Archive for the ‘war’ Category

Arab Spring

Wednesday, September 30th, 2015

Arab Spring has predictably been an utter disaster.

By undermining the legitimacy of existing authority, it has turned the middle east into a sea of blood and fire, the worst cases being Syria and Libya.

Middle Easterners are mostly of inferior races, and at the best of times, it is hard for them to maintain the basic functions of a modern society, hard to keep the electricity running, the water running, the sewage off the streets, and all that.  To operate this quite ordinary stuff in a society dominated by an inferior race requires a fair bit of arrogant confident elitism and a cheerful willingness to smack grossly inferior people around to keep them from mischief.  Arab Spring has been democratic and anti elitist.  Thus most of the anti Bashar Assad groups in Syria just cannot keep that stuff functioning, and keep begging the horrid evil tyrant Bashar Assad to keep that stuff operating for them.

Near as I can figure, the major reasons that Bashar Assad is a horrible tyrant is that he stops stupid people from doing stupid things and he will not let them rape and murder those of non Muslim minorities.

Oddly, Obama and the Cathedral press have unshaken confidence that Obama is on the correct side of history.  From time to time they confidently predict that Putin will fail unless he overthrows Bashar Assad for the Cathedral, after many years of disastrous failure by the Cathedral in its efforts to overthrow Bashar Assad.

Obama and the New York Times and the rest live in an echo chamber, utterly impervious to outside reality.  Their policy cannot be a disaster, because they are on the right side of history.

The natural outcome of democracy is that each tribe votes for  its tribal interest.  The result is unacceptable to all the minority tribes.  War ensues, unless the majority group has a natural advantage in military struggle as well as voting, unless the majority group is the clearly superior group.  If you have democracy without war, it is because you have an ethnically homogeneous society, or someone is rigging the system to produce acceptable results.

Bashar Assad’s strength is that his religion is the only religion in Syria, other than Christianity, that is tolerant enough that it can be trusted to refrain from massacring minorities and his political organization is the only one that has the basic competence to keep the basic services of a modern society functioning and the will to keep the hands of subhumans off those basic services.

The Cathedral congratulates itself that it is rule by smart superior people, but rule by smart superior people was an unprincipled exception, which exception has now been rolled back.

The effects of rule by stupid people are most immediately apparent at your DMV department, at your airport security screening, and in Syria.

If you are not getting Syrian style brownouts, the people who are keeping our power system functioning, the people who making sure you do not get brownouts, are all rather old and due to retire soon.  Soon your power supply will be provided by the same people who operate airport security, because right now, white male privilege keeps the power on, and that is an unprincipled exception.

The 2007 British surrender incident.

Friday, September 25th, 2015

A British warship was sailing in Iraqi waters, waters that Iran had in 1975 agreed were Iraqi, which treaty it had never disavowed.  Iraq was at the time effectively ruled by the British and Americans.

Two small boats with fifteen British sailors left the warship to inspect a small ship for contraband.  Under the nose of the British warship, in Iraqi waters, three Iranian coastguard vessels kidnapped those British sailors.  Despite immensely superior firepower, those aboard to the British warship were too terrified to do anything about it.

There were several different official versions of why the warship failed to act, with the final and official version being that they failed to notice.  Oh come on.

The sailors, and Britain, and numerous organs of the British government, proceeded to issue apologies to their captors.  After much groveling, the captives were released.  The denouement of this incident reveals its cause.

The British military as a self licking lollipop

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2015

Britain lately has been suffering completely ridiculous one sided defeats by small ill equipped poorly trained Arab forces.

I wondered how this could be so, so I purchased Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure

During World War II Churchill complained:

“Pray explain to me how it is that in the Middle East 750,000 men always turn up for their pay and rations but when it comes to fighting only 100,000 turn up.”

When fighting Arabs in Iraq and Afghanistan, only a couple of hundred turned up.

Compare and contrast the British army before the Crimean war, where if you had a ten thousand troops, ten thousand troops would usually fight, their officers leading from the front rather than hanging around surrounded by numerous flunkies in a large well appointed well defended base, logistics being largely provided by camp followers employed by regimental commanders, mostly female camp followers who worked vertically by day and horizontally by night, and consequently had immeasurably lower status than actual fighting men.

Partly this is Parkinsons law, but partly it is rule by priests over warriors. The typical British general regards hurting people and breaking their toys as rather disgraceful and embarrassing, and such activity is unlikely to lead to medals and promotions.  They focus on activities that do not directly aim at hurting people, like raising the self esteem of Afghan women and British servicewomen.

A lost military technology

Sunday, September 13th, 2015

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, wealthy private individuals substantially supported the military, with a particular wealthy men buying stuff for a particular regiment or particular fort.

Noblemen paid high prices for military commands, and these posts were no sinecure.  You got the obligation to substantially supply the logistics for your men, the duty to obey stupid orders that would very likely lead to your death, the duty to lead your men from in front while wearing a costume designed to make you particularly conspicuous, and the duty to engage in honorable personal combat, man to man, with your opposite number who was also leading his troops from in front.

A vestige of this tradition remains in that every English prince has been sent to war and has placed himself very much in harms

It seems obvious to me that a soldier being led by a member of the ruling class who is soaking up the bullets from in front is a lot more likely to be loyal and brave than a soldier sent into battle by distant rulers safely in Washington who despise him as a sexist homophobic racist murderer, that a soldier who sees his commander, a member of the ruling classes, fighting right in front of him, is reflexively likely to fight.

So what made very large numbers of rich and powerful people personally sacrifice for the military?  They must have gotten something out of it, and at what they were paying, it was not the salary.

Presumably they got social status, which could be cashed in for wealth and power.  This however requires that we award social status for activities that are actually constructive and support society and order, and that we then allow social status to be cashed in.    Which means we have to make sure that social status is not awarded for superior holiness – we have to hang Greenpeace from the yardarm when they engage in piracy on the high seas, and send William Wilberforce to west indies as a slave to cut sugarcane in punishment for apostasy.

I understand how eighteenth century patriarchy worked, how good behavior was socially and coercively enforced on women.

But I don’t understand how private and individual support of the military by wealthy and or aristocratic males was motivated.  This is a lost social technology.

To make it work, have to bestow status on those worthy, and reward earned status with money and power.

The system eventually failed because the holy claimed higher status than that horribly brutal racist sexist homophobic baby eating military.  The attacks on the military began with synthetic moral outrage at the British army’s successful and heroic measures to cut Russian logistics in the Crimean war, in which the courage and victory of officers and men should have covered them with glory, and have escalated ever since, with ever more  severe efforts to denigrate and disadvantage soldiers.  What was heroism before the Crimean war has become baby eating ever since.

In place of crediting heroes with heroism, they credited whores like Florence Nightingale with heroism.  (I assume she was a whore because most of the female camp followers, and most of the camp followers were female, worked vertically by day and horizontally by night.  Also, when she was hot, she had many connections with many wealthy men, but never married.  When a young cute girl spends a lot of time hanging out with a succession of old rich guys ….)

It begins

Sunday, August 23rd, 2015

A huge flood of blacks from subsaharan Africa is pouring into Europe, since stopping them has very recently been made illegal, and when they arrive, they are guaranteed free food and housing, and the welfare state and feminist laws has left white pussy readily available, undefended, and defenseless.   What man in his right mind will protect a slut (assuming she wants to be protected, which is unlikely)?

A necessary consequence is that whites are going to be eliminated from Europe – probably not any time very soon, but now it begins:

Boris Palmer, the Green Party mayor of Tübingen, told Welt newspaper the town was struggling to find accommodation for migrants.

“The Police Law has clear rules. If there is a threat of homelessness in a city, vacant houses can be seized for accommodation,” Mr Palmer said.

And if they are not vacant now, they will be soon after a bunch of blacks move in next door.

These guys were sleeping in mud and thatch huts before they came, if they were not sleeping in the long grass. Now they get a house some white man built. And when they turn that house into a burned out ruin, after the fashion of Detroit, built by whites, burned by blacks, they will complain of racism and systematic discrimination because whites still have nicer stuff than they do, so they need to take more white stuff and wreck it also.

Blacks are like locusts. They take the stuff that white people built, for example the American inner city, destroy it, and then move on to take something else. They cannot be stopped because the state apparatus forbids white collective self defense, while encouraging black collective rioting, encouraging collective attacks on random isolated whites motivated by black hatred of whites and black sense of collective identity. This raises the cost of housing for white people to unaffordable levels, preventing family formation.

Whites move out from their houses because of state sponsored collective black violence, as is happening now in Baltimore and Ferguson, and blacks move in to houses white people built.

Why Islamic State is successful.

Friday, July 24th, 2015

According to progressive mythology

insurgents must be like a mist—everywhere and nowhere—never trying to hold ground or wasting lives in battles with regular armies. Chairman Mao insisted that guerrillas should be fish who swam in the sea of the local population. Such views are the logical corollaries of “asymmetric warfare” in which a smaller, apparently weaker group—like ISIS—confronts a powerful adversary such as the US and Iraqi militaries. This is confirmed by US Army studies of more than forty historical insurgencies, which suggest again and again that holding ground, fighting pitched battles, and alienating the cultural and religious sensibilities of the local population are fatal.

This, of course, is a load of horseshit. One needs a base area in which one can conscript and gather funds, where leaders can safely and openly administer and coordinate. Hard to run the war from a secret cave. Often that base area has been the Kremlin – and even more often, it has been the London School of Economics.

In asymmetric wars, one’s base is often beholden to others, and one is therefore handicapped by unwanted ideology and rules. So Islamic State decided it just plain needed to grab its own base area. Islamic law is that you cannot claim the Caliphate unless you have your own base area – because you cannot be Caliph if you are beholden to others. So, needed a base, took a base. So Islamic State chooses to fight symmetrically. In an asymmetric war, the weaker side is a muppet for somebody powerful, usually the London School of Economics, which is itself a muppet of Harvard. Islamic State is nobody’s muppet.

This allows it to be authentically Islamic – to implement its own program and its own ideology.

And, being able to implement its own program and own ideology, gives gays the high jump, reintroduces slavery and the marriage of minors.

Progressives are mystified and uncomprehending.

horrors unimaginable even to the Taliban—among them the reintroduction of forcible rape of minors and slavery—have been legitimized.

Slavery never really went away. Saudi Arabia reluctantly abolished it 1964. The suppression of slavery is not the natural result of the Zeitgeist, but the military programs of British imperialism. Since the imperial tide retreats, slavery returns. As for the “rape” of minors, minor girls are going to have sex, which is to say, be “raped” unless they are married off young or kept under tight control, pretty much locked up except when appropriately supervised, and progressives have never been worried about the statutory rape of minors, nor the actual rape of minors, nor the actual enslavement of minors for sexual purposes, provided that the right people get raped and the right people are doing the raping. The ever rising age of consent was always a pretense and a pretext. Provided that fathers lose control of their daughters and husbands do not gain control of those daughters, progressives are untroubled by pimps gaining control of those daughters.


Thursday, June 11th, 2015

Degentrification is ethnic cleansing of whites.

The politically correct account of the inner cities is that white people made them into shitholes in order to hurt black people.

But, if you look at the ruins, there are a bunch of really nice buildings which were obviously once inhabited by the better sort of people, middle class whites, upper class whites.

What happened of course, is that in the 1950s and 1960s, the Warren Court period, whites were dispossessed, ethnically cleansed out of the inner cities, by black racial violence, violence supported by the state, in that whites were denied the right of collective self defense. A few Jewish communities remained, because Jews, in an unprincipled exception, were allowed collective self defense.

After the sixties, the left backed away from ethnically cleansing whites, and we got gentrification. But, after gays and trannies, what is the next big cause? They are casting around for something, and one of the things they are trying on is renewed ethnic cleansing, where once again black people take stuff that whites built away from whites. Hence Baltimore and this poolside party.

The current state of Detroit, and what is happening to Johannesburg, tells us that were it not for whites, blacks would be living in the jungle, carrying pointy sticks, and eating each other. Blacks can be civilized, but only if subject to firm, and substantially white, authority. America lacks the hard hand necessary to keep black people from reverting to their natural condition.

With America close to a nonwhite majority, and single women, as always, voting for the victors, there is no natural stopping point for the latest round of ethnic cleansing short of complete removal of whites from everything they have built that is worth having.

Resistance to this process is fundamentally incompatible with democracy with universal franchise. If it does not happen in this coming round of movement ever leftwards, will happen in the next or the one after that. If you oppose this outcome, you have to reject democracy with universal franchise. If you reject democracy with universal franchise, have to deny that all men were created, and that women are equal to men. The eradication of white people was inherent in the enlightenment, and our continued existence has only been possible by one unprincipled exception to the enlightenment after another. In the end, unprincipled exceptions always yield to superior holiness.

Rohingya terrorist problem

Saturday, June 6th, 2015

You may have heard that there are over a million poor stateless victimized Rohingya that our do gooders want to move into first world countries to vote for more leftism.

And indeed it is true that they are poor stateless and victimized. But a big part of the reason that they are poor, stateless, and victimized, is that they believe that Muslims should live under Muslim rule, and to this end they tried to carve a Muslim state out of Burma. To my surprise, they do not want to go to a first world country, such as America. They want to go to a Muslim ruled state, such as Malaysia. A few days ago, America legally accepted its first batch of Rohingya from a refugee camp in Thailand. Thai military attempted to move them to the US, Rohingya refugees refused and rioted, seeking the opportunity to set sail to a Muslim country.

These guys take their religion seriously. And their religion says that Islam should rule, and they should be ruled by Islam. They are reasonably happy to be ruled by moderate Islam, you cannot get much more moderate than their favorite destination, Malaysia, but Islam it has to be.

If brought to America or Australia, they will be in America very much against their will, and therefore will likely attempt to create a Muslim ruled state inside America as they attempted to create a Muslim ruled state inside Burma.

The Bangladeshi refugees who are intermingled with the Rohingya refugees, who speak the same language as the Rohingya refugees, who look like the Rohingya refugees, are economic refugees, seeking a better life. They want to go to first world states such as America and Australia. Maybe many of the Rohingya refugees are economic refugees also. But they are primarily religious refugees, seeking, not freedom to practice their religion, but freedom to persecute anyone who does not practice their religion. They don’t want to go to the first world. They want to go to Dar al Islam.

If I had my way, we would ship them all to Islamic State.

After economic leftism

Monday, May 25th, 2015

Economic leftism, workers against capitalists, died with the Soviet Union. Now it is women and nonwhites against white heterosexual males.

American Hindus have extremely high incomes and are extremely reliable Democrat voters. Hindus are the opposite end of income and education spectrum to Mexicans, yet vote the same.

Old fashioned economic leftism doesn’t explain this.

And yet there is the sense that something is being redistributed.

The country itself is being redistributed from white heterosexual males to a coalition of almost everybody else. And it makes sense for any ambitious newcomer to try and get a piece of the action. Because they can.

Resentment isn’t required, but no one wants to consciously think he is just joining the looter coalition. So resentment is required, and is speedily manufactured.

And since each white wants to be last to be fed to the crocodiles, the whites in the ruling coalition will echo that resentment with double the enthusiasm, and will each be twice as keen on feeding other whites in the ruling coalition to the crocodiles. The situation of white heterosexual males in the ruling elite is similar to that of Jews in the Bolshevik party or intellectuals in the Khmer Rouge. The Bolshevik party was pretty much all Jewish, and the Khmer Rouge pretty much all intellectuals, but the climate of hostility and suspicion directed at Jews among the Bolsheviks, and at intellectuals amongst the Khmer Rouge, was such that they were busily purging each other, until none were left.

Parts of this post cheerfully stolen from Handle’s member’s only post. As usual, anything really horrifying is probably my revisions and not in Handle’s original.

Losing Ramadi

Saturday, May 23rd, 2015

Obama is of course a Muslim, progressive, and anticolonialist who hates America and wishes to see America defeated, but allowing Ramadi, and indeed Iraq, to be lost was pretty sensible.

The underlying Bush theory was that Iraq would become a well run democracy, like Switzerland, where the Shia majority elected nice moderate progressives, thereby counterbalancing the dangerous influence of the Shia religious crazies in Iran.   The middle east would become moderate progressive, rather than Muslim.

As it worked out the elected government Shia government in Iraq was oppressive and intolerant, its primary function being to distribute goodies to voting blocks.   The populace conspicuously failed to throw flowers at our troops.  The Sunni murderously hated us for removing them from power.  The Shia hated us for revealing to the world their incapacity to rule.  The influence of Iran keeps them saner – well, less insane – than they would otherwise be.

Progressives, including Obama, misremembered Bush as saying “We will go in to steal their oil”, and so believed that when they were running things, instead of Bush, then the locals would throw flowers at us and elect nice moderate progressives.   Thus, “Arab Spring”, which was Bush on steroids with double the already grating optimism. They then discovered that the Iraqi willingness to elect moderate progressives was proportional to US willingness to kick ass, and the locals figured the progressives had no will to kick ass.

Tunisia is perhaps proceeding to democratic progressivism, as originally envisaged in Arab Spring.  Morocco is undemocratically proceeding to progressivism because the King commands progressivism.   The rest of the countries of the Arab spring were disasters.

The past history of progressive kings is that usually King gets violently overthrown, is remembered as an incredibly brutal reactionary, and is replaced by a horrifying tyranny, but so far Tunisia and Morroco are working out OK – for progressives.  Rest of the progressive plan is going to hell.