Everything Or Nothing

Everything Or Nothing

I have long thought about writing this post. A part of what restrained me was that I couldn’t find an appropriate topic or news event to demonstrate my point.

At this point, I don’t think that’s necessary.

I see online and in real life people talk about their principles, beliefs, convictions, and what not. However, when push comes to shove and their enemies threaten political violence, they buckle and cave. They yield and submit.

This is practically the history of the relationship between Mainstream Conservatism Inc. and the Left. The Left attacks something “valued” by conservatives. Conservatives bellow and wail and cry bloody murder, but once the Left escalates to the point of violence, whether it’s Antifa, state law enforcement, or the courts, conservatives concede, then redrawn the line in the sand, and pretend they never gave in.

Dalrock has documented this on his website for years, how tradcons have to engage in profound denial in order to believe that anything has fundamentally changed since the Sexual Revolution.

Aside from perhaps Trump and superficial election victories, the Left hasn’t the foggiest concept of defeat. Putting aside the standoff at the Bundy Ranch, they don’t know what it’s like to have to back off in the face of escalation from the Right that could turn out badly for them.

The only thing that will arouse conservatives to talk of outright armed rebellion is the Second Amendment. I think this is purely psychological; as Americans, it’s been ingrained into our minds that gun rights are the last stop to a dictatorship. Talk of restriction guns immediately triggers something in their hind-brain that makes it unacceptable.

Had they shown that kind of backbone on just about every other issue they claim to care about, imagine how different things might be. It shows the power of an “all-in” mentality. All or nothing.

Which brings me to the history lesson for today taken from two similar incidents in two separate Crusades involving a siege of the same city (Jerusalem), with completely different results for the defenders who had adopted opposing mindsets.

During the First Crusade, it was the Europeans besieging Jerusalem. The traditional rules of warfare at that time dictated that if a city opened its doors to an attacking force, the inhabitants would be spared. But if they did not, they would be put to the sword.

And that is exactly what happened when the Crusaders breached the walls on the third day.

Atrocities committed against the inhabitants of cities taken by storm after a siege were the norm in ancient and medieval warfare. The Crusaders had already done so at Antioch, and Fatimids had done so themselves at Taormina, at Rometta, and at Tyre. However, the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may have exceeded even these standards. Historian Michael Hull has suggested this was a matter of deliberate policy rather than simple bloodlust, to remove the “contamination of pagan superstition” (quoting Fulcher of Chartres) and to reform Jerusalem as a strictly Latin Christian city.

Almost a century later, it was Saladin besieging the Crusade defenders inside Jerusalem. After nearly a week, a section of the wall was destroyed. However, the defenders fought so savagely Saladin’s forces withdrew.

Still, the situation for the defenses was grim:

The crusaders were unable to push Saladin’s troops back from the breach, but at the same time the Muslims could not gain entrance to the city. Soon there were only a few dozen knights and a handful of remaining men-at-arms capable of bearing arms and defending the wall; no more men could be found even for the promise of an enormous fee.

A knight named Balian was leader of the defense force. He met with Saladin and offered to surrender the city. Saladin wanted it to be unconditional, which meant no terms could be demanded or agreed upon.

What was the response?

Balian threatened that the defenders would destroy the city along with the holy places, slaughter their own families and the 5000 Muslim slaves, and burn all the wealth and treasures of the Crusaders.”

In other words, he went all in. Everything or nothing.

Consider his circumstances. His army was reduced to a few. His position was totally untenable. The loss of the city was guaranteed. And yet he would not yield. And it made sense. If they couldn’t walk free, what was the point of leaving the city behind for their enemies to take?

Moreover, it gave him a bargaining tool that the previous defenders did not have. The outright destruction of the city was something the Crusaders invading it before did not have to worry about.

Saladin did. And that’s why he caved.

Saladin, who wanted to take the city with as little bloodshed as possible, insisted that the Crusaders were to unconditionally surrender but could leave by paying a ransom of ten dinars for men, five for women and two for children; those who couldn’t pay would be enslaved.

Balian told him that there were 20,000 in the city who could never pay that amount. Saladin proposed a total of 100,000 dinars to free all the 20,000 Crusaders who were unable to pay. Balian complained that the Christian authorities could never raise such a sum. He proposed that 7,000 of them would be freed for a sum of 30,000 dinars, and Saladin agreed.

The 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven starring Orlando Bloom and Eva Green was historically inaccurate in many ways, but this one scene did a commendable job of showcasing the resolve of the Christians within Jerusalem’s walls. Whatever we may have to say about their moral character, contextualized within the norms of Medieval warfare, cowards they were not.

So unlike the defenders a century before, Balian walked out alive and free, as did thousands of Crusaders, because he was willing to go all the way.

The moral of the story, and the history lesson is clear: if someone escalates beyond the point of no return, if they cross a line for you, you either go all in or you shouldn’t bother in the first place.

If your enemies know in advance that, should they attack you, you will meet their action with greater action and continue until either you are destroyed or they are defeated, they will choose their battles carefully, or find another person to harass.

If somebody knows destroying your life will result in destruction of their own life in the process, they’ll be hesitant to do so.

There are people in this world all around us who thrive on taking advantage of those who they know won’t go as low as they, fight as long as they, and risk as much as they. They fear those who will take it all the way.

It’s why people tend to not mess with the poor low-life drunk with no money, terrible credit, and who lives in an RV, but they’ll be more than happy to mess around with the respectable upper middle class man with a spotless driving/criminal record, high-status career, a small nest egg, and a house paid off. The first guy has nothing to lose, so he’ll take it all the way even if it lands him in jail; he’ll suffer, but so will his enemy.

The second guy won’t, fearful of losing what he has; what he doesn’t realize is his unwillingness to do so makes vulnerable to the very loss he fears.

If you’re all bark and no bite, you might as well have no bite at all.

As a former IRA member (border campaign veteran) remarked in an interview with BBC forty years after the conflict had ended, “in a war you either give it all you got or you should get out of the game, really.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in doom and gloom, general political thoughts and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Everything Or Nothing

  1. Gunner Q says:

    Having nothing to lose is a miserable way to live, though. Saladin believed Balian’s threat to kill his own family because he knew that in that situation, Balian’s family truly would have been better off dead than captured by Muslims.

    Social Justice is a frustrating enemy because they don’t understand cause and effect like Saladin. We who keep society running know what will happen when we’re gone but the SJWs in power cannot see past their appetites of the moment. So, we try to keep things running while being punished for doing right.

    Why would we issue ultimatums in that situation? The SJW would simply call our bluff, destroy us for open opposition and then be honestly surprised when the system collapses the next day. Neither can we quit; we’d just punish ourselves as well as them.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      It means you pick your battles very carefully and avoid needless confrontation, as well as situations where a confrontation is likely to occur. If you’re a man who is not willing to submit to certain acts against you, then do everything possible to prevent the scenario from playing out.

      As Johnny Martin in Band of Brothers put it to a fellow recruit during their paratrooper training, “don’t give him no excuses.” Don’t give SJWs excuses to pick a fight with you. That means not drawing attention to yourself.

      Like

  2. The ‘all in’ mentality is crucial to the resolve of defending civilization, but it must be tempered with strategy. I could declare my own independence, withdraw my financial support from the state, and gear up to shoot anyone who came to deprive me of my rights, but this would not only work out badly for me; the movement for liberty as well would suffer. So what to do?

    At the very least, every man who cares about his family, his culture, and his country must have an ‘all in’ switch he can flip if the situation demands it. The trick is knowing when to flip that switch. Must we wait for a ‘long train of abuses’ like the American colonists did before deciding to secede from England?

    Like

    • The Question says:

      I could declare my own independence, withdraw my financial support from the state, and gear up to shoot anyone who came to deprive me of my rights, but this would not only work out badly for me; the movement for liberty as well would suffer. So what to do?

      Jack Donovan touched on this in his speech “Becoming the New Barbarians” – don’t do anything “official.” He suggested a community of like-minded people take over a house or duplex or a community, but you don’t do it to the sound of trumpets and press releases. Everything has to be covert, implicit, and subtle.

      In a previous comment above I talked about avoiding confrontation at all costs. This is what I don’t like about all these explicitly political groups trying to organize without any underlying interpersonal, social, or culture ties.

      If you think about it, a group of just men getting together on a Saturday to go shooting at the range, work on a car project, then later drink whiskey in some guy’s living room is implicitly traditional and subversive. But because they don’t call themselves anything other than “friends,” have no website, and actually prefer to remain on the DL, nobody is going to bother them. But if they call themselves some sort of political group, then suddenly everyone is watching them.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s