Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

This entry has been edited since it just dawned upon me that I probably got a bit carried away when quoting the book. Rather than quoting huge sections I’ve removed the majority of this but have kept the page numbers. I intend to go over all of my other book reviews and do the same. (26th of December 2018)

This book was published in 2016 before the election in the USA. If you are one of many civilians disenchanted with civilian leadership and politicians in general, while feeling uninformed but protective of the military, then this book is for you!

” …only 7 percent of the public consider political leaders very knowledgeable about military issues…” (p.301)

This work contains  a number of essays written by an impressive collection of Military-experts offering their perspectives and analysis on the results of a survey intended to measure civil-military relations in the USA. Their findings show that the American public greatly admire their military but are largely ignorant of military matters, the greatest gap is proven to be between civilian elites and the general public! The intro and the conclusion of the work co-authored by Schake and Mattis display impressive broad vocabulary usage and finely crafted sentences which is something of a rarity in our modern society.

If you follow my blog you may have caught a book review I wrote some months back about a military book I had read. The greatest shock to me was the afterword where the author explained how military history and strategy used to be imbedded in “intellectual society.” These days when experts are usually “far-left-post-modernists” with anti-military, deconstructionist, anti-western attitudes, I was greatly surprised that our society used to be more informed about the military, especially in light of how “stripped” our general education system is in regards to military history and wisdom.

We decided to buy this book when it was announced that (ret.) Marine General Mattis had been picked as Donal Trump’s Defense Secretary. As a newbie to “military-literature” I certainly found it interesting and informative. I loved  how organised and well structured the work was as it was easy to follow and understand; good presentations of opinions based on facts as is the case in this book are rare to come by in a political climate where emotions outweigh empirical data. It was therefore refreshing to read “something proper” free from the ideological dogma that clouds everything from editorials, to tv-series, to published books. It is obvious that standards are lax, generally speaking, when it comes to published works in this day and age. Typos both digitally and in print are common. Journalists offering opinions rather than facts, tv-channels offering content in line with their “values” rather than broadcasting the truth. It is by and large a pretty depressive and boring trend, especially if you as a critical reader spot self-contradictory statements which renders the author’s point null and void. Thank goodness that it is possible to get hold of quality and that this isn’t solely found in the past when the west was at its most glorious. I hope that writers regardless of what they do, open up their eyes to the world around them rather than a fictional reality; and that they refrain from promoting fake-facts in a desperate bid to successfully agitate for their own political preferences.

I made the choice to read this book twice highlighting some segments the second time ’round. I’ll quote them below (with my own comments here and there) in the hope that they’ll reach those who normally don’t read about “warriors” and/or are too busy/lazy to pick up the actual book. There is a possibility that the “meme culture”  will bring back an interest in the military which would be a great development. I certainly got curious about Secretary of Defence, Marine General Jim Mattis (ret.) due to the online memes flooding social media after his nomination 😛 I bet I wasn’t the only one.

Out of the various contributors I only disliked one, I’ve added my own opinions and comments extensively at the end of this very long entry; so I’ll start at the back of the book with those quotes I just agreed with and gave a thumbs up. Here we go, starting with: “Ensuring a Civil-Military Connection” by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

“Respect for the American military is widespread, but the public’s knowledge of the military is shallow.” (p.288)

 (p.288)

When writing about various opinions collected as part of the survey it is said:

(p.294)

 (p.297)

Speaking of the disproportionate influence of the far left:

(p.298)

Modern warfare is described as such:

“Our enemies have structural advantages in our current wars because they are fighting a total war, and we only limited wars.” (p.303)

In terms of the budget it is written:

(p.305)

About masculinity it is said:

 (p.306)

(p.308)

Schake & Mattis warn:

 (p.310)

According to Schake & Mattis:

 (p.311)

 (p.312)

 (p.315)

(p.317)

 (p.318)

 (p.320)

Young Person’s Game by Matthew Colford & Alec J. Sugarman

 (p.253)

 (p.246)

 (p.246)

(p.247)

The “Very Liberal” View of the US Military by Tod Lindberg.

 (p.219)

Writing about the movie “American Sniper”:

(p.224)

 (p.225)

(p.226)

(p.229)

Oh yes, and the “very liberal” wield a devastating amount of influence, especially if one looks at the current turbulence in Europe in regards to Islam. Incredible. These people are so hateful towards the west that they do everything in their power to destroy their own.

 (p.232)

(p.232)

 (p.236)

 (p.239)

 (p.239)

 (p.242)

(p.242)

Testing The “Floury Hypothesis” by Thomas Donnelly.

 (p.200)

(p.201)

(p.203)

 (p.204)

 (p.204)

 (p.205)

 (p.210)

” (p.211)

“Alas, the current generation of American politicians appears to lack the vitality of leadership” (p.214)

“The public concurs. Only 10.9 percent believe that political leaders share society’s values while 70.9 percent believe that they do not.” (p.215)

Public Opinion and the Making of Wartime Strategies by Nadia Schadlow.

“The symbols of public opinion, in times of moderate security, are subject to check and comparison and argument. They come and go, coalesce and are forgotten, never organising perfectly the emotion of the whole group. There is, after all, just one human activity left in which whole populations accomplish the union sacrée. It occurs in those middle phases of a war when fear, pugnacity, and hatred have secured complete dominion of the spirit, either to crush every other instinct or to enlist it, and before weariness is felt.”

Walter Lippman, Public  Opinion  

Schadlow on leadership:

 (p.163)

 (p.163)

(p.163)

“The prevailing views of the character of war affect the public’s willingness to support a particular course of action.” (p.169)

An interesting part of this essay was when I read that ” Rumsfeld’s view did change, he believed that the insurgency would be put down by the Iraqi people and not by coalition forces” as it is rather naive to assume the mentality of a people. Meaning that it is rather absurd to take it for granted that other groups of people are like us and would instantly adapt to a western democratic construct. There is a markable difference between high trust societies and low trust societies. Tribal “nations” tend to be more low-trust and look after the interest of their tribe/extended family rather than the “nation.”Not being affected by the implications of reality in ones strategy can not possibly be seen as particularly wise.

 (p.172)

 (p.173)

 (p.173)

 (p.174)

Again we see a very flattering portrayal of “Obama the sanctimonious” who the far-left loves:

 (p.178)

It is interesting to note this however:

 (p.178)

(p.179)

(p.180)

 (p.181)

Public Opinion, Military Justice, and the Fight against Terrorism Overseas by Benjamin Wittes & Cody Poplin.

 (p.155)

 (p.155)

In describing the public it is written:

 (p.154)

 (p.151)

 (p.151)

 (p.149)

 (p.148)

(p.147)

This information is quite revealing:

 (p..144)

 (p.145)

Thanks for your service by Jim Golby, Lindsay P.Cohn, & Peter D. Feaver.

“His argument was that, if Americans were unhappy about half of their wealth belonging to only one percent, should they not also feel that it is unfair for the entire defense burden to rest on only one percent of the people?” (p.97)

Hahahahahaha, hysterical. If it had made sense I would have pasted that quote further up in the entry as it is a very good argument indeed. Sadly though “the activists” are only interested in equality when it comes to the most comfortable positions; take feminists for example who want quotas and equality in white collar jobs and CEO positions. When do you see these women demanding equality in the “sewage industry”  or “general waste”? No you don’t really see that do you? So men are supposed to keep all the nasty jobs to themselves, while equality should be demanded and granted whenever it is convenient … hmmm….someone told me that once upon a time you would have “voting rights” if you were a soldier….in our age you are supposed to have entitlements and rights without ever having earned them at all. Good luck taking all of these rights away though after having handed them to the public … you can take away civil liberties anytime you want but good luck taking back benefits and entitlements, now that’s a different story! “But my trinkets!!!!!”

 (p.109)

Now this is a level of sincerity that cannot be found at all among the “far-left” who hide or fabricate their statistics and findings. The “policy makers” with their “humanities degrees” worm their way into various government institutions, weakening the pillars from within like termites gnawing at the woodwork. They literally weaken the west from the inside and will do everything to cover-up facts that cannot be used to their ideological advantage. It is therefore sobering and enlightening to read honest work, where the probability of fallibility is admitted and described as to make the reader of the work aware of it. Incredible.

(p.115)

Yes, I guess this is worrying for how America has been structured. It isn’t strange though if you consider that the population don’t trust the government and at the time of the YouGov poll didn’t trust the president either. It would be interesting if a similar survey could be conducted here in Europe. What do you do when your government is at war with its own people? What do you do when politicians and bureaucrats work against their own? It is treason regardless of how you look at it. What the various European governments have done is outrageous and the worst is that the “indoctrination” of the masses through the state-funded school system, the media and the entertainment industry has been so successful that “the public” seem more concerned with defending the “feelings of muslims” after an attack. If they followed the news properly they would know that these terrorist attacks that gain international attention, far and wide, are only the tip of the ice-berg, but alas. Should the police-force and the military stand by and allow “the far left/communists” to decrease their efficiency in the name of “progress?” Should the “far-left/communists” be allowed to weaken the west from within? And should they be allowed to engage in demographic warfare against their own brothers and sisters without this having any consequences? During the recent attack in London (yesterday) one can hear on some footage released from a bar that one man shouts something about “muslim cunts,” another man quips in “they are not muslim, they are terrorist” defending Islamist while being ordered to lay flat down on the floor by the authorities. The spirit of Europe is weak. You are not allowed to name the enemy or speak the truth.

 (p.127)

 (p.129)

 (p.129)

 (p.131)

One of the YouGov questions is: “When force is used, military rather than political goals should determine application;” this was discussed a bit by us over here. At first I found this a bit confusing as I thought that military action follows when diplomacy fails. There is obviously a political objective that is the end-goal and the military should be allowed to manoeuvre freely to reach that objective. I have to say that the more I stare at the question posed the more confusing I find it. I’ve presented several interpretations, but as my brother says the question takes it for granted that force and politics are separate; something that they are not. Even if there was to be a military coup it would be politically motivated. There are no military goals without a political undercurrent whatever that may be. Even within a mercenary context there are political motivations, not to forget political consequences that will resonate far and wide if a regime is removed, a tribe annihilated or a people displaced as a result of force. Politics and force is intertwined. When reading criminal literature it will be obvious that “killing for pleasure” is a rarity. We don’t have to understand the motivation, but there is normally a method in the “madness” and/or “chaos.” The question above is therefore highly illogical in my opinion unless the military all of a sudden were to apply force, just because. This is a highly unlikely scenario and wouldn’t even be the result of a “traditional goal,” it would be initiated by chaos and result in chaos that would still have political consequences, mind you. There have been cases of murders as a result of boredom, manifesting itself as lone shooters for example, just aiming randomly at people without any specific objective besides shooting, but then again, that is an objective in and of itself. But not a political one, even though it can result in politics when the public become supportive of “gun control” due to “mad gun men.”

 (p.134)

 (p.137)

Is Civilian Control of the Military Still an Issue? by Mackubin Thomas Owens.

 (p.69)

(p.69)

 (p.69)

 (p.70)

 (p.70)

(p.71)

(p.71)

It makes for a very interesting read considering how much criticism has been directed towards American foreign policy. I have been guilty of this myself in the past. I cannot say that I’m particularly supportive of political haphazardness. When reading this  book though it becomes obvious that the fault of “America’s ways” lays within the “policy elite” or the “civilian decision making elite.” It is a great shame that so many members of the public are so uninterested in reading anything of relevance to political matters. People are very outspoken but rarely read books like this or news from multiple sources, to be fair. People gain their framework from headlines and hearsay which is a real shame. Nothing can be gained from trying to “educate the masses” either, people deal in absolutes and are “too busy” to read. Even among those who read there seems to be a minority who posses the ability to think through the material they are presented with as well. Not much can be done, besides capitalising on the manipulation of public opinion politically. Trying to warn people though is a wasted effort. You’ll be called a bigot, a xenophobe; all the usual names. You’ll harm yourself more by acting on your empathy, as crazy as it sounds. People prefer to be in the darkness and will hate those who turn on the light. Taking this into account there is a very low probability that “anti-American” sentiments will die down…and this is actually a major problem that should be addressed. There are forces who want to “de-colonize” our education and our heritage in our world, censoring our identity and history pretty much; not to make us believe an unbalanced narrative of glory but rather a completely disproportionate fiction worthy of absolute shame. It is true that the “cultural battle” is ongoing and never-ending. It should be fought at all levels so that truth can prevail, but what is the value of truth if people can not handle it or don’t really care? There is a probability that government officials will increasingly engage in corruption as they see no reason to be honest, why be honest and righteous when dealing with such a hypocritical and “simple” public? Why play nice? Why not prioritise immediate family and/or others who adhere to the same values only? Why help and/or save the people?

 (p.72)

(p.74)

 (p77)

(p.78)

 (p.80)

I bet many would be surprised if/when reading this. Another telling quote from the book is: “Thus, in 1993, President Bill Clinton’s proposal to permit military service by openly homosexual recruits was rejected by Congress, indeed, a Congress controlled by his own party … The result was a veto-proof law prohibiting such service.” Right, maybe it would be an idea if politicians ran on policies that can be passed through? Maybe it would be an idea to formulate achievable goals? This is reminiscent of the “Obama crisis,” him running on a promise of ending the Iraq war, then entering office insisting on it getting done without a realistic view of the reality. Realism, not emotionalism would be preferable, but here is the kicker … who would be voted into office? The politician speaking the truth or a liar appealing to the voter’s feelings?

 (p.84)

 (p.87)

 (p.87)

 (p.88)

(p.88)

 (p.91)

 (p.91)

The “far-left” media perceives Donald Trump as being the embodiment of “1984,” Obama on the other hand was not. Once you start seeing the narratives for what they are it changes everything. I’ve become increasingly worried as of late in regards to “who will write our history?” We do run the risk of the whole SJW & ANTIFA sentiment being presented as “the pop-culture.” We do run the risk of Obama being presented as holy, whereas any conservative or right-winger as the enemy. Regardless of how much blood marxism have spilled internationally, it still evades popular criticism. I guess this is why there is such an interest in re-writing our past so that there are no historical facts left to refute modern narratives, such as the friendliness of Islam.

Now we are entering into the only essay that I had an issue with in certain places, which is why I decided to reverse the natural sequence. When I first opened this book and reached Rosa Brooks I almost put the book down as some of her suggestions are completely off; they play into the current modern narratives, where materialism” will solve militant Islamist. Contrary to popular belief, it was the well-educated and/or well-integrated muslims who decided to leave the safety of Utopian welfare paradise Europe, to voluntarily fight along ISIS. The importance of identity within a multicultural construct is constantly being undermined and forgotten. People act as if though it is a mystery that 3rd generation Muslims decide to pay homage to a distant past of Muslim expansionism and imperialism. I’ve written a lot about the overall importance of identity here on my blog actually, so I think it is a shame that obvious human traits are overlooked. The blank-slate theory is probably one of the least-sound ideas to ever be installed into people’s minds.

Civil-Military Paradoxes by Rosa Brooks.

First we are introduced to some very eyeopening myth-busting in terms of the real military in contrast to the “exploited, uneducated, illiterate, mongo, myth” that sadly dominates in regards to the armed forces. :/  With a father that actually served and was in the Air Force I’ve never had a bad impression of the ex-military. In fact it is a badge of honour to have served, not only does it speak of competence, talent and honour; it normally also guarantees, due to the extensive psychological screening, that you’ll be conversing with someone who is “right in the head,” not a “dangerous homicidal maniac,” when/if interacting with an ex-military. The common myth though is that the armed forces attract a rather dodgy ensemble of characters….at least if one is to believe the “far-left-narrative.” Which is very interesting now that I think of it, since the far-left theoretically should embrace an institution that have made “upward mobility” possible for generations. Back in the day you would earn an aristocratic title and land due to your military contribution. Statues and hero status would follow. This is what makes “the old families” of England so very interesting, because normally there will be a historic character far back in the blood-line who was rewarded due to valuable military service to the crown! The estate we have an apartment in for example, was built by the “master of coin” to one of the British Royals. Quite fascinating. Upward mobility is nothing new and the military has been a ladder historically.  According to a documentary I saw a while back Captain Cook also worked his way up through the military hierarchy. So what is not to like, if one believes in justice?

 (p.28)

 (p.28)

 (p.29)

Rosa Brooks set the record straight in regards to sexual assaults in the military:

(p.30)

Rosa Brooks then writes on page 32: ” The notion that “the military” is homogeneous and inherently right wing is out of date.”” She also says that: “it seems likely that future studies of the officer corps will find fewer self identified conservatives, as today’s most senior officers – who entered the military in the seventies and eighties – retire and are replaced by a new generation.” Hmmm….I don’t necessarily know if that is something to look forward to or celebrate. What is the military protecting exactly? High-culture and western civilisation in all its splendour or cultural-marxism in all its dysgenic horror? Of course it is good to have a moderate approach to things, big and small, but the issue at hand is western civilisation. The left believes in “deconstructing” the west, and even though it cannot possibly be argued against that it is a good update to the system, that you will not be imprisoned and/or chemically castrated if you’re gay; the progressives are never done with their “transformation” and therein lays the problem. Where do we draw the line? Just yesterday I saw the word “pedophobia;” it is quite obvious that there are no lines, that there should be no boundaries in the world of the “progressive” as any boundary, from national  borders to gender, IS OPPRESSION.. 

You also have the “citizenship issue.” Are nations supposed to be treated as replaceable? How can this be a diverse and good thing? Is French ethnicity nothing? Does French mean being a replaceable cog in the machinery, without any cultural and ancestral meaning? If the demographic change is too drastic in our part of the world for example, we run the risk of an “alien” population gaining a monopoly in terms of authority. How can this be championed as a good thing? Muslims were for example banned from flying fighter jets in Norway, this caused a media uproar as it was criticised as discrimination by the media. I do not think it is a good thing if the military become more “progressive” in thought. I don’t think so at all. Who will protect the European heritage for example? Not the post-modern secularists that’s for sure, as they want to see all of this forgotten or lumped away into obscurity, where time takes its toll, like our crumbling Norman churches. A more liberal military is in my opinion the last thing that the west needs. If globalist attitudes among military recruits is allowed and nurtured, then why would they be interested in protecting their country? Immigrants of a foreign background will not be as invested in truly protecting a nation that in truth isn’t really theirs. How will this manifest itself if the soldier of an “alien” background is deployed to his/her country of origin? Where will their loyalty be then?

It makes sense for a military to be representative of their nation and emotionally connected and invested in its future. Just as it makes sense that athletes are representative of their nation, displaying what their people can be capable of when competing internationally. Shouldn’t fellow countrymen be allowed to use the military as a ladder into a better life?  Of course America is a naturally diverse country consistent of 3 distinct tribes if one generalises, so their situation is slightly different. 

  1. the original defeated and subjugated population, which itself is dived into tribes
  2. the Afro-American population, which was brought to America by force, which itself could be subdivided into numerous different tribes
  3. the white tribe, descendants of disgruntled Europeans who created and built the “modern” construct of the United States of America based on English/Anglo-Saxon politics. It is ambitious to expect that other tribes will be happy and/or thrive within a construct erected by “disobedient” Brits. Since America is a “European” creation through conquest and purchase, and the Afro-American tribe was marginalised for a substantial period of time, it can therefore be concluded that “modern revolutionary America” is “European.” We can therefore also expect that “Euro-Americans” will do better within a construct built by them, for them and that this tribe should always represent a majority since they were the founders and the architects of this new experiment. Yet post-modern America has stepped away from this model in a positive way (such as making life more just for “the unwillingly imported” population and the “conquered and subjugated population), but also in a negative way as they’ve extended their generosity to anyone and everyone. This makes “American identity” potentially problematic. A conclusion can in many ways be drawn, that there is no single nation but many distinct nations within the USA and that there truly is NO solid identity. Which is why it is perfectly acceptable for example, to advocate for an officially bilingual USA. With Spanish and English sharing the same status as “official language.” 

So what will the military protect then? The “European America,” the “post-modern America,” the “we don’t really know what America is America?,” “the divided tribes of America?,” “the new revolutionaries for a new-America within America, America?” It is self-explanatory that some of these interests clash….and if one judges by the authors of this book, it is quite obvious that they several times refer to “the founding fathers,” so a Euro-America with a couple of appropriate updates then? Now why would post-modern liberal service men defend this? Why would they even pledge to defend their constitution if they don’t see it, and its creation as legitimate? See that’s a very good question and one hell of a problematic situation.

 (p.38)

 (p.38)

I don’t see why this would be self-contradictory. Military spending can in many ways be seen as the most righteous way to spend tax-payer’s dollars. This is not a benefit welfare program with people sitting in front of the tv eating junk-food, unless I’m grossly mistaken. Here we are talking about a military construct that rightfully has to receive its paycheque from the government. As politicians make the ultimate decisions, and the approach can change dramatically, due to a change in President; the USA army can be perceived as extremely “unstable” and “awkward” seen from the outside. When it becomes clear though that the US military has to obediently follow the whims of ideologically diverse leaders the whole picture makes sense. Servicemen and their families will be deployed to fulfil all sorts of abstract goals to protect the interests and spheres of influence of nations that aren’t even American. It is not an old-fashioned:” fine, we’ll come and sort out your problems but then we’ll take your resources and colonise your nation.” It’s an abstract political scheme. It makes sense therefore that there will be substantial payments, as the old days of “treasure” and “conquered lands” are off the table. What happens during retirement and after service is of course another issue – a military background is generally regarded as a sought-after CV. At least it used to be that way.

“Too many senior civilian officials know virtually nothing about the structure of military organization.” (p.40)

 (p.40)

(p.40)

Not that this sounds freaky at all. What follows sounds more like how one would expect a banana-republic to behave:

 (p.42)

(p.43)

 (p.44)

When describing Obama’s entrance into the White House and his masterplan she hilariously writes:“These new strategic objectives proved easier to articulate than they were to achieve.” The sad truth is though that the far-left will probably not bother to read a book like this. Would be funny if they did though.

(p.46)

(p.47)

 (p.48)

 (p.49)

This is pretty well said, on page 51 Rosa Brooks writes:” If your only functioning government institution is the military, everything looks like a war –  and when everything looks like a war, the military’s role expands. Here’s the deep problem: we are no longer sure what a military is for.”

“Our enemies wear no uniforms and are loyal to no states;

(*Islam*cough*cough*cough*The Caliphate* communists* cough* the reds who’ve infiltrated the deep state*cough*cough*cough*)

 (p.54)

(*allahu akbar*Marx is the prophet*)

 (p.55)

By fighting the same way as them minus the suicide bombing?

00018245

IMG_3258

IMG_1873

Bring back our holy warriors? #DeusVult encore? ????

?

 (p.55)

 (p.56)

Sorry Brooks; but it is obvious that materialism doesn’t quite cut it when it comes to “making muslims more like us.” It has been tried, it doesn’t work. People self-segregate into tribes and western-values and systems of governance works best for us, here. Why do you think the muslims want Sharia law in Europe? Dropping post-modern values into the head of “alien” populations have proven to work out not exactly splendidly. Good governance according to who? Sharia law or according to African tribalism? Why would developing other nations make them our friends? Heard about African independence from “rule Britannia?” And what about American independence from the Empire? By developing other nations we give away our power and why would we do that??? Which narratives are you going to promote? De-nazification that renders a population completely ethno-masochistic and self-destructive dragging the rest of the continent with them into the abyss? Creating a profoundly hateful and aggressive far-right, due to the intolerable nature of the self-righteous, totalitarian, emotionalist, deconstructionist far-left? Creating new narratives by removing statues of men who didn’t engage in “good governance” according to some offended “victim nation” or self-righteous academic hippie? Creating narratives that are so false that the targeted demographic will dream about mounting your head on a spike? Collecting data to what extent? How many are you going to employ? How many will it take? What type of computer program could be developed to surveil absolutely everybody and how would you ensure that this power wouldn’t be abused? Or maybe collecting data through social media? By having people snitching on each other, outing those who “oppose their idea of good governance?’ Networks of agents and allies will be corrupted, isn’t the USA good when it comes to this already? How will you improve this? “Striking likely future enemies?” Well how many are you going to strike? And what about America’s number one enemy? The far-left academia who are literally weakening militaries on both sides of the Atlantic and the police force as well, while militant thugs attack those who have the audacity to vote for Trump or any conservative politician? The police are not even receiving the support that they need to do their job which is why they give up, it is very offensive when the police-force destroy the far-left-utopian-lie-with their findings. Are you going to arrest those who love their country based on their FB posts, like the Germans do, where “bigoted behaviour” is prioritised rather than racist behaviour targeted towards the ethnic population at the hand of the muslim population? Are you going to re-write history which is precisely what is happening already, and then arrest those who oppose the disfiguration of their identity? What about your human rights? And your civil liberties? What about all the gangs who rule the streets in America making life intolerable for those who live in the inner cities???

Global peace can not be achieved, it can be attempted through globalist totalitarian means. But then it will not be peace. It will be a prison. There would be no diversity, the majority of the world’s cultures, identities and races would be purged.

Who defines good governance?

 (p.57)

and?

Maybe there is a very good reason for this? It’s not like our ancestors were dimwits. Obviously not when they accomplished this:

rule Britania

roma0e9ece405a135af569bf40403717282ffrankish_empire_bigDSC6809Leaving-Greenland-1920x1080Prussian_flag_by_fenn_o_manic-d3j9zVlad-the-Impaler-e1475950979390-1024x629

 (p.58)

Well … our numbers are dwindling while competing tribes are outnumbering us. We will not have enough ammo to protect ourselves against the hordes coming in from Africa if future demographic predictions are true. In other words. It is not in western interest to “save the world.” Unless we want to bury our societies, and collectively kill ourselves thorough “charitable,” nice, feel-good politics. Our cultural inheritance holds value only to us. I believe it is worth protecting.

 (p.58)

Strength is everything. Any woman who has ever gone into a male-dominated profession will know that just the gear will pose long-term negative health effects. I need special equipment myself. There simply isn’t a market for “female friendly gear” when it comes to what I’m doing. How will women carry their male comrades if a man gets injured? Is Rosa Brooks aware of the fact that an immigrant in Sweden managed to beat the hell out of three female police officers at the same time as they were no match to his “toxic-masculinity-strenght?” Has Rosa Brooks ever gotten into fights with men? Has she ever sparred with men? I agree that women can might as well work as computer hackers, and tech-smarties, but strength is God when it comes to everything else. How vulnerable would a female soldier be for example if shot down behind enemy lines? And how much would the efficiency be hampered by female involvement in a combat zone? Maybe Americans should read this book: “The War Has No Female Face.” The Soviets already did it.

 (p.61)

 (p.61)

Yeah, that makes sense.

What remains of the book is the initial chapter where Schake & Mattis discuss what they were looking for in the survey. I also excluded the essay from Jim Hake not because I didn’t like it. It would be great of course if more mobilisation could be initiated among civilians so as to help those out in combat, it is quite obvious though that the majority of humanitarian organisations operate under the whole “Kumbaya – the global village” ideology, which I guess makes it problematic to only help Christians or to only help and priorities ones military, which matches up with the current “socially enforced orthodoxy” that empathy is only valid if it is on a global scale. If you say: “my people,” you are probably an evil, racist, xenophobic, bigot.

On page 5 it is said that: “Moreover, some operant gaps appear not between civilians and the military but between civilians and civilian elites or between civilians and governmental elites, with concomitant effects for the military.”

To end my over (at this point) 11.891 word entry:

 (p.9)

Please take time to read the book on your own, to enjoy it properly. What I chose to quote was what I personally found the most interesting! I will write a smaller entry soon listing our numbers. Be warned. Downscaling seems to be the norm on both sides of the Atlantic. Our numbers are alarmingly small, especially when considering Erdogan’s latest comments. We currently harbour more “alien” populations with unclear loyalties than we have fighters. 😮

To finish off, here is an honorary mention. Not that I understand why nobody trust the civilian government or anything: Enjoy.

 

7 thoughts on “Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

    • thecommanderinchief says:

      There is a lot of good information in there! I’m currently reading The Constitution of The USA and other writings from the Founding Fathers – truly interesting! It’s a huge book but I’ll write about it once I’m done.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s