AI, the Arts and Islam.

It is interesting to watch the Left’s tantrum on Trump’s defunding the NEA at the same time they clamor to support the unlimited expansion of an ideology more destructive to the Arts than any Western leader has been, ever.

As we move into an AI-based post-Industrial world dragging the Industrial world behind us, how is it advisable not to eradicate a pre-Industrial tribal world that, for most in the protected establishment is a museum exhibit (aren’t those clothes and praying techniques just precious?) and, for the remaining billions of us, insistent on killing all those more advanced than they?

The depredations against not only the Arts, but against human rights, and the economic destruction this ideology brings to every nation and continent are harming progress for all: in living standards, medicine, morals, safety, government spending (on security rather than useful endeavors), fertility (ppl w heads hacked off don’t reproduce), as well as all advances in the Arts & Sciences are immeasurable and must be stopped permanently

To continue the progress the West has led in the Arts & Science since Classical Greece, the progress we have led in living standards since the Industrial Revolution and that has advanced the entire world, at a minimum islam must forcibly be put back into its box. Preferably, since if not killed the ideology will again raise its premodern head to damage future generations, it must be eradicated permanently.

How? Destroy its centers of ideology & funding quickly & inexpensively with one small tactical nuclear weapon on each of Mecca, Medina, Qom, Quetta and Fordo. Then remove all remaining women of childbearing age (China is down tens of millions of women in this age cohort), essentially breeding off the planet an ideology that is destructive to the combined futures of 6 billion people – and ALL of our descendants.

It’s nice to be nice. But when the future, progress & our kids & Civilization are at stake, harsher measures are required.

If you disagree but are unable to provide a PlanB, your disagreement is based on emotion rather than fact.

How much more regression do we accept before doing what needs to be done?

Posted in Domestic, Foreign Policy and International, Politics, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Growing Too Fond of Our un-Terrible Wars

American Civil War General Robert E. Lee said at Fredericksburg, “It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.”

With our all-volunteer force, “surgical” strikes, ever-cooler toys of combat from drones to smart weapons to advanced aircraft, to battlefield videos all over YouTube as entertainment, we have made war no longer terrible for our nation – and have grown “too fond of it.”

To not have to fight war, to not want to fight war, we must again make war as terrible as it once was. Or we shall be at it forever.

We’re now over a million deaths in to the “war”, or “limited combat”, or “nation building” in Iraq. Where we aren’t, is any closer to victory, the only sane reason to go to war.

Choosing to go to war and to kill and to die without choosing victory is the most immoral decision any nation can make. Yet we, who pride ourselves on being a moral people, are making this choice for the third time in the lifetimes of many of us. The result of this choice has, each time, been millions of dead for a goal in which we – demonstrably – do not believe: Permanently changing or terminating the behavior of an opponent.

War has a simple, brutal calculus: The side that kills the most enemy wins. And the side that can kill the most enemy while losing the fewest of its own understands that sacrificing more of its future generations than necessary to achieve victory is immature, immoral and existentially stupid. But an intelligent calculus of war also includes killing as few of the enemy as required to achieve victory.

It is the calculus of productivity in war – killing more of them than us, but not more of them than necessary – that we have forgotten and now ignore.

In choosing to reject both victory and the weapons providing the greatest productivity in man’s most lethal endeavor, America chooses to deal to our foes far more death than necessary. In not defeating our foe, we are responsible for the immoral deaths not only of those enemies we kill in not even trying to achieve victory, but also for the tens of thousands of young Americans who believed, wrongly, that their nation and leadership sent them into combat for a cause in which that leadership and nation believed.

We have weapons that are far more productive than those we deploy in not winning our wars. If we cared about human lives, ours and our adversaries’, we’d use these weapons and end these conflicts in victory much more quickly and at far lower cost – in lives and dollars – to both sides. The faster one’s enemy is killed, the more quickly the war ends and the killing stops.

Choosing Immoral Weapons



Not only have we wasted over one million lives in our current S. Asia conflicts, we have spent close to $5T, enriching only the Military-Industrial Complex against which President Eisenhower warned us. We also have ripped apart thousands of the American families our leaders tell us we go to war to protect and defend.

Combat is about killing warriors, who are tools of policy. War is about killing nations. Conventional weapons are weapons of carnage. Nuclear weapons are weapons of war.

Let’s dispense with the nonsense of “non-state actors,” and the adolescent question of “against whom do we go to war?” People live, organize, train, eat, sleep, grow, love, kill and die within nations and with the permission of the governments of those nations. Any nation exists only due to the implicit support of those living within its borders. A few colonial farmers overthrew the British Empire in America. A few peasants overthrew the Czars. The Chinese reacted harshly at Tienanmen Square because they understood that small groups of men ideologically driven can change history. Ask ISIS. Ask Sweden.

Behaviors are generated and defined by ideology. Conflict between ideologies is expensive. Today no one does not know the ideological and funding centers of our adversaries.

War is the use of all national means to effect change in the behavior of nations, to destroy virulent, lethal ideologies. The rapid and brutal expansion of the NAZI ideology was why America went to war in Europe. The forceful expansion of the nation of Imperial Japan in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was why America went to war in the Pacific.

In American wars won on the field of combat (Civil War, WW2), American forces destroyed roads, bridges, railroads, telephone and telegraph lines, bombed dams and dikes, flooded farmland, destroyed crops and foodstuffs, torpedoed cargo ships, blew-up electrical grids and water works, bombed cities to rubble, and brought our adversary to the brink of starvation. We did this because without food, water, power and shelter a nation cannot fight. We did this because victory is making the vanquished utterly reliant on the victor for their sustenance. Victory not only destroys the capacity of an adversary to fight, but the will to do so. In only this way are behaviors permanently changed.

We fought as we did because we believed in our goal: The destruction of savage ideologies that were implacable foes of liberty and freedom.

As per the chart above, conventional weapons are less, not more, humane than nuclear weapons in achieving victory. Conventional weapons not only cost needless deaths, they lack the strategic statement of a nuclear detonation: Change your behavior or we will annihilate you.

People ignorant of nuclear weapons see them as Hollywood presents them – city killers. These are strategic weapons measured in effective yields of millions of tons of TNT (MT), and only are a portion of our nuclear arsenal. Tactical nuclear weapons also exist, with yields as low as 5,000 tons of TNT (5Kt), smaller than either of the WW2 atomic bombs. We drop that many tons of bombs in a month. With them we kill a lot of sand or jungle – but we don’t win wars.

In rejecting these weapons we allow our leaders to kill millions to no effect. And thousands of those dying in this rejection are our sons. A 5Kt warhead can stop the slaughter of thousands, make a serious political statement and, perhaps, end a war through an acceptance by our enemies of our seriousness of purpose.

General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe, who led the Allies to victory in the largest land war in history, knew more about the human costs of war than any Western leader since. Yet as President he fought against his Pentagon his entire term in office, rejecting the costs of fielding a huge conventional army. He knew that “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

Ike’s successful policy to deter the Soviets was “Massive Retaliation”. He promised that if America or our allies were attacked, America would go “all in”. President Eisenhower knew doing so would cost millions fewer lives and trillions fewer dollars than a large conventional force fighting in measured – incremental – retaliation. The world knew that General Eisenhower had killed millions to defeat his enemy; they understood the man and his experience. An acquaintance who lectures at the National War College once noted in a three-way discussion with an opponent of nuclear weapons, that Massive Retaliation “is the only reason they don’t speak Russian in Paris today.”

By promising to wage war he became one of a very few post-war presidents not to take America to war. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

The calculus of war has not changed. The decisions of American presidents have.

To the detriment of our kids, our culture, our budgets, and the millions of lives lost, and continuing to be lost by refusing to understand the nature of war, why we fight, and by rejecting our most productive weapons, choosing instead to send our children, we have chosen to make war not terrible. Combat always will be terrible; but war is what the populace experiences, not combat.

If America is to return to being the moral nation we all believe and want it to be, we do not need to rebuild our conventional military at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Rather, we need to learn, again, to wage war – hard, brutal, instant, final war – when and where necessary.

We need to make war terrible again.


Posted in Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Debt & Defense

If we were serious about the debt, we’d stop fighting dumb wars we don’t even try to win. One policy re-adoption could save a majority proportion of half-a-trillion dollars annually ($585B in FY2016), thousands of lives of our soldiers, tens of thousands of lives of our opponents, and make the entire world a safer place.

Shouldn’t that be the goal of our defense policy?

We don’t need to continue to enrich Lockheed  and others building toys we won’t use to win combat in which we shouldn’t be involved. And if we won’t use them to win, what is the point of the spend?

We don’t need to deter the USSR – they no longer exist. If Russia attacks into Europe, it will be to kill terrorists. (Can we cease with the fantasy that an islamicized Europe is something Americans would or should be willing to defend?) Attacking China makes zero sense – if they want the S China Sea – we would wage nuclear war over it? No. Islam will not be deterred, so it doesn’t apply. If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to go to Afghanistan to find a war and be seen as useful, why, exactly, does it still exist?

Why is containing or limiting the violence of our enemies our goal – rather than annihilating them? Not killing our enemies is ahistorical – the West got to be the West by fighting decisively to destroy, not degrade, our enemies.

Why is fantasizing that losing incalculable human capital by sending our kids out to do infantry battles, so dying in urban third world squalor, never to have kids themselves … intelligent?

Why is sending our kids out to kill and die for causes we don’t believe in enough to fight to victory … moral?

Why are the egos of our leaders too afraid to be seen as the destroyers of our enemies, something to which leaders throughout history have aspired … more important than the lives of our kids?

Why send our kids to do a nuke’s job?

Adopting Ike’s policy of Massive Retaliation would allow us to quit wasting hundreds of $B annually on an enormously expensive conventional force capability. We don’t need to defend Europe – they’ve already surrendered to the only folks who will be invading them. We don’t need to defend Japan – they have plenty of money and technical capability to defend themselves. We don’t need to defend S Korea – ditto. We don’t need to defend Israel, who, like us, has a nuclear deterrent it is far past time to put to use on her mortal enemies.

And we sure as Hell don’t need to be defending Saudi Arabia. They are the root of the problem, can afford their own defense, probably paid for the development of the PakiNuke and already have taken delivery of a couple (or can in a transport cycle). We send them billions in armaments – and then, under GHWBush, also fight their wars… (On whom would SA use a nuke? The same mortal enemy they’ve been fighting for a thousand years: Shia Persia. Same reason they have given Israel overflight rights to attack Iran.)

The world will NOT be more dangerous if SWAT is turned into green glass. The world will NOT be more dangerous if Fordow and Arak are blasted into oblivion. The world will NOT be more dangerous if the next time DPRK puts an M-IRBM on a launch pad, their launch complex is vaporized.

All three of these examples would, in a microsecond, make the world a safer place. Isn’t that the goal?

Or are the goals to maximize General officers who can’t win wars, to maximize the profits of the Military-Industrial complex, to maximize the destruction of future generations?

If the West had the historical insight to annihilate Mecca, Medina and Qom, islam would die out in a few generations and a billion people would be released from the intellectual and moral squalor of islam, and the civilized world from its mortal threat.

Want to know a cause worth killing a few hundred thousand in a heartbeat? There it is.

People had better figure out that our enemies will, as soon as they have the capability, nuke us. Will we respond conventionally, sending out a few divisions to get nuked on a sand dune? Or will we nuke them back? If we are going to be willing to nuke them in response to a nuke – why are we willing to gamble a few hundred thousand civilized lives instead of nuking them first?

We aren’t dealing with sane opponents as we were in the Cold War. We are dealing with premodern uncivilized barbaric savages who cannot be negotiated with, raping, pillaging and burning their way across the civilized world. Not killing them may well be the most immoral choice the West has ever made. We don’t need to make it.

If we lack the foresight to kill our enemies there, what makes you think we will have the foresight to kill them here? Is Europe?

We have a violent and unstable world. American taxpayers can continue to throw money & men at it in ways we have been proving for half-a-century do not work, or we can re-adopt MR, use a few small tactical nukes on ISIS, thereby letting the genie out of the bottle and giving others implicit permission to do the same. Contrary to Conventional Wisdom, this is a good thing.

It sounds trite but is not, human nature being what it is: If a 2nd Amendment city is safer, why is a 2nd Amendment world… not?  What could this do? Reduce the Global spend on conventional weapons, redirecting in a short time trillions of dollars – and saving the civilized future.

People rejecting nukes due to the Hollywood version are just miseducated on nukes. Their lack of understanding is not a reason to continue spending so much money on immoral and suboptimal defense. Nothing is more immoral than killing and dying in a cause you don’t believe in enough to win, and only that is more immoral than not using your most productive weapons to fight enemies, killing fewer of them and of you in the process, as well as achieving your goal: Victory.

Nuclear Weapons Save Lives

If America wants to rein-in the budget, get serious on the world stage, and quit wasting lives all over the planet, we need to adopt MR and blow-up some enemies. After one or two, we probably won’t have to do it again. And, if we do, it won’t require F35s, massive formations of our kids, hundreds of ships or any other hugely expensive conventional toys.

The world will be a safer – and saner – place.

Posted in Foreign Policy and International, Politics, Taxes & Economy, Uncategorized, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Requires Change Agents & Islam Hasn’t Any

In every group of people – nation, religion, Rotary Club, PTA, etc. – three major subgroups exist: Leaders/Activists, Followers and Change Agents. The largest group, Followers, as expected by the definition, is too apathetic to support outright either the Leaders or the Change Agents, but implicitly is supportive of the Leaders by not joining the Change Agents, by not ruffling any feathers and by letting the Leader/Activist cohort take the group wherever it wants.

This is pretty pedestrian stuff: Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way.

In islam these three groups can be defined as:

  1. Leaders/Activists: ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PLO, etc. – and those who provide moral and material/materiel support (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Democrats, etc.)
  2. Change Agents: a group in islam which may exist only anecdotally, as in “some of my best neighbors/doctors/friends are muslim,” but, as per definition, is too small to effect change (if it exists at all).
  3. Followers: those in basic agreement with the Leaders/Activists, the majority in every Western survey of muslims regarding the place of sharia over Western Civilization and the Rule of Law, but too lazy to participate. They are not leading and they are not changing.

The point is that the idea that moderate muslims exist is based on the erroneous idea that the large Follower cohort is part of the Change Agent group when, in fact, it supports the Leader/Activist cohort via inertia. The goal which Followers implicitly support is islamism, sharia, and the overturning of Western Rule of Law, Self-government, Individual Liberty and Human Rights.

If Followers were, as Western progs demand, “moderate”, and so interested in getting along with, rather than conquering, the West, they’d be Change Agents. By their numbers alone we’d see change, perhaps an Enlightenment bringing islam into modernity and out of the Dark Ages to which its Leaders/Activists have, for centuries, demanded it return (see What Went Wrong, by Bernard Lewis), against which the Followers have put up negligible resistance, and the only Change Agent of note, Ataturk, is dead and Erdogan is busy overturning his every change.

By not being Change Agents, Followers support the Leaders, whose goal is the 7th-Century world of barbaric totalitarianism the West has fought millennia to leave behind. (Why progs think another millennia of carnage to get back to where we are now is a good idea is never explained.)

The West must acknowledge that the overwhelming supermajority of this cult of islam is opposed to Western Civilization, and that the only salient difference between the Leader/Activist and Follower cohorts is the level of violence to which they are – today – willing to subject the greater world.

For moral and material progress to continue islam must change. Lacking Change Agents, it cannot, so must be removed. For the entire civilized world, the sooner the better. Erasing their major centers of funding and ideology can do this. Nothing else will or can in any competitive timeframe. “Competitive” as in the competition between islam and the Rest (West, China, Russia, India), which is accelerating and which will have only one winner.

The West can continue to lose irreplaceable human capital by fighting dumb, localized combat with conventional weapons and strategies & tactics, and lose any war of attrition with a people having nothing better to do. (We always lose our wars of attrition; why would this one be any different?)

Or we can annihilate these centers and allow the remainder of the cult to evaporate over a few generations. The indisputable fact that Followers – are, and that no Change Agents exist in the proper target locales (Mecca, Medina, Qom, Quetta, etc.), removes any justification for not annihilating these centers of ideology immediately. There are no “innocent bystanders” in the Follower cohort.

The former is what we are doing now.

The latter is the mature, moral and responsible answer.

A Third choice exists: China or Russia annihilating islam as an existential threat to them or, as they modernize, to their needed Western markets. Unless America wants world leadership to move East, it would be good if we became the necessary Change Agent before they do.


Posted in Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Changing the Rules

When one takes the long look of history, two errors of Western Civilization stand out above all others.

The first, US entry into WW1, birthed the USSR, Weimar Republic, NAZIs, WW2 ETO, Red China, Cold War, Korea & Vietnam, and Left hundreds of millions dead.

The second, Kuwait, with a familial epilogue of Afghanistan & Iraq, destroyed S Asia & the Middle East, created the largest immigration outside of war in human history and is in the process of destroying European civilization and attacking America.

Both of these mistakes were by individuals insisting on defining the roles of other nations and were none of our business: Wilson(D) the first, Bush 41 & 43 (R) the second.

It is likely these men will go down as the worst presidents in our history, and among the great destroyers of civilizations, cultures & societies.

The question, then: How do we prevent recurrence? I suggest that rejecting conventional warfare entirely, building DOWN our conventional capability to intentionally preclude this interventionist destruction, and re-adopting Ike’s MR, is the only way to do so.

Our reasons for massive conventional capability have been twofold; neither anymore exists:

  1. To fight two regional wars concurrently (we are unable/unwilling – a distinction without a difference – to fight one to successful cousin, e.g. Victory)
  2. To prevent a Russian thrust into Europe. Having surrendered its demographic future, it should be evident that not even Europeans care about their future – so why would we?

Right now we have some General testifying we can’t leave Afghanistan for fear of attacks here. Really? Forever? This is nothing but “empire building” in the business sense: large budgets & TO&E.

We find ourselves in a perfect time and place, with the perfect president (a non-ideological pragmatist) to implement MR. The deserts of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan & SWAT hold few people, fewer peaceful people, and nothing of importance to the outside world. We have a Western population past fed-up with the hornets whose nest we have disturbed.

Announce MR, drop a few tactical nukes on ISIS & al Qaeda, tell the world we aren’t going to ever again be un-serious in war, and quit spending hundreds of billions on conventional systems & forces.

As Ike asked, “How many schools did that bomber cost?”

As long as we leave presidents with a choice of less-than-catastrophic destruction of our enemies, they will use it in pursuit of goals not worth fighting for (proven by not even trying to win), and the results will be as we see above.

Move to MR, remove the ability to wage conventional war in even regional theaters. Or our presidents will continue to wage dumb, small wars that will prove catastrophic over time – and give our competitors (Russia: Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia…) implicit permission to do the same.

Posted in Domestic, Foreign Policy and International, Politics, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment