The True Meaning of The Fourth of July

Well, yes. The firing was a deliberate action, but the killing was less so.

It has taken us a long time to unlearn the basic instincts of a species, and that is not to kill itself. Indeed, as late as Korea, most infantry were NOT attempting to hit the enemy, but instead were “posturing” - firing over the heads but close to the enemy. Inherently a species does not kill itself. SLA Marshall proved that point in his analysis of WWII and later Korean engagements. It’s just that the military didn’t like to hear those results.

BUT the Army did take it to heart and created a new training system, first seen in Vietnam, called at the time “Two Shot, Quick Kill”. Measured engagement with the enemy went from the WWII/Korean average of about 10-15% actually shooting at the enemy to RVN 92% shooting at the enemy!

Today there is no modern military OR law enforcement force that doesn’t utilise the same training methods. ONE reason you are seeing so many police shootings these days - that’s what they are being taught at the Police Academy.


RVN = Republic of Viet Nam aka Viet Nam War


Happy Section 230 Network Effect Monopolies!


And yet…the “last charge of the Highlanders” took place in (I think South) Carolina during the American Revolution—and they were fighting on the British side! When people asked how they could do that after Culloden and all, the reply was, “Because we know what it’s like to fight AGAINST the English.”

Another thought on the 4th: if I had to sum up in one word the American character,( I mean as it was until, oh, I’d say sometime in the 1990s) that word would be:


How did we become so docile that by 2020 we could simply be ordered to submit to house arrest, and we all complied?


Well, yes, the redcoat was the finest European infantry there was. Problem was, they were accustomed to fighting the European way. And Scotland and Ireland really had no where to hide. But keep in mind, ALL or Europe would fit into New England. So the Americans were blessed with strategic space AND fought Indian-style. The Brits just couldn’t adapt to that. Notice in the film clip above - Gibson’s character shoots the officer first THEN any NCO’s. That left the average redcoat leaderless. The Brits thought it “unsporting” to be shooting the officers; the Americans thought it only good sense. So the Highlanders in SC weren’t thinking very clearly. Marion led the Brits on a merry chase, embarrassing them at every turn and winning battles - which mostly the Brits were unprepared to fight. Same happened in the War of 1812.


Or to be engaged in “cowardly” hit-and-run asymmetric warfare in the wilderness rather than lining up a bunch of young men on an open field to face deadly fire for your “honor” – the sense of which is evinced by this disgusting essay on George Washington’s “elite honor culture” that motivated Washington to “duel” with King George.

George Washington had to prohibit duels – real duels – among his men for very good reasons, not the least of which is that he couldn’t very well fight a war without troops temporarily giving up their individual sovereignty to the superorganism called a “military”.

This, by the way, should point toward a definition of peace as the state in which individual sovereignty is upheld among men including the appeal of last resort recalling the 600M year old “honor culture” that detonated the Cambrian Explosion.

The Tale of Lin Tse

An enormously big lumberjack, who was also a bully, took a delight in tormenting the Chinese whenever they appeared at the company store. He thought it especially hilarious to trip them when they were loaded with supplies and going out the door. Also he kept alive and continually embellished the mistake of the intended bride being placed in the brothel. His joy in that joke on these small stature people, when his only pride was his bulk and strength, reached to inexhaustible extremes. The hatred that the Chinese felt for him is fully understandable when the stories told show that the other loggers were ashamed that he was one of them. The Chinese had become well enough acquainted with the logger’s ways to understand most of the foul jokes and to understand that this man’s attitude didn’t represent that held by most of the others. The other loggers continually admonished the bully with “you wouldn’t talk like that to a man who was big enough to challenge you to a fight.”

Then one day when this remark was made after the usual taunts from the giant logger it brought a memorable response from one of the Chinese. The target at the moment was a slight, sensitive-faced Chinese man named Lin Tse who had come into the store alone. The fury that had been burning showed itself in this man who contained it with the patient endurance that countless centuries had bred in his being. It didn’t leap into flame; it glowed with a small controlled dignity like some unearthly fire.

Lin’s purchase was only a small package and although there was a big audience of men gathered in the store the bully didn’t think it worthwhile to trip him as he went out. He contented himself with foul worded jokes. Lin heard the other loggers disapproval expressed in “you’d be more careful with a man who was big enough to fight you.” Lin Tse knew the full meaning of the fight to which the words referred and his understanding and deliberation created drama when he turned and faced the bully and the roomful of men with dignity.

The surprise of his turning to meet them instead of hurrying out the door as unobtrusively as possible caused a hush to fall. In the waiting silence his words were clear and in fully understandable English, “If you gentlemen will ensure a fair fight, I will meet this man.”

There was only a short pause before someone said enthusiastically, “Let’s give them guns. That’s the only way to make a fair fight in this case.”

The foreman was there and spoke up. “No. We’ve all agreed. No more guns. I’d like to see the little guy have his chance, but the judge said if there’s another suspicious shooting every man here will face trial as an accomplice of a murderer.

Before an argument developed on the point Lin announced, “I do not want guns. Fifteen meters of strong cordage in addition to a knife will make an equal fight if there’s a big area that has not been logged clean.”

The big man didn’t like the sound of things and, with a guffaw, he tried to go back to the joking game, “He wants to tie me up before he fights me.” He pulled the end of the rope from a nearby coil, threw it at Lin, and held out his wrists with, “Here, let’s see you do it.”

No one laughed. The men were all on their feet and approaching the little man with an interest that was clearly that of a wolf pack moving up on a fight, but also with a silence that verged on becoming a reverent calm. They asked what he could do with a length of cordage.

Lin answered, “Man is intelligent. His intelligence makes him a fit opponent for a bear or even an elephant. With a knife and a cord a man can make a spear, or a bow and arrow, or a trap. He can do many things. He can fight with his intelligence, not just his bulk or his skill in handling a gun. But surprise is necessary to use intelligence. Man does not show the bear how he plans to trap him. I think it is fair that I and this man-bear have equal knives and lengths of cord but do not tell how we will use them.”

The trap had been sprung. A man had used the weight of a mob for an intelligent purpose by appealing to fair play rather than the usual half-sleeping mob tendencies toward turning a fight into mob entertainment. The bully tried all the jokes and tricks he had learned in his attempt to put a laughing, leering mob behind him, but the mob weight was all used to make him accept the challenge on the fair terms stated. He wanted to reduce the size of the combat area but they insisted on making it big enough to give strategy its due weight.

The fight lasted a day and an night and well into the next day. Three times the big man tried to come out but the jeers of the others drove him back. At twilight on the second day, when everyone was preparing to go into another all night vigil, Lin appeared at the designated place and said calmly, “A man is dead in the woods. Would some of you gentlemen help me carry him out.”

If the method Lin used to bring down the big man was ever known, it isn’t of record, but the occasion touched the imagination of the men. An area big enough to permit strategy, a knife with a 25 cm blade, too short for sophisticated swordsmanship, and a fifteen meter length of cordage, strong enough to jerk up a big man’s weight, became the criteria of a fair fight.

Whether it was: (1) Simple fear of the unknown when contemplated through light and dark hours in the forest or (2) a new respect for the unknown in people, when meeting those different from oneself; would be hard to determine; but the number of deaths by unstated causes in Camp 38 decreased after the establishment of those criteria for fairness.

p. 123-125 “Camp 38: Current Model of Northern European Lifestyle Before Christianity” by Jill von Konen


Preliminary injunction today against Biden admin colluding with social media companies on censorship (see p. 4):



One of the concluding items in the “bill of particulars” in the Declaration of Independence is,

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Who were these “foreign mercenaries”? Many assume they were German mercenaries (“Hessians”), who later figured in the Revolution. But as described in Frank Whitson Fetter’s “Who Were the Foreign Mercenaries of the Declaration of Independence” [PDF], Thomas Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration, approved by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston, specifically cited,

at this very time they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch & foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood.

By “Scotch”, Jefferson meant Highlanders recruited in 1775 to suppress rebellion in the colonies. Because the colonists considered themselves Englishmen, the Highlanders were deemed “foreign”.

The specific mention of “Scotch” was removed due to objections from members of the Continental Congress mostly of Lowland Scottish and Scotch-Irish origin.


Yes and the kerns and gallowglass… Irish soldiers ( and as I said earlier, many of the border Scotch were resettled in Ireland) who served as mercenaries for pretty much anybody who’d pay ‘em. I mean, it was the only trade they knew. England (which conveniently doesn’t exist any more) has a lot to answer for. But WE whupped ‘em’. And it all began on July 4th!!


And the founders of that loose confederation of independent sovereigns are the same people who realized its weakness. Those sovereigns would certainly have been gobbled back up by one or more great powers, and the founders knew it.

Libertarians often posit a glorious lost alternate path where those 13 sovereigns minded their own business and the rest of the world left them alone. Well, that doesn’t happen in human history.

I, for one, celebrate Independence day, and I celebrate the later Constitution that made us strong enough to keep it. For a couple centuries. We may be lost now, but we would have certainly been lost long ago if your idealistic [expletive] dream had been sustained.



The key turning point came in Washington’s response to the dispossession of his men’s properties, exemplified by Shays’s Rebellion. That the wealthiest man in the soon-to-be United States so-disenfranchised his own men the vote was mere diarrhea icing on the turd-cake US Constitution, crammed down their throats. The aforelinked essay on Washington’s “honor culture” motivation provides a clue as to Washington’s true character in this sentence:

In subsequent bouts with the Imperial power structure Washington came to view non-Americans withdisdain since they viewed the colonists as defending their own properties, while the colonists [emphasis JAB] thought they were “defending the King’s Dominions."

Which colonists had sufficient property to be so-motivated if not the wealthiest of them?

So, ultimately, we see in Washington’s reaction to Shays’s Rebellion his true motives to be not so much his “honor” as his property, for if a commander’s honor does not show itself the protection of the bloodlines of his men who were being dispossessed of their homesteads hence deprived of their descendants, then of what possible valor can honor consist?

No, Washington did not possess the character that would have been required to institute to unify the incentives of the men of military age across all of the former colonies and, instead, not only quashed his men on behalf of coastal merchants who were seeking revenue to pay their debts for international trade, but when Rhode Island did right by their military aged men – thereby averting such Rebellions and providing the example for Washington – it was forced into the union of the corrupt.

But fear not for the protection of property rights by “men” who care not a fig for their own bloodlines is sustainable because once Mammon has consumed them the enforcement can be taken up by that ultimate application of Moore’s Law: Robodoggies…

Small quibble. Scotch is the alcoholic drink. Scottish are the people of Scotland.


Actually I’ve read that isn’t true, it’s an over-refinement…

1 Like

Kinda like whisky vs whiskey?


Some would argue that Scottish is the adjectival form – the people themselves are (were) Scots. “Scotch” was the pejorative form, mainly used by foreigners who were merely ignorant or who were looking for a fight. And if they were looking for a fight, they generally got their wish!


I would accept your definition. Scottish can be either an adjective or noun, depending upon usage. But Scotch is the drink. Scot (sing) or Scots (pl) are certainly acceptable labels for the Highlanders.


Hyp, ?how do you get “over refinement”. ?Isn’t language required to be accurate, to properly transmit meaning.

1 Like

“Scotch” came to sound rude. Like “Jews”, which is actually correct, but “Jewish” sounds nicer. Altho I dky::I wouldn’t like to be called “whitish” or “Protestantish”…. And yes the people are called Scots, that doesn’t mean that’s the adjective. But, y’know, in the demotic whether you said Scots or Scotch probably didn’t matter…it’s an orthographic debate.


The Smithsonian Institution has made Part 2 unavailable and now that I’ve received an old DVD copy – barely surviving the years in some mom-and-pop book store – the reason is exactly what you would imagine from James Henry Webb Jr. That guy really gave the Democrats heartrburn, and he finally dropped out of politics as well as the Democratic party when it became apparent Trump was going to do something about “the broken immigration system”.

The book is next on my reading list.

Try to keep in mind as you read this WSJ OpEd that Webb was polling 3rd for the 2016 Presidential nomination for the Democrats:

Op-Eds by Jim

WSJ: The Promise of President Trump – Jim Webb

By Jim Webb

Jan. 19, 2017 6:23 p.m. ET WSJ

By virtue of Mr. Trump’s electoral base and genuine status as a political outsider, he is positioned to bring two much-needed adjustments to our governing process.

Jim Webb. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

First, his administration should break the damaging “turnstile” that has given an unelected elite far too much power, particularly in foreign policy. What can one say of an establishment whose members repeatedly swap slots in law firms and think tanks for titles in various presidential administrations but rarely come up with fresh, independent advice? How can one set of “Republican” advisers persuade George W. Bush to make the strategic blunder of invading Iraq, and then a new set of “Democratic” advisers lure Barack Obama into the debacle of the Libyan intervention? It was no accident that many Republican mandarins endorsed Hillary Clinton last year. The new administration should bid them all goodbye. Rex Tillerson’s selection as secretary of state is a welcome signal to that end.

The second opportunity is to reset the national discussion, as well as government policies, on race. Few would dispute the original purpose of affirmative action, which was to help African-Americans remove the “badges of slavery.” But after the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, the ethnic makeup of the country dramatically changed. Affirmative action expanded into broader diversity programs, often discriminating against poorer blacks and Americans who happened to be white. Working whites have been hit particularly hard, since white America is not a monolith but a composite of cultures widely stratified in terms of education and income. The disparate impact of diversity programs on different white cultures is not apparent using broad statistics based on race. In addition, more frequent racial intermarriage has blurred the data further, and will continue to do so.

In short, the discussion is mired in the biracial dialogue of the 1960s, while our challenges have become multicultural and mixed with reverse discrimination. Many people who want to remedy this voted for Mr. Trump. One can hope his administration will seek policies to reduce racial tensions and increase fairness for all Americans.


Part 2 just became available again on youtube.
It was blocked before.