Straw Meets Camel’s Back?

Understanding that the Rule of Law no longer exists for politicians, MA State Rep Michelle DuBois (D-Brockton) violates the law and her oath of office to tip off felons of a pending raid by law enforcement, is “outed” for doing so and responds to the nation – by posting to social media a picture of her smilingly giving the middle finger to her constituents – and to the Rule of Law.

The Totalitarian State

Our rulers no longer care – and it seems we don’t care enough to make them.

Why would she care what we think about her lawbreaking? It’s not as though we ever fire anyone, ever re-elect at a rate below 85%, have any ability to take the State to court, can refuse pay our taxes – and her salary. Lerner committed felonies. Holder committed felonies. Lynch committed felonies. Comey committed felonies. Hillary committed felonies. Obama committed felonies. Clapper committed felonies.

Consistently flouting the law has only two historical outcomes – descent into tyranny – the goal of the Left – or violent rebellion – which they are daring us to start, and which, too, likely will result in a descent into tyranny.

America is a nation under the Rule of Law: Either we take back our birthright – or we surrender it. No Plan C exists.

Like it or not, life’s choices at the crunch are binary. Where the rubber meets the road there is no gray, only black or white, wrong or right, law or totalitarianism.

Given the reaction to our ballot-box protest on 8 Nov, no one in government cares what We the People want. So it’s probably time to make them care.

It’s all right there in the Declaration of Independence.

Will anything change until everything is burned down? Who knows? It’s looking increasingly unlikely.

Now that the fight has begun – and her action, as well as those of Koskinen, Lerner, Obama, Comey, Hillary all are fights against the Rule of Law and America – the fight only can accelerate on either side: Either we take back control quickly – or they win and destroy America, equally quickly.

Under the pretense that the GOP supported Constitutional government under the Rule of law, we have given the GOP everything they asked for – and they are slow-walking and allowing delays on presidential appointments & SCOTUS that, as the majority, they need not do or allow.

It was a false pretense.

They are not enforcing the Constitution or the law on Obama or Hillary or anyone in that administration (IRS, DoJ, etc), and have no intention, it seems, in governing according to OUR wishes – and we are supposed to be in charge.

The legislative branch refuses its role of checking the executive branch. The executive branch accepts unconstitutional checks on powers reserved to the executive. All the branches ignore the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. No branch accepts what We the People want OUR government to do or not do. By our lack of reaction, we are OK with this.

I’m not. Are you?

Self-government and the Rule of Law have, to the Ruling Class, become a joke. We “protest” at the ballot box but keep telling ourselves that we just need “a bit more time” or “more compromise”. We’re allowing patience and compromise to destroy our nation. I am sick and tired of it.

If you have kids and you are not angry as hell at what our government is doing, either you’re not paying attention or you desire totalitarianism – it’s just “easier.”

 

Posted in Domestic, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Backlash”

A young German woman on her way to work nonchalantly is pushed in front of an oncoming train in Berlin – murdered. Pedestrians are run down and killed in the street in Britain. France. Australia…

And muslims “fear backlash.”

They ought to fear backlash – not from what our governments will do – but what Western governments should do, and what the citizens of the West MUST do for the West to survive. That they do NOT fear backlash is the problem.

There will be only one winner in this clash. If one looks across history one finds that the winner will be the side fighting for ideology – not for cost-benefit.

The American colonists fought for ideology – liberty & self-government; the Brits fought for cost-benefit. Civil War? The South wanted to be left alone – the Northern soldier fought to preserve the Union and squash slavery. WW2? The Allies fought for freedom & liberty, Imperial Japan for a larger empire, NAZI Germany for lebensraum. Korea? Vietnam? America fought for cost-benefit, the Norks and VC/NVA for ideology.

Who is fighting for ideology now? Islam. Who is, at best (when fighting at all), fighting for cost-benefit in yet another limited war of attrition against an ideological foe willing to strap bombs on women and kids, an illiterate, pre-modern, tribal foe that burns to death co-religionists who are not completely on-board with THEIR ideology?

No amount of wishing it were different can make it so. No amount of pretense that they want what we want and are just misunderstood or need a job will change this. They must be killed in sufficient numbers to stop them – or they will conquer the West.

We’ve killed a million already in this “limited” war. Had we just nuked Riyadh on day one, we’d have killed a helluva lot fewer – and probably been done a decade ago. Had we nuked Mecca & Medina in addition, we STILL would’ve killed fewer — and no Americans — and been done by now. Would we have muslims killing us in the street?

They are now…

The longer we wait, the more civilized people islam will kill – and the more muslims we will have to kill to stop them.

How many more 20-yr-old women on their way to work are we willing to sacrifice to political correctness and the ignorant fallacy that we can force on a non-Western culture the uniquely Western philosophy of “coexistence”? Do you grasp the imperialistic nature of demanding another culture adopt this Western philosophy – and the irony of referring to this imperialism as “multiculturalism”?

How many never-to-be fathers of authors, artists, entrepreneurs lie dead on a foreign sand dune because they were sent to fight battles our leadership gave them neither the tools nor the ROE to fight? How many more young women like the German this morning will leave behind no future generations, no possible doctors, playwrights, sculptors or CEOs because our leaders and the totalitarian half of our population (that doesn’t believe in the future enough to populate it), ignorantly fantasize ‘we are all the same’?

How many more pedestrians going about their business must violently and mercilessly be run-down by the 7th Century before we stop – just STOP – putting up with this?

How much more of our own civilization are we willing to sacrifice to this tribal, violent, savage, barbaric ideology of totalitarianism, this cult of might-makes-right with a deity who ordered his followers to kill their daughters, stone their women, behead their children and murder all before them – before we recognize that, no, we are NOT willing to have our future generations killed, no, we are NOT willing to halt or regress a millennium of progress, no, we are NOT willing to accept this brutality in the name of – in the name of anything?

I am so tired of hearing – “but there are a billion of them.”

So what?

So that’s going to inform… what, exactly, in this fight?

We surrender because there are a potential of a billion subhumans with knives and IEDs? That’s the plan?

We give up liberty, freedom, human/women’s/children’s/gay rights, self-determination, freedom of speech and association, self-government… because a billion illiterates want us to?

That’s the plan?

Newsflash: We have nuclear weapons. There are no innocent bystanders in war – and don’t conflate combat with war – they are different things. This is – for them – war. It needs to be war for us, too. OR WE WILL LOSE. Our enemy has gone all-in, are using everything they have. Knives, cars, trucks, airliners…. pushing a woman into an oncoming locomotive… 

We must go all-in, as well. 

The idea that we are so almighty powerful that they won’t be able to beat us and so ultimately will quit the fight has been disproved in all of the fights above. You don’t think the British Empire was more powerful than a bunch of semi-organized draftee farmers freezing to-death in the Colonies? It’s been proven in our lifetimes in Korea, Vietnam – and in S Asia as a bunch of illiterates with small arms have tied-down the most powerful military in the history of the known universe for 15 YEARS.

If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, we will get the result we’ve always gotten in limited war: WE WILL LOSE.

It’s we, as we have in all previous wars of attrition with primitives, who will quit the field.

The “field” we will quit is Western Civilization.

If they do conquer the West – and look around, free speech has been outlawed in Canada and Western Europe already in the name of islam; the free speech we voluntarily are surrendering DEFINES Western Civilization – if islam conquers us, 1,400 years of death, disease, science, literature, art will have to be fought, survived, cured, invented, painted, written and sculpted… just to get back to where we are today.

Only idiots can think that is a good idea. Only the childless cannot care that if the West falls, the carnage of the last millennia will have to recur.

(Who are predominantly childless? The same political party across the West that refuses to fight, rejects free speech and individual liberty and demands Statism… The same Western Governments that refuse this call to defend the liberty, to protect and defend the lives of their citizens, with which they were entrusted.)

In fact, it’ll be worse. Those desiring liberty didn’t have to fight tens of millions of subhumans with small arms, or a Pakistan or Iran with nuclear weapons – they just had to fight a few thousand fellow-Westerners with swords and axes and, finally, muskets.

And only truly ignorant post-religious people who not only don’t believe in religion – they don’t believe anyone else does, either (“How did he win? I don’t know anyone who voted for him?”) – are unable to imagine that people do fight, kill and die for ideology.

You think the burning of the library at Alexandria was an irreplaceable loss? Wait until the Louvre is burned, Europe’s libraries and museums put to the torch, her statuary hammered into gravel. My brother was fortunate enough to see the gigantic Buddha in Afghanistan. No one else will… ever again.

Mona Lisa, anyone?

The loss of liberty? Incalculable. Will by some similar strange chance, in another 1400 years, come again a Jefferson and a Madison? What are the odds?

Why are we taking this chance?

The West MUST begin defending itself and start KILLING ITS ENEMY.

Its enemy… is islam. All of it. 

It must be destroyed, wiped from the face of the earth. Its cities razed, its leadership killed, its worshipers killed or converted or allowed to die off in discouragement as their “strong horse”… wasn’t, and salt sown in its poppy fields.

Either we go Carthaginian… or we go extinct.

It is childish, and existentially foolish, to pretend otherwise.

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

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