Chinese Martial Arts History

The never ending martial arts posts continues uninterrupted by the holidays.

Today we have something I read months ago, but provides a very different view of China than the current government of China has shown to the world.

The material is in research format and requires effort, time, and patience. Three qualities you will not find much on the internet, or in the current American socio-political climate. But for those who seek the truth as well as knowledge about many facets of human existence, they should take a look here.

Some specific sections I found worthy of note:

Sun Wu was from Qi (Shantung province), his original name was Tien Hun Tien. He escaped some political intrigue against his family in Qi by defecting to Wu, where he promised the Wu King that he could help him to overcome all of his neighboring enemies. Sun Wu`s military strategies were highly effective and the Wu troops totally baffled the Zhu and Yueh states with heretofore unorthodox assaults that caught them off guard, avoiding the Wu much bloodshed. Sun Wu`s strategy involved much yielding, segmenting, combining, changing, and transforming maneuvers as necessary (making much use of the Five Elements theory). To avoid headlong confrontation with the very powerful Chu, Sun Wu worked the Wu troops so as to use the terrain to its tactical advantage, to spread the energy out, to choose objectives carefully, and to suddenly concentrate its forces when and where it was unexpected. Many people studied Sun Wu`s ideas and his book became highly influential to the art of fighting, both in battle and later as people applied his ideas on a lesser scale, to hand-to-hand combat. Much use was made of the Five Elements idea of antagonistic and protagonistic forces, changing and transforming in mutual promotion and restraint.

Another great army general, Woo Zhi Shung, defected to Wu from the Zhou kingdom, because his father had been betrayed and killed. Both generals Woo and Sun advised King Wu Kwang (20th generation) and taught the king and his sons fighting skills. The 18th generation King, Wu Sou-Wan`s military advisor was General Seng Woo, who also defected from Chu and changed his family name to Wu. Sometime during the 500s BC, King Wu Sou Wan`s son, Wu Ji Zhe, achieved much renown for his sword fighting skills.

During the Spring and Autumn period, the Chu discovered the making of steel and soon after longer swords were able to be crafted. These longer swords were widely adopted in warfare. Many people became sword experts, especially in the Wu and Yue kingdoms. King Wu Kwang himself practiced sword fighting and many huge contests were given. He owned a pair of specially forged swords that are legendary to this day: a male sword called the Kan Jian and a female sword called the Muo Xie.

Around 496 BC, one of ancient China`s best sword fighters was a woman named Yue Nu. She practiced developing her idea and methods for years in her land. Her fighting theories and techniques became another major influence on Wu-Shu theory.

For King Gou Jian of Yue, she wrote her theories:

1) Combining position, breathing, and consciousness;
2) Balancing the internal and external states of the body in harmony;
3) Simultaneous offense and defense;
4) Using both static and moving states.

She also wrote much about: being calm and unassuming in appearance, but fighting as vicious as a tiger; reacting fast enough to reach the opponent first with a strike, even though the opponent started first; uniting spirit, form, and intent. She was acclaimed for her skills all over ancient China and much respected by all.

Learned people and military fighters soon saw that the concept of `Wu-Wei` – doing nothing out of harmony with the flow of things was at the heart of many skills. It was found as an idea in common to many ideas that were then currently developing: Taoism, Yue Nu`s sword fighting, the Five Elements battle strategy of Sun Wu, and the Dao Yin qi-gung practitioners. In their explorations on the ways of or the nature of the universe (`The Tao`), Taoists began uniting all these different expressions of Wu-Wei. The circular movements of sword fighting were seen as putting man in tune with the natural cycles of the universe (stars, seasons, water, birth, death, etc.). The effect was seen as even more pronounced if the actions were combined with qi-gung breathing exercises and the mental exercises of military strategy. Taoists of the war-torn time saw warfare as an element of all life, against mortal and immortal enemies both outside and within the human body. People who were learned in all these concepts were soon in high demand in all the Chinese courts of the various kingdoms, as they were sought as advisors to the kings and nobles (princes, lords, etc.).

Wait, there’s more.

As the chaos of the times increased, the countryside became full of groups of criminal gangs, robbers, thieves, and outlaws. Interstate trade was greatly increasing and the need for good bodyguards was great. Being able to fight in close quarters, small scale, combat became a necessity and bodyguards on long journeys with trade caravans occasionally exchanged ideas and techniques with other traveling bodyguards. They looked for the best techniques for attack, attack-defense, countering, controlling, feinting, evading, and more. Hand fighting skills became highly developed and the best fighters were known for their main technique of striking, kicking, joint-locking, throwing, and hitting vital points. People tried to distill what they knew and consolidate the various techniques into one or a few main moves that they could always count on and each great fighter was known for their main technique. People sought to develop their fighting into an art that transcended all that they know into a highly effective small set of moves, if not one main move.

According to Ssu Man Chen`s book `Records of the Great Historian`, a new class of roving people emerged during these times, called the `Knights Errant` (Yu Hsieh). These were professional ex-soldiers that roamed the countryside offering their services as mercenaries. They were skilled in the military arts, especially sword fighting. They had a code of conduct and tried to be honest and fair, helping even ordinary people in distress. The Knights helped to establish the idea of using martial arts for self defense and helping those who were weaker and in need. This idea was also a great influence on Wu-Shu theory and many people embraced the idea of using martial arts for good and only for fighting against wrong doers.

By the end of the Warring States period, all the groundwork had been laid for the theoretical aspects of Wu-Shu. People used self defense to stop a fight, improve their health and physique, and test their skills, rather than just for killing in war. As people combined these ideas and concepts with the most efficient and effective hand to hand combat techniques, Shaui Jiao (grappling and throwing) techniques, and sword fighting techniques, the practical side of Wu-Shu developed as well into an all encompassing way of life. Once these areas became further united with Taoist spirituality and health (Dao Yin/Qi Gung) theories, Wu Shu was turning into a complete martial arts system, covering all aspects of the martial arts that we see today, as early as 3000 – 2500 years ago.

Thus, in order of their appearance, during the entire Zhou dynasty era (covering about 800 years!), these concepts influenced the development of Wu-Shu and were combined to transform Wu-Shu into a self defense and health enhancing art:

Xiang Wu (war dances)
Wu Xing (5 Elements) theory
Jiao Ti (Shuai Jiao)
Sun Wu`s Battle Strategy
Quan Pu (hand combat)
Yue Nu`s Sword theory
Yin/ Yang theory
Sun Pin`s Battle Strategy
Ba Qua (8 Diagrams) theory
Zhung Zi`s Ingenuity theory
Dao Yin (Qi Gung) theory
Qi`s Chi Chi Boxing
Taoism & Wu Wei theory Knights Errants
code of conduct

EDIT1: I am currently studying some Japanese Sword Arts, known in Japan as kenjutsu or iaido. I can definitely see how someone could adopt moves from a sword perspective to an open hand format. After all, the aikibujutsu I train in is technically just the kenjutsu lines without the sword. The Japanese banned the samurai class and the sword during the Meiji Restoration so all the kenjutsu schools either had to close down or convert to open hand format only: aikijutsu.

Basically, JSA is swinging a wooden stick around until your forearm becomes as big as Popeyes. Absent that, at least as strong and 10 times faster. I have also picked up an idea, from myself who else, that aikido’s tendency to grab the enemy’s encroaching hand is based off the depth perception, hand to eye coordination, and hand speed of a sword user. A person trained in the sword would find it relatively easy to see and grab someone else’s hands, a necessary component in several aikido exercises.

One of the primary unification principles in Chinese martial arts, entering an opponent’s space and taking control of their momentum, is the same as “blending” in aikido, except the Chinese material explained it better.

Warriors

Now that’s some heroic saga.

Muv Luv Alternative Review

In reply to this post.

Alternative is really a test of how much your heart can withstand. Visual novels often seek to put you in the protagonist’s shoes and this one certainly does a great job of it given the amount of time they had to “educate” you, the reader.

Of course the ending is sad. But it’s also a testament to not giving into despair. I’ve already integrated most of the lessons Alternative had, but until you really accept in your heart what the various characters are saying, your emotions will not be moderated or balanced out.

For example, one of the most effective ways to fight despair at the loss of a loved one is to overcome it with positive emotions and memories. Pride in what they had achieved. The happy memories you shared with them. Such will provide the will to live on.

That’s the whole point of why fighter pilots and small unit infantry tell jokes when faced with death. Many people assume that they don’t take it seriously because they don’t care, but the opposite is true.

Leaders must radiate supreme confidence and optimism, regardless of what they believe or feel inside. That is part of the duty and responsibility of being given authority, for authority has its perks because it has its costs as well. Human emotion is infectious. If you start feeling sad, soon enough everyone around you will as well. And when it comes to fighting in battles and wars, that kind of thing will kill people. When they lack the will to live, when they stop caring, they will also stop caring about the mission. They won’t pay enough attention in combat to survive. They will get themselves killed. That’s why leaders project an optimistic and positive aura. To defeat despair before one can defeat the enemy.

To a commenter there: Check all torrent tracker sites as well as hongfire forums which posts torrents, file server links, and various other download sources.

Continuing on more issues with MLA.

As previously mentioned, I finished reading ML Extra/Unlimited and Ml Alternative. It’s a combination of many different things such as a thriller, science fiction, military war drama, romantic love triangles, and so on. When I say war drama I also mean a life and death drama: one that focuses on the meaning of life and death. A military war drama can be about the military or the war, but it doesn’t necessarily touch upon the concepts behind the meaning of living.

One of the things I’ve heard mentioned a lot is the dramatic dichotomy between chick flicks and movies suited more towards a male demographic. Unmarried single women under 30 in a career. Married women with a family. Teenagers and those in college. Demographics can tell much about a group trend, hence the whole importance placed on age and demographics in marketing. Insurance companies also charge teenagers (15 year olds) much greater premium rates. Regardless of the individual variance in your demographic, the demographic itself is a very accurate portrayal of what the group is trending towards. Thus chick flicks have lately become specialized only for certain demographic groups of women, to the point where it turns off any other demographic. This is, in fact, an indication of plagiarism, un-originality, and a degradation in artistic talent. True artistic talent allows dramatic moments to touch any human, regardless of barriers. That is true artistic skill. There can be no art without a human utilizing artistic skill. When I see movies that have skewed positive reactions amongst a certain demographic, yet the format and themes are so derivative and unbalanced, this is a sign that they are specializing not because they are good at making movies that appeal to women but because they need that kind of specialization to cover up their own incompetence.

That being said, ML Alternative is such a hybrid of so many different other things, which is in fact usual not unusual for the Japanese, that it becomes a stark contrast. In chick flicks, the focus is mostly on relationship issues and on guys apologizing. There’s no war to portray manly virtues or courage. There’s no external enemy or even competent rival. When the Japanese does love triangles, they make it as complex as humanly possible. Such things as two best friends falling in love with their childhood friend, while the childhood friend loves both girls, makes for interesting drama. There is more emotional bonds connecting all 3 together, so the pain or the joy becomes higher in nature. On the other hand, Hollywood does love triangles in a superficial sort of fashion. Either it’s a competition between boys and immature males or it’s a case of Pearl Harbor. There’s rivalry between friends, but they stop being friends for some reason when they compete against each other. There’s no such thing as a friendly competition or the old line “may the best man win”. Meaning much of Hollywood’s love triangles are backstabbing, deception orientated. Such negative emotions tend to affect everyone in a love triangle. It’s not as simple as conservatives prefer positive and happy relationships and LibProgs prefer backstabbing deceptions, but that’s how it tends to turn out given what I have read in America. I do not claim Japan is conservative by the measures Americans can judge, but the culture has several points of compatibility with American conservative culture.

To get back to the main point, Alternative has many things women and men would find captivating. Relationship difficulties are present. Victory and defeat in war are also present. I’ve watched the last Pearl Harbor movie out of Hollywood. Could have been worse. Doesn’t compare to Alternative. If Alternative is the sun, Pearl Harbor is a beach. Both are hot and shiny. What makes Alternative extremely appealing to many demographics is simply the skill with which it has produced the hybrid intermingling of different characters, themes, concepts, and events. Instead of feeling like a jumbled up puzzle, it is a very clear and comprehensive picture. Almost a visual illusion.

One core example I can give is this. Hollywood treats death as either a convenient plot point or as a convenient way to support the main characters. They do not and cannot do what Serenity or the Japanese do, which is bitter-sweet moments. Sanctifying the importance of life, yet serene in the acceptance of dying for something of great importance. That’s because those who value their lives the highest, have a hard time understanding why anyone else would risk theirs for abstract ideals. Patriotism, love of country, is taught as being a bad thing that leads to wars. Such is true especially in Germany and Japan. The Japanese love of tradition and family values has allowed them to retain much of their history in societal sub groups. Their history is replete with warfare and tragedies, thus they can draw much from it even though they lack modern day experience. Our Civil War happened only recently in the eyes of world history, and we aren’t even over it. Japan’s last great civil war happened in 1600 at the battle of Sekigahara. Americans have not had enough time to see things as they really were. And for wars fought in other countries, that is even harder to comprehend for the ordinary citizens of America. It is hard enough to attempt to understand your mortal enemy that speaks another language, but if they are all fighting thousands of miles away from your peaceful life, how much understanding can you really obtain given the normal disinterest civilians have in such affairs?

In an interesting state of affairs, the Japanese have better literature on the topic of war sacrifices and patriotism even though the US has a much higher institutional knowledge in patriotic parts of America and in the US military. Such is life, an infinite amount of contradictions.

Some here may have read David Weber and may recall me mentioning him. Weber does war drama quite well and goes to great lengths to attempt to portray human factions honestly and as they truly are. Instead of the cookie cutter, absolute black and white, portrayal of reality by Leftist ideologues.

This is why I laugh whenever Leftists say that we are parochial and mired in tradition and old ways. The Left is so bigoted, arrogant, and intolerant of other beliefs, so reactive, and so regressive that they don’t even have the right to call anyone else “traditional” to begin with. They have no such right. They have no power to generate such a right. They have nothing to deserve power or rights. All they can do is to beg other people to sacrifice for them. They don’t work. They don’t contribute to the community. They suck off of other people’s wealth. They damage the common good for selfish greed and arrogance. And yet they believe they should have rights?

The South call it the War of Northern Aggression

Starting from Nathan Bedford Forrest, we get to this issue on the US Civil War.

I was raised north of the Mason-Dixon, in Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln”. I spent my childhood and young adulthood under the understanding that you “nasty, racist, evil southerners” fought the in the “Civil War” for slavery. You know, the standard victor’s propaganda and all… I studied the War, was a Yankee (and occasional Confederate) re-enactor, and the funny thing was, in spite of my in-depth knowledge of trivial matters such as AP Hill’s favorite shirt (red fireman style), dates and casualties, as well as the sequence of most of the major battles, and the gear, weapons and equipment, used, I never delved into the war from the South’s perspective, until recent years.

Although I live almost as far north as an American can live, I consider my self a Southerner “in spirit”. Whether thay flies with any of you south of the Mason-Dixon, well, that might be another story.

Here’s the question I have, and I would like to hear personal stories, family stories, I would like to get recommendations of websites and offline books to read, to help me better understand.

What is it like? Really?

-ArcticPatriot

While I’ve been in the South for more than a decade, it’s interesting to see what those with generations of family have to say. They are mostly classified by me as being in the Jacksonian camp. Not particularly interested in long term strategic consequences, but with virtues to go with their deficiency. Of course, I count myself in the Jacksonian camp as well, but I don’t have the subjective bias that comes with having generations of family going back to the Civil War on the side of the South. This allows me to see things from more than one perspective. Not the Leftist history of the US Civil War but not the South’s biased view either. I have to do the work of research myself, combining sources from everywhere. But hey, that’s why they call it a work ethic. Because hard work by itself is its own virtue, regardless of the outcome.

In other news, this is a good view of Leftist ideology and what their cult members think. Not only what, but how as well.

My best friend in the world (not “some of my friends”, but my best friend) is a conservative Republican who loves Anne Coulter. Meanwhile, I’m looking for a good price on a “2L4O” (Too Liberal for Obama) shirt. Why is he my best friend? Because time and time again he has demonstrated that he is one of the best, most honorable men I know. Human decency can transcend political differences.

It’s a good contrast view with Southern perspective. Some Southern perspective. It shows how closed off people can be, regardless of their personal circumstances or political ideology. Are humans as amazingly slow and parochial as presented here? Why yes. But they can still be useful for the purposes of society and the nation. Useful doesn’t mean they are right in their views.

My comment reply to various things in the comment section:

Either Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis were right about secession or King George and President Lincoln were. It can’t be true that both Jefferson and Lincoln were right about Secession.

Both were right. Thomas Jefferson didn’t ever say you could secede without fighting a damn war, now did he. In fact, Jefferson did in fact, you know, fight a war on secession. He didn’t just think, for he was no fool, that removing himself from the political protections of a system (British monarchy) would also confer upon them the protections, minus the costs, of the system.

Lincoln said the South couldn’t seize Ft. Sumter and union property or take captives of those that are in union forts which happened to be in Southern states to protect the various harbors and routes of the US from external enemies. The Southern states disagreed, so they went and started sieging various union forts, notably Sumter. Georgia declared secession causes on January 1861, Sumter started to fall in April of that same year. This, remember, was without the concurrence of the entire Confederacy. No vote was taken. The Southerners acted as individuals, believing the North would simply allow them to do as they pleased. The Southern states believed they could remove themselves from the authority of the US Constitution, while also having some kind of “natural right” protections from said Constitution, after having fired cannons at union soldiers, who refused to return fire for hours given what they knew of the political situation.

Pure foolishness on the part of Southern leaders. They primarily did so because they believed Northerners were too gutless to fight, like good Southern gentlemen. That’s a cultural conceit that paid what it was worth in the events afterwards. War, ladies and gentlemen, is no tea party where you can bow out when you are full of it. At least not the non-peacekeeping total war.

If I ever get seriously back into re-enacting the war, I will never put on that blue uniform again.

You’re making the mistake of what is often seen in fast converts. They were 100% convinced the Other was alien and to be hated, then they converted to the Other and now they are 100% convinced that the new Other is faulty, bad, and to be hated. Both are distorted views and both are ideologically flawed.

It’s not a balanced view taken with comprehension of all the factors of the war. It’s just choosing one side to portray well, while ignoring the rest.

Slavery was on the way out. All of the horror and death of the War shortened it only by a bit.

Let’s put that to the test. Give Obama 4 more years by voting for him. Since he’s going to be out anyways, why go to all the trouble of campaigning for and voting for conservatives. Go ahead. Vote for Obama in 2012. In fact, just vote for Reid and the other Congress Demoncrats. He’s going to die off, sooner or later. Take that 100 dollar out of your ATM machine, and give it to Democrats. If you really believe that it doesn’t matter how long they are in power.

What’s the difference. They’re not going to be in power forever right. So why not. Just like slavery, it was going to go away, right. So why fight against it. Why pay the cost. Why trouble yourself over nothing.

Oh, I know why not. Because deciding to allow others to suffer, who you neither know nor care about, is much easier than making the decision to allow a bad state of affairs to persist for your own existence. Isn’t it. Human mortality and vices are more prevalent then most would like to believe.

Since we’re on this topic of historical laziness and taking golf vacations the Obama Way, the KGB and the Soviets were going to go away anyways. So what’s up with Reagan trying to get the world nuked and using extreme rhetoric like “evil empire”. Why don’t you chill and let things die out in a generation or two. Well, why didn’t conservatives chill out about John Walker Lynn, Jane Fonda, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union? Vietnam was going to be lost anyways, why even worry about the Communist invasion. Just let history takes its course. The Soviet Union was going kaput soon anyways, so why worry about traitors giving out Navy encryption codes for their communiques world wide.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the virtues of honor, duty, courage, or hard work. But then again, treason never required such.

Why wouldn’t the Republicans live up to their wartime promises of providing land or other economic opportunities to African-Americans, e.g. forty acres and a mule?

President Johnson vetoed all the Radical Republican bills that was intended to secure the actual protection of civil liberties for freed blacks in the South. This delayed things for long enough that the KKK and other Democrat affiliates began to alter the political balance in the South, restoring Democrat politicians to their rightful place. Bedford Forrest was forced to disband the KKK he personally created, which resulted in the KKK splintering like terrorist cells, which ultimately ended up in the various hanging incidents for blacks. Without black votes in the South for Republicans, Republican politicians fell. And Democrat Jim Crow replaced them. The rest was history. The Democrat party stoked up and maintained Southern resentment for more than a century, before Reagan finally broke them free of it. The Dems kept the Southerners in a hutch much like the Dems do with blacks today.

Johnson was a Democrat. Lincoln selected him as a sort of compromise with Southern Democrats believing Lincoln was out to get them. Johnson was not just a Democrat, he was a Southern Democrat.

Wouldn’t that be better than butchering hundreds of thousands of your fellow countrymen?

The South at the time would have seen it as another aspect of Northern Aggression to be taking property that wasn’t theirs. In fact, the whole slavery issue with Georgia and other states was that the North weren’t returning their property: i.e. their slaves running off to the North even though the federal government had laws that said they must, but the Northern states often ignored the letter of the law. Besides, the South could not give up their plantations and the nobility installed upon them. The plantation masters had too much political influence, too much arrogance, to ever take a hand out from the North for their slaves and switch their ENTIRE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

That’s like you going to the local teacher’s unions and telling them to “quit” and “stop their Democrat BS”. You think that would work. Their entire lives are based upon union salaries, and you think they would change just because somebody told them to or had cash on hand for em? The South was even more intricately woven around the plantation economy.

Switching an entire economy to something else is always traumatic and people will resist it. It’s not as easy and breezy as people wish to believe.

Different takes on Nathan Bedford Forrest

http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2011_02_27_archive.html#4376333219424646886

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/02/16/is-it-hate/

Forrest was born poor, and received little education. Yet his native intelligence and spirit allowed him to win a fortune before the war. He never received a military education like most of the Confederate generals, so when the war broke out he enlisted as a private — and worked his way up to Lieutenant General.

He formed his own cavalry units and fought them with such brilliance and insight that a number of his methods fundamentally reformed the training and doctrine for the U.S. cavalry for decades to come. As motorized units came into play later, they became the foundation of our understanding of maneuver warfare: the kind of warfare still practiced today. US Army and Marine Corps front-line combat units take pride in their distinction as “maneuver units,” a distinction that we really owe to Forrest.

At Brice’s Crossroads, Forrest destroyed an enemy army more than twice the size of his own, using tactics that he invented without any formal training.

In other news, a dissenting view.

Z:A large number of African Americans lived under Jim Crow, and were denied equal opportunities in education and jobs, and felt first-hand the sting of bigotry and discrimination. These are not historical slights, but living memory. Some people are still bigots. Others are just incredibly insensitive (such as considering Nathan Bedford Forrest for a license plate in Mississippi). The new generation is more able to rise above these divisions, but they still remain.

Hmmm

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mscivilw/wizards.htm

The link won’t help out Zach, cause he refuses to learn anything that might contradict his assumptions, but for those of Southern born or Northern inclinations, read some of the material in the link about cavalry tactics to better understand why Nathan Bedford Forrest is known as one of the greatest military leaders of the US Civil War.

Then read the wiki pedia article, easily found online, concerning NBF.

It is no mystery why the South respects him. And there is no question that the Left hates him. Then again, the Left hates many people that got in their way, including Bush, Palin, the last Shah of Iran, Diem of South Vietnam, Batista, the white rulers of Rhodesia, and of course… the Chilean benevolent dictator that is called by the name “Pinochet”.

Never, ever, believe at face value the lies the Left says about historical figures. They are never telling you the whole truth. They aren’t interested in telling you the whole truth. That is not what they are paid for.

For a short summary of what NBF was:
Forrest started from uneducated origins and got rich by taking risks. He became a major planter of the South, owning and selling slaves, given that the Southern economy was based upon cotton, mostly. And cotton required slaves. He enlisted in the war to fight the Union as a private, when at the time major planters were “given exemptions” on being drafted into the army. Yea, you guessed it right. The huge plantation owners, the slave masters de jure, those who benefited most from winning the war, were in fact the ones ordering everybody else to suffer and die, while they sat safely. Until the Union came for them, at least. Forrest is a killer. He’s brave. He’s undaunted. He is very charismatic. He had a pure, unrefined, quality that allowed him to ignore social status and get right to what’s importance. This quality is part of his charisma. And it’s why he didn’t even think of himself as somebody exempt from war or someone entitled to a commission just because he had money and status.

In terms of personal qualities. Forrest had 90% of Democrats (here and now) already beat. For his time, Forrest was better than 90% of his fellows (of his time). In military courage and skill, better than 95%. And in certain reckless valor, better than 99%.

At the time the war was lost, this was what he said.

Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended, and heretofore so widely, but honestly, differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out; and, when you return home, a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect of your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government, to society, or to individuals meet them like men. The attempt made to establish a separate and independent Confederation has failed; but the consciousness of having done your duty faithfully, and to the end, will, in some measure, repay for the hardships you have undergone. In bidding you farewell, rest assured that you carry with you my best wishes for your future welfare and happiness. Without, in any way, referring to the merits of the Cause in which we have been engaged, your courage and determination, as exhibited on many hard-fought fields, has elicited the respect and admiration of friend and foe. And I now cheerfully and gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the officers and men of my command whose zeal, fidelity and unflinching bravery have been the great source of my past success in arms. I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue. You have been good soldiers, you can be good citizens. Obey the laws, preserve your honor, and the Government to which you have surrendered can afford to be, and will be, magnanimous. N.B. Forrest, Lieut.-General
Headquarters, Forrest’s Cavalry Corps
Gainesville, Alabama
May 9, 1865

After the war, he convinced the first Klu Klux Klan organization of self defense militias to disband, something the Democrat party never even tried since it would have required the principle of obedience to the law. Afterwards, the Democrats took over the KKK unofficially and used them to kill white Republicans and black slaves to prevent them from voting in Republican reps in the South. This caused the Republican regimes to fall, ushering in Jim Crow and “no blacks allowed” policies.

It mattered little what Nathan Bedford Forrest thought of negroes, blacks, or Union whites in the beginning of the war. Many Southerners thought poorly of Northerners. Believing that the North lacked any spine for real fighting. After 4 years of Civil War, neither side could say of the other that they lacked the guts to kill and die for their beliefs.

In line with a post written before about the Left’s need to sow weakness, this is the same issue.

Why does the NAACP attempt to stop license plates honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest? Does the NAACP lobby Congress to deny Robert Byrd official recognition because Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act and was actually part of the violent, mob death squad KKK as their Kleagle? If the NAACP is fine with Robert Byrd, for much of the time Byrd was alive, what makes them so hot and bothered about Nathan Bedford Forrest. Is it so hard to honor a dead enemy that fought with valor and skill?

It is impossible, I say, for weaklings like the NAACP or Leftist cult members to act anything other than as insecure children. Creating a better future requires personal confidence and strength. The NAACP has none of that. The New Black Panthers has none of that. The Left has none of that. If they ever got it, they would eject that person from their group for fear that the taint will spread.

Strong leaders, alphas of their pack, do not become hot and bothered over the honoring of dead enemies. They don’t begrudge people’s need to believe in a strong and glorious past. especially not when it is also part of the past of the country they are supposed to be leading. They don’t try to control how people feel by making them worship only “approved symbols”. They don’t sit around thinking up ways to make people worship the state religion’s god. They don’t use violence to win arguments. And they sure as hell don’t make up lies believing they are real.

Yet, all of these weak as hell acts are present amongst the Left. Why is that do you think?

Obama is Here

Elect a weak boy as leader of the free world and you won’t be seeing much freedom. You will, however, see more of this.

Kadochnikov System

Interesting look at Russian Systema, their own brand of military H2H.

Project Valour IT: Saving the Saviors

It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee

Humans have free will. It is what sets us apart from what others may consider different species on this planet. Yet that does not tell the whole tale. For it also means people can give up in the face of adversity. They can find excuses not to do their best. They can blame others. They can refuse to blame themselves, thus find people weaker even than themselves to target and lambaste.

But because we are not bound to a predetermined fate unshaken by mortal hands, human beings have the ability to choose. Some choose the aforementioned route in the face of challenges in life and adversity in death. Others made a difference choice. They, instead of facing away from life’s turmoil, confronted it, tackled it, and worked to make solutions. Captain Charles “Chuck” Ziegenfuss was one who was saved, after saving others, and then proceeded to motivate others that have saved, to be saved. Not simply from wounds to the body in terms of incapacity and crippling injuries but to nurture the will to survive and improve. That will is not simply present because people are prosperous and healthy. It is present when one is motivated and supported by other human beings. For the strongest amongst us are never as strong as those who have the hopes and dreams of others resting upon their shoulders.

In the midst of wounds both physical and mental, amongst the physically crippled recovering in military hospitals, soldiers and civilians decided to improve the lives and existence of wounded soldiers.

Consider donating to the branch of the Army in this competitive and cooperative fund raising campaign to enable future soldiers to be given the chance to communicate using internet technology as they undergo the trials of recovery and rehabilitation. True strength rests within the spirit and not simply the body. Let the will to live life whatever the hardship that may come, passed to us from descendants uncounted, grow anew within the hearts of a few.

For more information and background on the origins and goals of VIT: look to the clouds. The HALO clouds, perhaps. Where’s that witty comeback with the right timing when you need it. Can’t do everything myself.

Good stuff

Why Carthage refused reinforcements to Hannibal Barca as he rested upon the cusp of taking Rome itself.

Declaration of Session, by Georgia, from the Union

Materialist history is the most madly incredible of all histories, or even of all romances. Whatever starts wars, the thing that sustains wars is something in the soul; that is something akin to religion. It is what men feel about life and about death. A man near to death is dealing directly with an absolute; it is nonsense to say he is concerned only with relative and remote complications that death in any case will end. If he is sustained by certain loyalties, they must be loyalties as simple as death. They are generally two ideas, which are only two sides of one idea. The first is the love of something said to be threatened, if it be only vaguely known as home; the second is dislike and defiance of some strange thing that threatens it. The first is far more philosophical than it sounds though we need not discuss it here. A man does not want his national home destroyed or even changed, because he can not even remember all the good things that go with it; just as he does not want his house burnt down because he can hardly count all the things he would miss. Therefore he fights for what sounds like a hazy abstraction, but is really a house.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

Ah, the War of Northern Aggression. That oft repeated phrase by individuals of modern America, in which contains it a sea of knowledge and ignorance alike.

“A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him.”

There are a lot of reasons Georgia put down as a declaration against the North.

Some of it makes sense, for the times, but most of it is jumbled up logic predictable to those who lived in a narrower world. One less enamored of change or adaptation.

This particular reason, is of interest in the sense that the Southern States, having had all sorts of complaints against the Congress for these United States, now complain that the federal government has not the authority to compel Northern States to obey.

They didn’t win much of anything at the end.

If the South wanted to keep their property and not have it stolen by the North, they might want to think about why they should be given such protections when they provide none to their workers in the fields. The idea of paying their workers even near a fair wage never came up. The idea that maybe if they gave the blacks a reason to stay in the South, they wouldn’t be running into the North where all those anti-slavery activists are at, never came up. If the South wanted the feds to stay out of their business in keeping their “property”, they should have fixed their own problems and fast.

But it didn’t happen.

Back to the point, secession is extra-legal. A Constitutional Amendment is legal and so is the Constitution. Violations of the Constitution in whatever form, by the North, is a legitimate avenue of contest. Knowing that the anti-slavery faction won a political victory and then quitting the Union based upon this, is just foolishness. Lincoln wasn’t even a rabid anti-slave individual in the first place. They could have worked with him, if they tried. They didn’t try. The whole reason for elections is that people you don’t like will win. Yet we keep with the system because ultimately we gain more from peaceful power transitions than whatever regime we can force upon the White House

Part of why violence is not legitimate in removing Obama is precisely because it is extra-legal. Something other than legal. So is removing a state from the jurisdiction of the federal government. Both would naturally involve war and violence, even in these “enlightened” times. People back then knew just as well what would come. They just didn’t know the Northerners had the stomach for it. Their mistake to make. They can call it what they wish. Won’t change the end.

“In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.”

That’s why you called it “confederate”. The federal government naturally lacks the power to compel Northern states to do whatever it and the Constitution says is valid. You can reinforce the Constitution by working in the confines of the Constitution or you can attempt to break out using warfare and mass destruction against those Northern authorities that are so disliked. After all, if property is so important, go get those responsible. The tree of liberty requires blood, not people walking away when they dislike the rules of the “game”. If they want liberty, they must pay the price. All other ways are foolish.

“It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren”.

Ask Sherman that much?

I wonder which one the South will pick now, under Obama. Your duty, if you call yourself a Southerner, is to protect those individuals that are allied with the South. Failure to do so, cannot be wiped away by bringing up any wars of Northern Aggression. Period.

There are declarations from the other Southern States as well at the link.

What Worth is a Life?

Crush mentioned before that there isn’t a single Afghan worth an American life on Blackfive. I think there’s a lot of such sentiments floating around given current conditions in Afghanistan. In fact, it was the same way in Iraq before the Surge, except it was mostly Democrats and Leftists carrying the torch of “iraqis are worth a damn given how corrupt they are“. The Left would know, since they are corrupt to the tune of several trillion dollars, coincidentally.

Minus the whole cultural and socio-economic chauvinism thing, there’s another aspect here of import that I will write a bit about.

No single nation-entity can survive and prosper simply based upon their own internal resources. Eventually they will need external help, whether it comes from the brain drain of other nations, resource trade/extraction, military alliances, or technological joint research. America, after all, didn’t tell the physicists from Germany, including Einstein, that no German was worth the life of an America. They didn’t tell them that, to their face or behind their backs, because America needed those Brains to work on the nuclear bomb or a whole shat ton of Americas would be dying in a nuclear holocaust. Even the German physicists still working for the Nazis were doing their part to stall and corrupt the R and D process. Maybe they could be motivated to save more American lives if somebody told them their life wasn’t worth a single American’s, after all. It should work right? Not really.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Med.html

The point is, short sighted people think they can do everything by themselves. Real leaders understand that complex problems require complex resource allocation, which includes diversification and broad flexibility. Humans are simply another resource in this view. Whether American or Afghan, Sufi or Christian, all are resources that can be utilized to win victory in war.

It is the nearsighted, the culturally parochial, that does not understand what it takes to win with the least amount of resources expended, with the least amount of time invested, and with the greatest chance for future victories that it is possible to have. They think an immediate victory, a tactical victory, is all that matters. They don’t see into the future because they don’t prepare and plan for it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Humans are going to be around having conflicts and wars until we become extinct. There’s no need to rush to victory with short sighted tactical goals while paying no attention to logistics, resource diversification, or strategies encompassing decision cycles lasting several years if not decades.

There will always be a next enemy to fight. And we can’t kill them all. Not that we won’t, but can’t. Even if we depopulate the Arabic world, we’d still need to drop a few nukes on say, Berkley, to get things done. And then we’ll need to spread to Latin America, cause they got some cancerous growths there that needs to be cut. You see? There’s no end of it. So there’s no need to rush out and vaporize whatever you think is of immediate risk and danger now. There’s always the next enemy and war around the corner. And to expend all the vital resources on this one, makes you weak and vulnerable to the next guy up on the chain.

P.S.

After all, Sun Tzu knew that China was a big place. Even if he won several victories in a row, there would still be plenty of fortified gates and squared off cities to take. Since he was not omniscient, he could never know how many battles he would have to fight to win and not get killed. So he had to husband his resources as much as he could. He had to expend as little as he could to get as much as he could. He had to also ensure that if there was a local resource he could make use of, then it was far better to take it and use it than to wait on supply convoys that may or may not get there in time (or at all).

And he understand something very special. When he thought of resources, he did not just think of food and silver, but also of men (and women). Those were just as much a resource as anything else. He would never have said that the lives in an indigenous region he was occupying or conquering was not worth a single one of his soldiers’ lives. For he knew beyond the shadow of doubt, that when it comes to human resources, one life is often just as good as another. It was far better to have as many and as varied a resource base as you could get, rather than hope you won’t need something you lack.