Taking a child away from a competent family is the height of evil behavior on the part of a state. It is also ultimately suicidal, because nothing pisses a man off more than that, and competent men can make their anger keenly felt in a fragile society. Sweden IS a fragile society, perhaps even moreso than the United States because of the climate. Probably you'll get away with it this time Sweden, but I'd be shocked if you weren't running at least a 1 in 100 chance of national destruction each time you pull something like this.
Hint: your power grid is the lifeline of your population, and it is likely just as vulnerable as that of the US. You've probably got other bottlenecks in your JIT infrastructure that are exceedingly vulnerable to attack besides this, and I wager you've got about as much slack in your system as in the US---which is to say a criminally low level. Machiavelli would counsel you better than to do things like this. You think that guy Breivik in neighboring Norway was bad? You'd wish for a hundred like him rather than one who simply wants to see your system burn and has the necessary competencies to do so. Tread very carefully.
Of course you won't. It isn't in your nature. The fact that you snatched his son while he and his family were in the process of leaving the country for good for India is indicative of that. So you'll likely receive the cup of wrath that God has stored up for you through your malice, arrogance, and lack of foresight. Lots of innocent people are going to die, because you insist on manufacturing enemies of an existential nature out of whole cloth and eventually, one of them is going to strike you a blow you can't endure. But hey, at least it will reduce your carbon footprint, right?
Love is love?
1 day ago
> eventually, one of them is going to strike you a blow you can't endure.
Not holding my breath.
The story would resonate more with men likely to take such actions if it weren't also a race-mixing story.
Messing with a man's children or his wife and not killing him is a recipe for disaster. Machiavelli would tell you as much. Sweden's problem is that it honestly only takes one family sufficiently motivated to unwind their nation. Eventually they're going to pick on one. There is a certain irony in a modern nation with a modern military being utterly vulnerable to a few men with improvised explosives and possibly hunting weapons. Utteryly dependent on a few ultra-high voltage transformers...
This isn't a white nationalism story, or even a traditionalist story as you point out. Instead it is a warning of the folly of interfering with families and creating mortal enemies when you live in a world that is a pool of gasoline with plenty of matches readily available.
Sweden's problem is that it honestly only takes one family sufficiently motivated to unwind their nation.
I doubt this. What could a single family, however determined, possibly do that would destroy Sweden?
Sweden is a cold harsh climate in the winter.
The removal of a 5-10 of the larger power plants would definitely have an impact. The grid though I think is a bigger worry in the US because so much power is being used hundreds of miles away from where it is produced, and that would be even easier.
The vulnerability isn't the power plant itself, it is in the ultra-high voltage transfermer (typically stepping the voltage from in the 10kV range up to the 100+ KV range. Those transformers are few and very very hard to replace. They're also quite vulnerable to a single determined family. Without said transformers, you can't supply much power for long distances, I^2R losses will simply eat you alive---or more precisely, burn you out. In general there's not much slack in the power grid, especially during high demand times (like, say winter storm conditions in Sweden where there is tremendous demand for electricity for heating), so you're nicely set up for cascading failures, even should you only take out a fairly small fraction of said transformers. All the power in the world at the generating plant isn't terribly useful if you can't deliver it.
By contrast, a nuclear reactor itself is designed to be able to withstand an airplane impact (although as of recently, internal security couldn't even keep out a few activist nuns).
A state that denies the value of the nation will, in time, also deny the value of the family. Eventually, it will deny the value of the individual. In the end, all that matters to them is their own power; the power of the state.
Or maybe the right will just take it like a bitch, as usual. This family may have lost everything, but the next family probably won't defy the state in the first place.
Even if I'm wrong about that, I think you're understimating the resilience of the infrastructure. Look at the failure of strategic bombing to accomplish much in WWII - do you think a single family can do better? I had a power outage for two weeks in the winter caused by an ice storm, and it wasn't that big of a deal. The heater never stopped working.
Anonymous, this isn't a right/left issue. The family in question might be a lot more left than right anyway. This is an issue of the institution of the family butting heads against that of the state. People who have lost a child are far more likely to strike out than some nebulous right, especially if it was all or their only child.
As to the infrastructure, the WWII-era infrastructure was way more resilient. For one thing, a lot of generating plants didn't even step up their transmission voltage---10KV or so was fine for that era as the amount of power provided by the grid was way smaller. Daily life wasn't as intimately dependent on the provision of regular electricity. Even up as far as the 80s there was a lot more resilience. It's very easy to get into a 'One Second After' scenario from our present starting point---there are a lot of ways and they go way way down the food chain, from powerful geomagnetic storms, to EMP, down indeed to twelve angry (whatever redneck translates to in Swedish).
Post a Comment