Saturday, June 14, 2014

The Herd or the Pack?

A few days back, in THIS post, I contrasted the herd and the pack. Herd have shepherds, and packs have leaders. We're a social animal, and we're going to belong to one or the other. Now, herds are often cozy affairs, with the shepherds keeping a eye on you and taking care of you, until it's time for the shearing or the slaughter. Packs may not be so cozy, because they consist of dangerous animals like wolves instead of sheep, and the wolves are expected to respect each other and take care of each other. The pack leader, the alpha wolf, just leads. He doesn't take care of everybody's pups, because each wolf family unit is expected to do that. He doesn't provide food for everybody, because the wolves do that themselves, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as a team. The leader's job is simple: he settles disputes within the pack that aren't sorted out invidually, and he leads the defense of the pack. That's defense, not offense. He doesn't draft young wolves to send halfway across the tundra to help fix problems that some other pack has gotten itself into. And, as I said elsewhere, if the pack leader screws up, he's not pack leader any more. Somebody else is. This contrast between the herd and the pack is developed further over at :

The Right to Bear Arms:
Securing the Tribe

“Auferre, Trucidare, Rapere, Falsis Nominibus Imperivm; Atqve, Ubi Solitvdinem Facivnt, Pacem Appellant.”—Gaivs Cornelivs Tacitvs[1]
In a multicultural society bound by submission to political correctness and “welfare,” a man must choose between living in a pack or living in a herd. Those who decide to join a herd have made the last decision of their lives, because they have decided to give the shepherd full control over their fates and minds. Those who decide to join a pack should know they risk becoming outlaws.
We who are members of the pack are the wild and free ones, and we must keep being this way. Our pack must be protected from other packs and, above all, from the Tamer, i.e., the coercive multicultural State, because nothing is more dangerous for the tribe than the State’s effort to disarm its sheep.
Nationhood today is nothing more than contributing “utility” to a debased humanoid conglomerate confined within political boundaries. In the multicultural reality in which we live, our ancestors’ history has been erased, distorted, and, finally, rewritten as a black legend. How could we be loyal to institutions when the entire sociopolitical macrostructure hates our heritage?
Let’s face reality. There is no communion. There is no community. There are just human beings subjected and forcibly unified by a State to serve the interests of alien elites. A man alone has interests, but no power to secure them. Only the small, homogeneous community, i.e., the tribe — a group of individuals united by common origins, common interests, and a common destiny — can hope to represent the interests of its individual members, and to defend the tribe is to defend the individual and his interests.
The State, on the other hand, is aware of the menace embodied by the citizens with real power (i.e., armed, prepared for defense of the tribe). The State defends itself by inventing social forums and encouraging political processes that exhaust dissent and change nothing. We can vote for any preference as long as it does not fundamentally alter the system. We are encouraged to express our political opinions, as long as they do not fundamentally challenge the ruling hegemony.
On the other hand, a sudden “popular” uprising — in other words, people led by a strongman, but not a revolution — only replaces the oligarchical-plutocratic rulers while the binding structure — the State — is maintained by dividing the tribes and uniting them in a society composed of atomized individuals.
The State gathers the livestock (society) under the slogan “Unity makes Strength,” but before it can create this false unity, it must destroy and disaggregate tribes into thousands of individualistic atoms (“Divide and Conquer”). Worse still, not only does the State destroy the tribe/community through the imposition of a hedonistic/consumerist society, but it also disarms individuals, leaving them just defenseless prey of the almighty State predator. Who could resist?
Deciding to arm ourselves against the forces that threaten us is part of our own individuality, our freedom. In simple words, it the only right that worthy men should embrace: the right to fight for his own survival.
Gun control is not about guns, it’s about control. It’s about our legitimate right to self-defense being taken away from the citizens by the State. It’s about the trampling of the phylogenetic continuity of our community.
Before you celebrate the triumph of social “progress” toward a peaceful and better world, ask yourself, in the name of your own freedom, whether or not a tribe that shares your values and responds to your interests is not a better means of securing social peace and public safety.
1. “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” – Tacitus, Agricola.
Quibcag: The illustration 
is Sonora Kashima (鹿島 そのら) of "Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3" (特例措置団体ステラ女学院高等科C3部

1 comment:

  1. This is the most intelligent, concise, correct, and objectively pure explanation of American society today that I have ever read. I have to share this with others of like mind.