Australian Shitshow: And how we burned in the camps

So your government is building camps. This happens. It’s actually pretty common, historically, as the logic of detaining prisoners of war (itself a fairly liberal idea, much more enlightened than the traditional massacre or enslavement and more scalable than ransom) was extended to a domestic or pseudo-domestic population of enemies.

Everyone likes to focus on the most notorious set of examples, despite being fairly short lived, even to the exclusion of realizing that there are other examples. The contemporaneous Soviet gulags are well known in the general population, at least in their broad outlines, via cultural diffusion of Yakov Smirnoff jokes. The United States interned its Japanese, Italian, and German populations (you don’t hear so much about the white guys) for the duration. The term itself was invented by the British to describe their brutal anti Boer counterinsurgency practice in South Africa. Enumerating the examples from the Eastern bloc, from Romania to China, gets into semantics of a “prison” versus a “camp”. Libs will eagerly point out that the United States engages in population suppression via prison on a greater proportion of its citizens than anywhere else, comparable to the USSR itself during the height of the purges. The Israelis restrict their captive population on such a scale that the Gaza Strip has been described as an open-air camp, with the genius innovation that one does not even need to be arrested, but merely born there.

Really, no one has described the phenomenon better on a metaphysical level than Solzhenitsyn – the latter chapters are a catalogue of specific brutalities, but the first couple hundred pages or so are universal in their application. My temptation is to quote from it at length, but I will restrain myself, within reason:

We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more-we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! (Arthur Ransome describes a workers’ meeting in Yaroslavl in 1921. Delegates were sent to the workers from the Central Committee in Moscow to confer on the substance of the argument about trade unions. The representative of the opposition, Y. Larin, explained to the workers that their trade union must be their defense against the administration, that they possessed rights which they had won and upon which no one else had any right to infringe. The workers, however, were completely indifferent, simply not comprehending whom they still needed to be defended against and why they still needed any rights. When the spokesman for the Party line rebuked them for their laziness and for getting out of hand, and demanded sacrifices from them-overtime work without pay, reductions in food, military discipline in the factory administration-this aroused great elation and applause.)

Of course, Solzhenitsyn spends the rest of the chapter explaining why it is simply unreasonable, as a matter of prudence and human psychology, to expect people to “love freedom” in the abstract so much that one bashes the secret policeman over the head with a lamp and suffers the concrete consequences. Transformation of a temporary internment to a one-way trip is highly contextual – in the Gulags themselves, most were at least putatively imprisoned on criminal rather than explicitly political grounds (a thin distinction at the time, but one with significant consequences), for perhaps five years at a toss. Approximately everyone survived the domestic American internment camps – being the world’s bread basket helps, and under circumstances where the American civilian population was restricted to 1400 calories a day it’s doubtful that the camp populations would have done as well. In the contemporary case, we mostly scoff at the teen who “loves freedom” so much that he gets into a fistfight or a shootout with police over a warrant on a two-year case.

The thing to draw from this is that a priori it’s not clear how a mass internment is going to go, and much depends on the underlying resources (calories, logistics, and competency) available to the regime – assuming they don’t decide on a policy of destruction for political purposes at some point. Until the policy change marked at the Wansee conference, it was plausible that as a random Polish civilian you might be safer inside Auschwitz than in the path of the Leibstandarte SS.

Fortunately, the Australian government loves its citizens very much, despite the fact that they are totally superfluous to their long term mission of selling every mineral asset on the continent at a fair price. Their recent political project to destroy the ability of their citizens to coordinate political activity should not be taken as a sign that they would be so ruthless as to imprison dissenters on “public health” grounds, or to use medicalized euthanasia on a captive population despite a year and a half of evidence doing so was fatal. Their competency and respect for epidemiology is undoubtable, and their results speak for themselves.

The most comforting knowledge is that their population has no choice but to trust them.

13 Comments Add yours

  1. I would be interested to know what policy changes the author thinks happened at Wansee and what specifically was said that is indicative of these changes.

    The right has no need for baseless schizophrenia.


  2. Jorge Washington says:

    Great poast, unanticipated structure. Your observation on the Aussie elites’ goal, selling the minerals, reminds me of the thought experiment of the AI who turns the universe into paperclips. Whatever selection we had to allow industrial civilization, seems to have functionally given us this sort of AI in the form of our leadership caste. Is it possible to have fantastic career success, and not be manically twisted? Like all they can think of is go on finding ways to increase profitability even further, to the point where they’re doing a bio-terror version of the Inclosure Acts?

    Question: How does China fit in? It seems to me this program the greater-GAE is engaged in, destroys the capacity to stand up to China. If you, as a satanist-pedo-CFR insider, kill 90% of your population, the Chinks just move their surplus Work Hard Study types in, and kick you out of your Bond Villain compound. The elite would seem to *need* us, healthy and thriving like it’s 1960, even if they hate us.


    1. Jamarcus N. Daniels says:

      My impression is that they intend for a repeat of their transition out of Russia as they wore out their welcome. There are certainly a number of ‘elites’ in China’s upper echelon today. The famous Tucker clip of the Chinese professor noting his encounter with a large-nosed woman who had membership in China’s upper caste comes to mind.

      Essentially, they’re switching hosts, and attempting to liquidate as much of their previous host’s wealth as possible on their way out. The comparison writers here have made to the post-Soviet looting of Russia is not unjustified.


    2. Miforest says:

      Jorge, you are correct. I think they have the CCP on a leash , with the credit market . maybe they do, but the Chinese they import over half their food. That means they are vulnerable to the international flow of money to pay for it and the sea lanes to get it there are controlled by the USN , a wholly owned subsidiary of global cap. I think that that is the source of all Xi’s runctions at home . they are chaffing under the WEF restrictions , but don’t have a way around them.


  3. Cuckadile Dundee says:

    Give up your guns, mate


  4. NC says:

    Sad, Sad day for the Kiwis and aussies. Their Police are private security and only have loyalty to the state. They lost there guns 2yrs (NZ) and 20yrs (AUS) ago to false flags. Their only real choice is homemade fireworks and large motor vehicles. But then the 4 largest cities are all “diversified” so their is no unity.


  5. vxxc says:

    I’d be happy if we loved survival enough.
    You’re kidding.
    Baby steps, Survival first.


  6. Earl Shetland says:

    I suspect that lockdowns have been used because our government can no longer afford to build camps.

    There’s an article in there somewhere about “the suburbs are the FEMA camp” – built to give people just enough room to feel free, not enough room to really live. ((Mr Levitt has been quoted, that suburbs were created to keep people busy and quash rebellion – real rebellion, not of the variety on sale at Hot Topic, that is.)

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Political Science Believer says:

    It will be of no great surprise to you, then, that the physical structure of the suburb was explicitly designed to both mitigate the ready congregation of potentially incensed suburban heads-of-household (many of them demobilized G.I.s) and be utterly indefensible to incursing military or paramilitary forces.

    (Have you ever noticed that no suburb has a “center”? Every other living arrangement in all of human history has had a natural center of gravity. The suburb, however, seems as if to be cut adrift in space and time, a location rooted in nowhere-in-particular abiding in an eternal present with neither beginning nor end.)

    Even today, they test their new stuff in Levittown. The search engines are probably still good enough that you can find local-ish news articles describing “smart” Wal-Marts and the like beginning approximately 2015. Incidentally, “smart” is code for “ceiling-mounted sensor array with gait recognition, optional OTA heartprint capability”. Cute, yes?


    1. Political Science Believer says:

      (In reply to Earl Shetland.)


  8. GDR says:

    I would lay in ambush for my hunters not because I love freedom but because I love counting coup.

    The love of war is the father of freedom.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s