very name Yugoslavia means "Land of the South Slavs", it's a term made up after WW I when the Austrians, English and Wilson couldn't figure out what to do with the area after the Turkish collapse. That was a big clue what to expect after Tito died and the USSR collapsed, although apparently lots of think tankers and smart guys in the CIA were totally surprised.

The geography also explains how the Ottomans were able to control the area for so long. Bring overwhelming force against one clan based valley, subdue it, select some new local to be the leader, impose taxes and a small garrison, then move on to the next valley. The Ottomans also on a yearly basis would choose the most fit young men to take away as future Janissaries, which had multiple effects on the locals. This system worked for centuries.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Hair February 22, 2017 2:08 PM  

Fascinating read. Thanks for posting, was in the single digits when the whole fracas started. Unsurprisingly the media screwed up the story of what really happened.

Anonymous Stephen Ward February 22, 2017 2:10 PM  

@StudentInBlue

You've grabbed the essence of the term, but the OP adds some nuance, which I think amounts to the claim that even if groups fracture along ethnic/religious lines, balkanization cannot happen unless the geography also supports those fractures. I think this is the key line: "Since you cannot hold occupied territory without removing original inhabitants..."

Which is also the most terrifying line in the OP.

Blogger pyrrhus February 22, 2017 2:20 PM  

It's amazing that the Hajnal line is so important, centuries later, even in the Balkans.

Anonymous Eduardo February 22, 2017 2:26 PM  

@14

What I find very funny is that these people go to a foreign Land, that is superbly COLD, "settle" there, DO NOTHING to even ATTEMPT to emulate the locals or accept their authority, and then RIOT...

Duuude, there is no way this is just some organic thing, there has to be a mastermind behind this, I bet if we were to go there dressed as sand-niggers ... what? why you people running?!? shiiiiet. Okay, I go dressed as a sand-nigger, which I do not look like at all... Okay, I get the Husband of my Aunt who is descendent of Sand-Niggers! And go dressed in a Burka, we both go to areas where the young meet, after all that is the place where extremists are born, then find out who are the people spreading these riotting ideas, and follow them, O_O and then from inside my Burka, I will see who is the man with the money (SOROS!) behind all of this. We arrest him, make him Listen To all Scalzi Book, causing permanent damage and voilá, Sweden is Saved from the Muslin threat...

And die at the hand of feminists...

Sorry Swedes I tried...

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 2:27 PM  

It's a redrawing of political lines to more accurately reflect the inherent divisions between cultures and genetics, often resulting in a more heterogenous state.

Made a mistake here, should be "homogenous state".

@18. Stephen Ward
You've grabbed the essence of the term, but the OP adds some nuance, which I think amounts to the claim that even if groups fracture along ethnic/religious lines, balkanization cannot happen unless the geography also supports those fractures.

That's effectively the same thing though.

Cultural differences happen along genetic and geographic lines. So to accurately say that something is splitting up alongside cultural lines, is to by essence say it's also splitting up along genetic and geographic lines.

Blogger SirHamster February 22, 2017 2:37 PM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:Last night Hunter posted a blog entry from Dreher where someone he knows who works at a Christian school saying it's scary how the boys talk alt right

I've heard a young man in 9th grade mention hating feminism. He's in a Christian private school.

Surprised me. It's not from my influence.

Anonymous Bz February 22, 2017 2:42 PM  

A most interesting read. For R2.0 speculations, it should be noted that the migrants of Europe typically, perhaps always, flock to cities, or more precisely, to departments of cities where they can rely on the surrounding population to feed and supply them.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 22, 2017 2:43 PM  

It would warm my heart to tell a Leftist, 'We don't need you; we have your children'.

Blogger frigger611 February 22, 2017 2:45 PM  

I have a friend in evolutionary biology studies who introduced me to the concept of the Hajnal Line some years ago, which I thought was fascinating. it was a theoretical line dividing Europe into east/west based on marital ages, family structures, rules of inheritance, etc.
So I had to look into it again, but can't find any indication that this line ever cut through the Balkans.
So I am looking for clarification - maybe the writer sees the Hajnal line as more of just a concept for cultural and religious differences than a real geographic demarcation?
Or is Hajal an actual different thing from Hajnal?
If someone can clear this up for me, I'd most appreciate it.

Blogger Dirtnapninja February 22, 2017 2:52 PM  

Imagine Beirut not one, but dozens, all across Europe. Thats what the coming war will look like. In North America it will be worse in some ways, because each city is going to be Beirut, and the countryside will look like the Congo Wars, at least in the beginning.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable February 22, 2017 3:00 PM  

the countryside will look like the Congo Wars

Great. Here come the machetes.

Anonymous kolekcija21 February 22, 2017 3:04 PM  

Hajnal line is a simplification, here is a more detailed one: https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/todd-traditional-family-systems-of-europe-hajnal-line-sm.jpg

Anonymous Philalethes February 22, 2017 3:07 PM  

Thanks for an interesting read. However…

It's amazing that the Hajnal line is so important, centuries later, even in the Balkans.

Well, maybe not exactly. Assuming that's what the writer means by "Hajal", according to IG the Hajnal Line falls well to the west of the entirety of South-Slavia, including its most Western corner Slovenia (the homeland of our current First Lady) – and most of Austria. So that distinction does not apply, thus making the "balkanization" of Yugoslavia an even more excellent example of how the most bitter of conflicts can occur between closely related peoples who have nearly everything in common but some particular, decisive difference.

They all (Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins) speak mutually intelligible dialects (e.g. like Bostonian and Mississippian, but more alike) of a single language, formerly known as Serbo-Croatian, though now officially regarded as separate languages. The biggest difference between the groups, as often, is religious, the Croats being Roman Catholic, the Serbs Eastern Orthodox – and the Bosniaks Muslim. (How a group of Slavs became Muslim is an interesting story in itself.)

The Catholics, naturally, write the language in the Roman script, the Orthodox in the Cyrillic. (The Bosniaks, I believe, use the Roman script; I think they are more angry with the Serbs than with the Croats.) And there are implications beyond the simple religions: the Catholics look to the West (Rome, etc.) for culture, the Orthodox to the East (Constantinople and Moscow).

I know it is meant to be CRO-AT…?

Actually, in their own language it's spelled Hrvat – of which Croat is an approximation. Trivia: I believe it was a bunch of Croat mercenaries in Napoleon's army who wore distinctive neckwear, which caught on, became known as cravatte in French, thus "cravat" in English, then further caught on, so that now the necktie is de rigueur all over the world. Only the Chinese and Indians seem to be able to get away without wearing them.

Funny, Herzegovina is written with a C in English?

Actually, it's written with a 'c' in Serbo-Croatian (Latin script; in Cyrillic it's a 'ц'), which in that script denotes a 'ts' sound. The 'z' version is the German spelling, and in fact the name derives from the German Herzog = Duke, as the territory (in the south of contemporary Bosnia-Herzegovina) first became identified as ruled by a German duke in Austro-Hungarian times.

Blogger frigger611 February 22, 2017 3:09 PM  

@28, Thank you, koleckcija. The color portions help.

My friend in EB also noted that a weighty variable considered within the concept is the matter of some cultures allowing marriage to cousins, which seems to affect IQ of course

Blogger cheddarman February 22, 2017 3:17 PM  

@29 Why assume the textbook definition of the Hajnal line is correct in terms of the exact placement of the line? The author of the article obviously knows from personal experience that differences between groups is a observable Hajnal line-like phenomenon. So quit your pontificating unless you can prove him wrong by experience, or the experience of others.

Blogger Mike X February 22, 2017 3:32 PM  

Hey, who would've thought there are fellow 'Rvati reading this blog? What's up with there not being a Croatian translation of the 16 points though? Tsk tsk tsk, lazy as ever.

Anonymous Eduardo February 22, 2017 3:44 PM  

@29

Thanks for the Information man, you know a lot about them... like a lot!

Croats>>Cravatte>>Cravats. But you know man, Chinese and Indians look silly in ties, Chinese look neckless and Indian people are just awesome if they dress as Pimps. Bollywood ...

So it is Her-TSE-govine? Yeah the pronunciation is looking russian... let me drink this polish Vodka here to see if it Improves it!

Anonymous zebedee February 22, 2017 3:45 PM  

Croatia and Bosnia were never as "balkanized" as the OP makes out, at least not until WWII when the German sponsored fascist regimes in those two states attempted to eliminate the Serbian population and the Serbs retaliated by forming partisan units with the result that both sides ethnically cleansed and were ethnically cleansed into more homogenous populations. Where my family hails from, Croats and Serbs lived side-by-side for three centuries until the 1940s when the local Croats were sent packing and the area became majority Serb. Furthermore his analysis of "Professional Army vs Clans" bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground. It all came down to who had the benefit of strong foreign benefactors. The Serbs in the Krajina were able to maintain their positions as long as they had the support of Yugoslavia. The Croatian army was only able to beat the Serbian forces after Yugoslavia was pressured into withdrawing support, the the US and Germany began supplying the Croatians with equipment and training, and NATO imposed a no-fly zone preventing the Serbs from making use of their air-superiority. To give you an idea of the quality of the Croatian Army, on the one occasion when they engaged in combat with professional forces (Canadian and French peace keepers) they got badly mauled despite having the advantage in firepower and an enemy sited in an exposed position. The outcome of the conflict mirrors that of the Vietnam War - it wasn't superior tactics that determined the winner, but who had the backing of a powerful foreign sponsor.




Anonymous torpedo February 22, 2017 3:47 PM  

> Hey, who would've thought there are fellow 'Rvati reading this blog?

Theres a lot more of "us" than youd assume, especially abroad.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 22, 2017 3:50 PM  

I know it is meant to be CRO-AT but my bad Engrish made me read, CROWT. I lol'ed at myself U_U
Funny, Herzegovina is written with a C in English?


@9 Eduardo
It's a common mistake. At first, I also pronounced "Croat" to rhyme with "stoat". Although I suppose Serbs think they're weasels anyway.

Herzegovina is now spelled with a Z in English, but in the '90s it used a C. I'm not sure how, when, or why the Z spelling became dominant... I always thought it was archaic (like "Roumania"), and came from German.

Blogger wreckage February 22, 2017 3:50 PM  

I don't think we're going to see the same kind of war, if that's what it comes to. Modern infrastructure and recent migration means that there are not deep blood-and-soil ties, and lines of retreat are excellent, respectively.

And unlike in Africa, where at least the blood-and-soil ties are often shallow, the USA has a working government and an average IQ something like 40 points higher, and most of the immigrants have a homeland to return to.

Looked at as a whole system, this all contributes to the better of the available outcomes, in the event of war.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 22, 2017 4:04 PM  

Americans are very docile and also really love their bandwagons. My guess is that eventually the "Right" narrative will have ascended enough that people look back at the recent past and wonder who the F those lunatics were who vote for and put up with all this leftist claptrap, and they cheer for whoever is pounding the hardest on the previous clown brigade and their religious totems.

I think we under-appreciate just how much of an inversion of Joe Citizen's current worldview will soon be totally in style.

It will be like people who are desperate to scrape off that last loser's campaign bumper sticker because they don't want anyone to know they once thought like that.

I no longer think it will be necessary to do a Sherman's March down every Main Street.

Anonymous 11B February 22, 2017 4:06 PM  

(How a group of Slavs became Muslim is an interesting story in itself.)

Presumably they adopted the religion of their conquerors like the Albanians did to get better treatment.

Anonymous zebedee February 22, 2017 4:08 PM  

frigger611 wrote:I have a friend in evolutionary biology studies who introduced me to the concept of the Hajnal Line some years ago, which I thought was fascinating. it was a theoretical line dividing Europe into east/west based on marital ages, family structures, rules of inheritance, etc.

So I had to look into it again, but can't find any indication that this line ever cut through the Balkans.

So I am looking for clarification - maybe the writer sees the Hajnal line as more of just a concept for cultural and religious differences than a real geographic demarcation?

Or is Hajal an actual different thing from Hajnal?

If someone can clear this up for me, I'd most appreciate it.



I'm assuming he's referring to the border areas between Croatia/Bosnia which corresponded to the border between the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires. The people may be clannish, but he's exaggerating the degree to which this was so, at least on the Hapsburg (Croatian) side. During the early Ottoman invasions of the area, these lands were depopulated. The Hapsburgs invited both Croatians and Serbian refugees fleeing the Ottomans to settle there. The settlers were granted land in return for military service to guard the frontier and more generally serve in the Hapsburg armies. The Serbs were promised religious freedom which for the most part was honoured and both groups coexisted peacefully for centuries. Through their military service they would have been integrated into European civilization as much as any Pole, Czech, Dane, or Frenchman.

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 4:16 PM  

@38. dc.sunsets

I think it's more likely that it's not just Americans, but humans in general.

As the mailer noted, only a small number of the population actually fought in those wars, and off the top of my head only a small percentage of Americans were in active rebellion during the American War of Independence.

Then again, I'm more ignorant of history than a lot of the posters here. Are there many cases where very large percentages of a population participated in a war? I'm not sure if the wars where the entire population was migrating would count or not, as the intention is to find if there is evidence of general human docility.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 22, 2017 4:18 PM  

(How a group of Slavs became Muslim is an interesting story in itself.)


@29 Philalethes
Bosniaks and Albanians are also unusually unintelligent for Europeans. Their IQ is about on par with Latin American mestizos.

I have a theory that Islam appeals to the stupid, and I haven't really seen any convincing counterexamples. (In the USA, converts to Islam are notorious for being almost entirely black.)

Anonymous zebedee February 22, 2017 4:19 PM  

wreckage wrote:I don't think we're going to see the same kind of war, if that's what it comes to. Modern infrastructure and recent migration means that there are not deep blood-and-soil ties, and lines of retreat are excellent, respectively.

And unlike in Africa, where at least the blood-and-soil ties are often shallow, the USA has a working government and an average IQ something like 40 points higher, and most of the immigrants have a homeland to return to.

Looked at as a whole system, this all contributes to the better of the available outcomes, in the event of war.


If (when!) things kick off in Europe, the conflict will look nothing like the Yugoslav civil wars. Most male citizens in Yugoslavia had military training and ready access to firearms and much heavier weaponry. They were also dispersed throughout the country in both urban and rural areas. When things go tits up in Malmo, Paris, or Brussels, the rebels will be untrained young men in urban ghettos with limited access to firearms. Think Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the Algerian War, or the Hungarian Uprising or if you want a more current example, the battles for Aleppo or Mosul.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 22, 2017 4:32 PM  

@41 Student, My understanding is the same as yours. The tea leaves I wish to read involve how the political system (and its enforcement agencies) will manage during a phase change in social perception.

Will the center (Wash DC) stop being the 8 trillion pound gorilla? Will states or regions see more autonomy and be free(r) to try different solutions to the race/class/immivasion problems?

A correspondent of mine noted that the great philanthropic foundations of the early 20th century intended to seed the brain trust needed to shepherd the increasingly large population of Americans who couldn't really "keep up," but when it turned out that this group was overwhelmingly WASP, shame and guilt rose to dominate YT (and here we are.)

The most successful whites are clearly ashamed of the riches that Nature showered on them as a consequence of Natural Selection that took place in Europe and the British Isles hundreds of years ago.

How will this shame (and guilt) change when this 50 year side-trip into monetary lunacy finally ends?

My guess is that suddenly a lot of that empathy for have-nots will evaporate right when the have-nots' addiction to wealth redistribution peaks.

This suggests that rioting & looting, put down with implacable force, will be a phase through which we'll pass.

Anonymous El Rojo February 22, 2017 4:35 PM  

While only a few will actually fight - the amount of overt or even covert sympathy and support given by the population at large is also highly important.

Blogger Azimus February 22, 2017 4:39 PM  

This is an interesting history. I was recently reading about the extremely successful Slovenian independence war which started and ended very early on in the fighting. They benefitted from a couple of things: no border with Serbia, declaring independence first (more-or-less), and finally - and I think the most important - they had a secure and independent military command structure from the Yugoslav army which ran parallel to the army command. This way they were able to stockpile arms (and keep them, unlike some of the other unfortunate regions), they were able to plan securely, and they were able to exercise effective large-scale C&C. This was also true of the successful American Revolution. Curiously I don't believe this was the case for the American South in the Civil War - if I recall Lincoln raided the telegraph office and was able to do immeasurable damage to the South's information apparatus and weed out sympathizers. The Slovenians also won the propaganda war garnering sympathy from the wider world. The war was quick and relatively bloodless. It's worth a study.

Blogger praetorian February 22, 2017 4:41 PM  

OT: Slate, you never go full mask drop.

"Until a few years ago, a small elite of writers, editors, producers, and news anchors effectively decided what views were mainstream enough to be given a hearing. This may sound sinister, but it served an important purpose."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/02/social_media_isn_t_bad_or_good_it_favors_outsiders_regardless_of_their_aims.html

/pol/ is always, always right: http://www.yaschamounk.com/about

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky February 22, 2017 4:44 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:I have a theory that Islam appeals to the stupid, and I haven't really seen any convincing counterexamples. (In the USA, converts to Islam are notorious for being almost entirely black.)

Interesting. Lindsay Lohan seems to be doing her level best to prove you right.

Blogger Stephen Ward February 22, 2017 5:20 PM  

@StudentInBlue

"Cultural differences happen along genetic and geographic lines. "

Not always. What geographic lines distinguish between East and West Cleveland? It's all on the same plain. What geographic lines distinguish any city from its ghettos?

Anonymous Engineer February 22, 2017 5:22 PM  

@39 -- The area now known as Bosnia-Herzegovina had three major religious sects at the time of the Ottoman conquest. My understanding is that the Catholics remained Croats, the Orthodox remained Serbs, and the group that both the Catholics and the Orthodox considered to be heretics became Muslims.

A similar phenomenon helped the Arab conquest of the Fertile Crescent during the seventh century. Much of the population did not agree with the Nicæan creed, and had been oppressed by the Orthodox hierarchy for centuries. These "heretics" were especially likely to convert to Islam.

Blogger frigger611 February 22, 2017 5:23 PM  

@40 Zebedee,

thank you, yes I agree that the Habsburg/Ottoman divide makes much more sense, and likely this divide has so many similarities to the Hajnal Line that the two get mixed up, or maybe morphed into one.

Or maybe something more sinister - cultural appropriation!

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 5:41 PM  

@49. Stephen Ward
Not always. What geographic lines distinguish between East and West Cleveland? It's all on the same plain. What geographic lines distinguish any city from its ghettos?

I'm not sure about Cleveland as a city rather than some nasty rumors I've heard about it, so my best guess would be that there's a genetic line.

That said, I was intending for that line "cultural differences happen along genetic and geographic lines" to be closer to "genetic and/or geographic".

Although if we wish to be specific, perhaps pedantic, were we talking about geography as if it referred only to larger landmarks such as valleys, hills, and mountains? If I live on one end of the plains and you live on the other, you still would not live on "my" end of the plains, and that is a difference.

The geographical difference isn't necessarily about the features, but about the relative proximity. Hence the diversity + proximity = war.

As the topic states, "We can draw a parallel with western Europe where ghettos can be equated to valleys and people in ghettos show similar characteristics to clansmen." It's not that there's a natural land feature marking said ghettoes separate from the more upscale area, but it's more the fact that it's "their land".

Blogger Stephen Ward February 22, 2017 5:55 PM  

@41

"...only a small percentage of Americans were in active rebellion during the American War of Independence..."

3% if I remember correctly. The more recent modern wars have the best chance of involving the largest majority of the population in the actual fighting, but the percentage is never going to be that large. Half the population (women) won't fight, very young boys won't fight, old men won't fight. Assuming 6 kids/family (true through most history) something less than 1/8 of the population is even available for war. WW2 for example, which represents a massive mobilization effort on the part of the US gov, only had (16.1 / 139.9) = 8.69% of the population employed in the armed forces during the war. And most of those 16 million weren't shooting anything.

Blogger Mr. Excitement February 22, 2017 6:08 PM  

This account reminds me of Selco and his prepper blog from Bosnia during the war.

Anonymous Joe February 22, 2017 6:24 PM  

LOL, one man's "evacuation corridors" are another man's "forced at gunpoint to leave land his family has been on for centuries".

And no, the Serbs in Croatia didn't revolt because they feared a loss of power. They revolted because prior to being 12% of Croatia's population, they were 30% of it. Funny how death camps and mass genocide can reduce a minority's population to the extent it has in Croatia.

What a garbage, one-sided piece of shit letter.

Blogger Sheila4g February 22, 2017 6:30 PM  

Fascinating account. FWIW, accords with my memories of the people and area (was never a resident, but frequently drove through and visited various parts of then Yugoslavia). While Belgrade was a nice city with far more consumer goods available than in Bulgaria, the difference between areas was still stark when getting off the car train in Croatia near the Austrian border. That part of Croatia was far more similar to Austria than Serbia. Similarly, driving along the southern coast from Italy into Trieste the difference became starker as one drove further south. I noticed similar differences driving from the Czech Republic through Slovakia - similar area but poorer, more rural, more stereotypically "slavic" rather than European.

From other accounts I've read, despite all the various similarities and the years of social and cultural integration (forced and otherwise), people quickly separated into their various ethnies, despite numerous "mixed" marriages and families. How predictive that is for the US is open to question.

Blogger Thurston Pilgrim February 22, 2017 6:32 PM  

Well, this goes on to further advance the idea that the invading hordes will have to be removed or killed down to single digit percentages if Europe is to prevail. There has to be a ton of empty real-estate for them to return to by now.

Blogger frigger611 February 22, 2017 6:35 PM  

@50 Joe

You are describing a sad and tragic situation of being forced off your land, yet lives are spared. You would prefer a ditch and bulldozers for cornered families?

Sun Tzu recommended leaving an avenue for escape for one's enemy. This, to reduce the misery of war. For both sides.

Blogger frigger611 February 22, 2017 6:36 PM  

My apologies, comment directed to @55

Anonymous Okie February 22, 2017 6:39 PM  

This is so much like the descriptions i have read of Syria before the war. A dense nest of valleys or Oases in the arid areas, which are highly clan separated. this valley might be Greek christian the next might be Druze and next Sunni and next Alawai and next Aramaic,still speaking the language Jesus spoke.
The Coastal plain north of Lebanon gave Assad Alawais a bunch of people, to arm up but where the valleys in this comment had 500 yrs of Muslim divide and rule, these valley haven't been unified since the 600's BC when the Neo-Assyrians fell. or maybe even before then remember the Egyptians and Hittites fought over this land before the bronze age collapse around 1200 bc I read a book decades ago by a Journalist traveling from Alexandretta to Beruit who wound up being kidnapped in Beirut
and the name is totally appropriate.
Tribes With Flags: A Dangerous Passage Through the Chaos of the Middle East, by Charles glass

Anonymous BBGKB February 22, 2017 7:07 PM  

I no longer think it will be necessary to do a Sherman's March down every Main Street.

Pinochet's Helicopter over wall street will be enough.

Anonymous RA February 22, 2017 7:32 PM  

Have to remember any large scale war fighting is going to involve a good deal of logistics and that requires its own set of manpower and financing.

A slight aside: @50
I'm recalling the Arian Heresy of the 4th century. That was overcome by the Church, but I'm certain that wasn't complete, that there must have been numerous pockets of Arian and Arian-related belief that lasted thru the subsequent centuries. One or more of these may have still been around for Mohammed to take advantage for his own ends. Speculation, of course, since documentation from that era is rather sparse, but remember Islam doesn't deny the existence of Jesus, while they do deny his divinity as well as the trinity.

Blogger heyjames4 February 22, 2017 7:38 PM  

In north america, the thing about safe lines of retreat to homelands will be difficult for some tribes: https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html

Blogger Johnny February 22, 2017 7:42 PM  

>>Only a small number of the population actually fought in these wars.

The hardware that is now available greatly reduces the need for a large number of combatants. Most people who participate in a war do it by funding the combatants.

These "mass armies" of amateurs can easily be beaten by a professional army if the enemy is willing to be ruthless enough. The Romans who took over everybody more or less, the horse warriors who dominated the peasant armies in Europe way back when, Sherman's march to the sea, Hitler's ferocious behavior in Eastern Europe, etc..

In the Balkans one group could easily take out the other if properly armed and they were willing to do mass murder or mass eviction.

Anonymous Grinder February 22, 2017 8:00 PM  

The Balkan wars were the deliberate destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbs were the designated bad guys from the start because of their traditional ties with Russians. The objective then was, as now, to weaken and isolate Russia by neutralizing states friendly to Russia, not because they were in any way a threat to the west. Russia's crime was the same as now - refusal to submit to the NWO and to rather remain independent.
At the time, simmering nationalist tensions were stoked from ultras among Croatia's diaspora especially. And now, Croatians who aren't as dim as your letter writer seems to be, must see how their living standards have been eroded. Communist Serbs are long gone but have been replaced by even greedier elites. Their independence? Oh yes, free to march in lockstep with Brussels dictates and compelled to supply troops for Afghanistan and new mobilization to counter Russia as part of its NATO commitment. Croatia and Slovenia have been shanghaied into the NWO apocalypse army that the globalists are readying to restore Russian inhabited Crimea to puppet Ukraine because arbitrary Soviet era political boundary adjustments are sacrosanct when they are to Russia's detriment. The struggle is between nationalists and globalists. Brother wars are how they have got things this far.

Blogger praetorian February 22, 2017 8:04 PM  

Sorry Vox, more OT: Are the Rothschilds throwing Podesta under the pizza delivery van?

https://twitter.com/LdeRothschild/status/834293947690262528

BEST TIMELINE.

Anonymous Grinder February 22, 2017 8:13 PM  

The best military lesson from the Balkan wars is that while terrain can be readily defensible, it is a losing strategy to just hold some strategic spot after grabbing some territory. Serbs dug in and then halted while Croatians built up their forces until they launched their blitzkrieg advance through concentration of forces on defensive positions like Germans developed in late WWI. When a defender sees an overwhelming force coming his way, the defender will withdraw rather than hold a strong defensive point which will result in his annihilation which is how Croatia concluded its independence war. I expect that Ukraine' handlers are considering the same tactic to recover terrain lost to Novorussiya which will be perilous for the world.

Blogger Johnny February 22, 2017 9:08 PM  

>>The struggle is between nationalists and globalists.

Yeah. Plus the Russians created conditions that caused some (((minority groups)) to depart. A background irony is that the Ukrainians are if anything more against some (((favored groups))) than the Russians. And they have their reasons for it.

Blogger Stephen Ward February 22, 2017 10:00 PM  

@52

Just saw the response.

In Cleveland, the difference is the usual genetic one for the USA. When I referred to geography I did mean mountains etc. Areas w/o those natural barriers tend to require huge distances for disparate groups to live peaceably next to each other. without those barriers when the groups do come into comflict one will eliminate the other fairly quickly.

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 10:43 PM  

It is obvious that this type of conflict will be expressed in the cities more intensely. It is already the case on a lower level.

In Syria, the leaving of an escape route was sabotaged by Isis fighters bushwacking refugees.

That needs to be taken into account.

Blogger Lazarus February 22, 2017 10:45 PM  

Sorry, the cities in the US is my unexpressed assumption.

Anonymous PinochetsChopperPilot February 22, 2017 11:29 PM  

My assumption will be, if large scale civil unrest breaks out in the US, and the Right is in control, most of the early unrest will be in the cities, but will be stopped immediately by marshal law. The most blood spilled, will be in the surburbs of DC, NJ(NYC), Chicago and some of Miami and Houston, where there is multi-party diversity--and high rates of blacks near whites and hispanics. The rest of the country (read: white) will eat breakfast and read about "the war going on".

Cities will go under complete military occupation, and I suspect, LA and the Inland Empire (both SB and Riverside) will be taken over ("protected") by Mexico while the govt is busy separating blacks from everyone else, everywhere else.

Blogger Student in Blue February 22, 2017 11:31 PM  

@69. Stephen Ward

Just remember that relative proximity is based on how capable the people are of movement.

If the people in the ghettos mostly don't have cars and can't afford to really go anywhere else, then their relative proximity is lower than the country who likes to, and does, vacation in your country often.

Then again, visiting someplace is different than living there. Sadly that's a lesson refugees don't take into account.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones February 22, 2017 11:39 PM  

@62 the Roman and Byzantine churches never did, and can never stamp out Arian theology, because it is written "I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Everywhere that the Saints read Scripture with an honest heart, they see Truth, and they forsake idolatrous ways.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 22, 2017 11:39 PM  

I'm reading "My War Gone By" about the Balkan wars and it was no picnic and few angels to be seen.

The author generally a globalist utopian wisher and symp of the Bosnians, but all in all an informative read

Defensible borders with strategic depth are your friends

Blogger Martin February 22, 2017 11:48 PM  

A winter city without electricity is a coffin made of concrete.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2017 12:21 AM  

My guess is that suddenly a lot of that empathy for have-nots will evaporate right when the have-nots' addiction to wealth redistribution peaks.

I concur. A lot of that "empathy" is the cheap-ass form that comes from being able to give away other people's stuff. Other people's money, other people's jobs, other people's neighborhoods, and (maybe most especially) other people's political power...

Most of the liberals advocating for multiculturalism don't directly experience the downsides, but as cultural and capital decay continues, they will start to feel it because there won't be anyone else's stuff left to give away, and the vibrants will still be clamoring for more.

This is the year we see elite liberal Whites chucked from power in the Democrat party. Last election we already saw working class liberal Whites defect from the dems after being chucked out of their jobs and having their communities pilfered.

The majority of liberals are not actually suicidal, they just lack the cognitive ability to predict cause-and-effect or to recognize it second-hand. Most of them however (the non-SJW kind), are perfectly capable of realizing when they were personally kicked in the crotch (actually, I think even the SJWs recognize it, they just can't admit it, even to themselves. That's part of what makes them so crazy when reality intrudes).

The phase change may have been a long time coming, but I think it will be a short time finishing once it really does start. Like you implied with the have-not's insistence on gimmiedats peaking, every step of progress by the Alt-Right is going to be met by Ctl-Left responding in a way guaranteed to turn more people to the Alt-Right. It'll be a chain reaction.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2017 12:46 AM  

The interesting thing about American geography is that there are almost no defensible borders for any large groups. California and the Southwest wasn't defensible for the Mexican in the 1840's, it will be even less defensible by them in the 20xx's. Likewise, the South wasn't defensible in the 1860's and, regardless of Nate's Armory, the geography is no more defensible today. And the North wasn't defensible either, as Lee's incursions show.

And the Blue Archipelago of urban liberals scattered across the continent? No need to even besiege them, they'll starve themselves.

All this is the reason I don't think a lasting partition of the US will happen. I think instead it will be a combination of deportations, cleansing, and assimilation/reservations. Nobody has defensible borders, so a potential enemy can't really be allowed to exist. Yankees and Southrons will figure out how to get along with each other (probably with significantly increased federalism), and Westerners will join in. Mexicans, Muzzies, dot-Indians and east-africans will be sent home. Orientals will be allowed to stay because they're generally not troublemakers. American Blacks... I think they'll get some sort of reservations. Areas they're allowed to make whatever mess of they want, so long as they don't bother anyone outside.

And it won't come cheap. That's my prediction.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 1:03 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 1:06 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:The interesting thing about American geography is that there are almost no defensible borders for any large groups. California and the Southwest wasn't defensible for the Mexican in the 1840's, it will be even less defensible by them in the 20xx's.
Simply false. Maybe it helps my perception that I live on one of the defensible borders, but the Cascades form VERY defensible borders for California, Western Oregon and Washington. The Siskyou country effectively separates California from the Northwest.
The Inter-mountain West (Utah, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Eastern Ore and WA) is also quite defensible, between the same Cascades/Sierra Madre and the Rockies.
Colorado and New Mexico on their own are also very physically defensible, if anyone cares.

The only reason Mexico was unable to defend California is that the territory was essentially without population. In 1846, the non-Indian population of CA was about 8,000. Vast distances without roads and without supply made it impossible to defend, not the terrain.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 1:07 AM  

Sorry, Sierra Nevada. Sierra MAdre is what they call the mountain range in Mexico

Anonymous AlexT February 23, 2017 1:38 AM  

Bosnian Serb here. We don't have clans and marriage is forbidden within 9 generations.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 23, 2017 2:13 AM  

@50 Engineer

The area now known as Bosnia-Herzegovina had three major religious sects at the time of the Ottoman conquest. My understanding is that the Catholics remained Croats, the Orthodox remained Serbs, and the group that both the Catholics and the Orthodox considered to be heretics became Muslims.

The dualist so-called "Bosnian Church". The weird thing, at least according to Wikipedia, is that the invading Ottomans called them "Christians" but the Catholics and Orthodox "kaffirs". Clearly, there was some favoritism going on, and that the Turks found the Bosniaks more like themselves than the Croats and Serbs.

I wonder if there was anything similar happening with the Albanians.

A similar phenomenon helped the Arab conquest of the Fertile Crescent during the seventh century. Much of the population did not agree with the Nicæan creed, and had been oppressed by the Orthodox hierarchy for centuries. These "heretics" were especially likely to convert to Islam.

I've even heard it claimed that the Koran was written by a rabbi and a Nestorian monk, or even that Islam is basically a repackaged viral strain of Nestorianism.

Anonymous Discard February 23, 2017 2:15 AM  

80. Snidely: About 3000 of that non-Indian population in 1846 California was American and a much smaller number of Europeans. In the north, the Americans simply proclaimed themselves independent from Mexico and it was done. The only organized fighting was in the south, and that was on very small scale. 5000 Mexicans, mostly peons and half of them female, had little chance against 3000 White men in the prime of life and the sort who were willing to cross the continent.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 23, 2017 2:16 AM  

Bosnian Serb here. We don't have clans and marriage is forbidden within 9 generations.

@82 AlexT
My understanding is that Muslims are almost universally more tolerant, or even encouraging, of inbreeding (mainly first-cousin marriage) than Christians. In fact, I suspect it accounts for most of the 10-point IQ disadvantage that Muslims have with ethnically equivalent Christians.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 23, 2017 2:23 AM  

The interesting thing about American geography is that there are almost no defensible borders for any large groups.

@78 Jack Amok
Europe looks like it was designed by a war gamer, with very interesting coastlines, mountain chains, rivers, and islands, practically begging for multiple self-contained countries.

The United States, by contrast to Europe, is very boring from that standpoint. There's nothing much aside from the Mississippi, the Appalachians, the Rockies, and the Cascades/Sierra Nevadas, all of which are very long. And the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence, which does indeed help account for why Canada is separate from the USA. But regardless, nations on the North American continent (and South America, and Africa, come to think of it) would be expected to be messier and not have such nice natural geographic barriers separating them than countries in Europe in general.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2017 3:10 AM  

Snidely, I live in the Cascade foothills in Western Washington. Snoqualmie pass and Steven's Pass would appear to form boundaries...

Yet they don't. The Cascades run for about 1,000 miles. Force your way across at any point (the Columbia gorge? Southern Oregon? Come through the gap between the Cascades and the Sierra's in Northern CA?) and you have the rest at your feet. Perhaps western Washington could make a stand with the Cascades and the Columbia as the borders, but what sort of rump nation could function in those small confines? The liberal Democrats led by Jay Inslee? They'd run out of energy and ideas within ten years, probably less. A more Alt-rightish regime would have a better chance of lasting, but they'd also have a better chance of allying with a larger Western American, which would ally with an even larger uncucked America.

There are valleys in Cascadia that could defend themselves a la what Vox's emailer describes (I live in one), but the people who would defend it are more likely to join in with the folks who are most likely to be running the outside world.

Maybe it's more accurate to say the combination of geography and genetics don't favor balkanization of the US, but ultimately, I just don't see people with different political agendas successfully holding geographical regions within the current US borders.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 3:20 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:Yet they don't. The Cascades run for about 1,000 miles. Force your way across at any point (the Columbia gorge? Southern Oregon? Come through the gap between the Cascades and the Sierra's in Northern CA?) and you have the rest at your feet.
Which is rather exactly what a defensible border is. You have to defend maybe 10 passes to completely defend Western OR and WA from invasion.
North Cascades, Stevens, Snoqualmie, White, Columbia gorge, Mt Hood, Detroit, Santiam, Willamette, Siskiyou.
Of course, you'd have to take lower BC too, but they wouldn't even defend themselves.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 3:26 AM  

The "gap" between the cascades and the Sierras is the area around Mt Lassen, one of the ruggedest landscapes on the face of the earth.
A platoon with a mortar could defend Siskiyou pass. There's no place to hide and nowhere to go except the highway.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2017 3:28 AM  

The United States, by contrast to Europe, is very boring from that standpoint.

Yes, though partly it is because the european invasion wiped out Vox's feather-not-dot ancestors. Europe is technically a protrusion of the larger Eurasian continent. Most of Eurasia is... open territory? The same mostly uninteresting terrain you mentioned. But even the bulk of Europe is indefensible terrain. From the Bay of Biscay to the Ural mountains is one large plain with only a few mostly inconsequential rivers as obstacles. Go to Minsk some time. An old Belarusian tradition is for brides on their wedding day to visit a memorial to fallen soldiers. Their sons will need to die defending the flat plain that is Belarus...

Pre-Columbian America was similar, tribes being pushed out of one area and forced to push another tribe out of their adjacent area (or else perish). The big difference as I see it is that Americans are the New Romans in the sense that we don't want any threats on our borders. Any time we sense a near-by threat, our instinct is to go conquer that threat and impose a more friendly regime. It doesn't always work of course, but it remains our modus operandi.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2017 3:42 AM  

Oh, the Siskiyous are definitely rugged (I am writing a near-future novel, which I'm sure will be too lame for CH to publish, but the protagonist returns to his western Washington home after "fighting the Californians on the Siskiyous front") - I ownb a book about the Southern-Pacific's Shasta Division (that's railroad talk for you Millennials) where veterans of building every other railroad line in the country said the Siskiyous were the toughest roadbuilding they ever saw. I grew up in that area and am quite familiar with it (I have a family map to a lost gold mine in the Forks of the Salmon area, if you're ever interested in some prospecting...) and have backpacked over a good portion of it. My knees know quite well how rugged it is.

But who's going to hold it? The ethnic make-up of the people living in the PNW who might be inclined to hold the Siskiyou Front, it's the same ethnic makeup most likely to be running things east of the Mountains. My novel, such as it is, has the "Californians" as really the Mexifornians.

The genetics and geography don't line up. The places with defensible geography have common genetics on both sides of the geographic divide.

Anonymous zebedee February 23, 2017 6:38 AM  

AlexT wrote:Bosnian Serb here. We don't have clans and marriage is forbidden within 9 generations.

I can't agree with your first assertion - Slava is nothing if not clannish. That said, Vox's correspondent overstated it.

Anonymous zebedee February 23, 2017 7:05 AM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:I'm reading "My War Gone By" about the Balkan wars and it was no picnic and few angels to be seen.

The author generally a globalist utopian wisher and symp of the Bosnians, but all in all an informative read

Defensible borders with strategic depth are your friends


Possibly the best book on the Balkan wars is Trusted Mole by Milos Stankovic as it paints a particularly vivid picture of the conflict. https://infogalactic.com/info/Trusted_Mole

Blogger Dane Prywatne February 23, 2017 8:56 AM  

@65 "Russia's crime was the same as now - refusal to submit to the NWO and to rather remain independent." now that is one-sided argument .. how about "being murderous imperialistic bastards who mass-murdered populations of multiple countries, extracted their wealth for hundred years & finally always reverting to use of force"

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 1:08 PM  

The founding stock of the NW is old-line midwest Yankees. Doc Maynard, one of the founding fathers of Seattle, was also a founding father of Cincinnati (he left town after a very nasty divorce). The immigrant contingent was largely Norwegian (in the towns) and Finns.
But yes, there is a very deep encrustation of us other folks, whose families came here for jobs. When I was a kid growing up in Seattle, there were literally no Black folks. Lots of Asians and Indians, but no Blacks. Same with Portland. Now they're everywhere.

Anyway, to the point, Mossbacks may be quiet and go along a lot too much, but we're shit heads, we love to scrap and we love our guns.
As Henry Stamper said, "Never give a inch!"

Blogger VFM #7634 February 23, 2017 1:43 PM  

@Jack Amok

But even the bulk of Europe is indefensible terrain. From the Bay of Biscay to the Ural mountains is one large plain with only a few mostly inconsequential rivers as obstacles. Go to Minsk some time. An old Belarusian tradition is for brides on their wedding day to visit a memorial to fallen soldiers. Their sons will need to die defending the flat plain that is Belarus...

A fair point. Places like Belarus, Poland, etc. have the misfortune of being in indefensible terrain between larger countries, but not terribly wealthy to obtain high economic clout (like, say, the Netherlands), and getting fought over that way. I wonder what parts of the United States would end up in that sort of situation. They'd have to be between two more powerful nations/empires (like Germany and Russia), rather than having a powerful nation on one side, in which case they might just be dominated by that nation.

The genetics and geography don't line up. The places with defensible geography have common genetics on both sides of the geographic divide.

If shitlibs continue cheesing out everybody, I don't think common genetics will in any way prevent wars. I think the ex-Yugoslav groups had more or less common genetics too.

I can't help but look at a county map of the 2016 election. In the Pacific Northwest, the only places that voted for thecunt, and showed no swing toward Trump, were 1) the Puget Sound area, 2) the Portland area, 3) counties with universities, and 4) resort areas full of rich assholes of the type that's very common in Colorado. Plus, special mention to Mormon counties, who swung hard away from Trump but not usually enough to throw it to thecunt.

I'm not sure that the folks in the rest of Washington and Oregon and down into Northern California will be willing to submit themselves to shitlib rule if they can help it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 23, 2017 1:58 PM  

Dane Prywatne wrote:how about "being murderous imperialistic bastards who mass-murdered populations of multiple countries, extracted their wealth for hundred years & finally always reverting to use of force"
Name a single country in the position to do so that has not behaved exactly like that.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2017 9:03 PM  

Snidely, there are even Blacks starting to show up in ones and twos in the very, very rural parts of King County. Section 8 I assume. I almost feel sorry for them - they don't look comfortable and they gotta know if TSHTF they don't have much time to get somewhere else.

You're not kidding about the increase in vibrants. Even in the 20 years I've lived here, it's been amazing. The descendants of the drunken lumberjacks who founded the place have only recently begun to experience the "proximity" part of D+P = W. We're behind other parts of the country in that respect, but doing our best to catch up.

Liberalism will fade accordingly, I think. And Washington, unlike CA, is rather heavily armed.

VFM #7634:

I expect a lot of shitlibs will stop being shitlibs when they can't do it on someone else's dime any longer. Not all of them, there will be the dead-enders, but I don't expect even half the white liberals of today to stay that once the feds run out of liquidity. Plus, if we're right about the whole r/K selection thing, the rabbits will hide when the wolves start showing their teeth.

Bottom line, I don't believe the breakup of the US will be balkanization. I think maybe post-Reconquista Spain is the worst case, a federation united under one "crown" that recently expelled unwanted masses yearning to take our shit.

Blogger szopen February 24, 2017 2:02 PM  

BOsnia was more fucked up than that. There were criminal gangs going on, because at first "normal" people had not wanted to fight, there were volunteers from the Serbia and Croatia and from Islam world (who didn't give a f* about local conditions). There was at least one city which was not attacked because it was centre of local black market. In some areas Serbs were supposedly paid by Croats to shell Muslims, while still being technically at war.

It was more war of thugs, than war of clans.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts