Immigration Red Flags, Article 13, & Petitions To Sign & Share.

Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!

Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:

  1. Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
  2. Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
  3. Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.

Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:

  1. You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
  2. You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
  3. All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
  4. The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.

Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.

Once again:

  1. Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
  2. An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.

If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.

Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.

Fracking

Whaling

Plastic Pollution

Exotic Zoo Animals

Trophy Hunting

Detained Whales

Dog Fighting

 

 

 

Trump can’t fire anyone and neither could Tsar Nicholas II

I highly recommend reading this article!

evolutionistx

The late reign of the Russian Tsars was marked by their near total inability to exert their will over anything.

At Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation festival:

Before the food and drink was handed out, rumours spread that there would not be enough for everyone. As a result, the crowd rushed to get their share and individuals were tripped and trampled upon, suffocating in the dirt of the field.[39] Of the approximate 100,000 in attendance, it is estimated that 1,389 individuals died[37] and roughly 1,300 were injured.[38] The Khodynka Tragedy was seen as an ill omen and Nicholas found gaining popular trust difficult from the beginning of his reign. The French ambassador’s gala was planned for that night. The Tsar wanted to stay in his chambers and pray for the lives lost, but his uncles believed that his absence at the ball would strain relations with France,

View original post 1,396 more words

“The Reactionary Mind – Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump“ by Corey Robin.

“The men and women killed on September 11 were not citizens of a democracy; they were earners, and rewards would be distributed accordingly. Virtually no one-not even the commentators and politicians who denounced the Feinberg calculus for other reasons-criticised this aspect of his decision.” (p.218)

Thankfully I did not receive any new books for Christmas this year (2018) which is great, considering that I still haven’t read the ones I received last year. 

After all of my political outbursts and writings there could hardly be a better title to end my “Things To Read“ section with in 2018 than Corey Robin’s “The Reactionary Mind- Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump.“

I have a deep admiration for good writers displaying broad vocabulary usage, especially those who engage in extensive harvesting of information.

This is its own virtuosity for sure and I find it very impressive.

Characters like Robin would probably not be particularly gobsmacked by my own writings but see it as a source of opinions in a bundle of many.

That being said; Corey’s work is an analogue data-base of other people’s opinions presented to those of us who are not academics or to those who are hoping to climb that mountain.

He presents his collection of conservative thinkers brilliantly and convincingly argues his point.

It is particularly illuminating for someone like myself to read it; in fact I would go so far as to call it mandatory reading for anyone on the right spectrum of politics.

What really stood out to me and what I ended up highlighting in the book were sections regarding economics.

I was stunned to read quotes from Hobbes who would have greeted a 1984 super-state with open arms. His definition of free-will is something that I’ve come to consistently ridicule pointing out to my relatives when reading, talking or hearing about abusive behaviour: “well according to Hobbes this is free-will in action if you choose to be a victim!”

I was equally mortified by Edmund Burke’s view on labour but certainly saw in his writings the justification for wage-slavery in today’s modern world.

It is simply impossible for an individual to condemn chained-slavery in one sentence only to proclaim that one endorses freedom and liberty while endorsing Burke. There is no such thing.

Edmund Burke had no respect for the individual or humanity as quoted in Robin’s book. A terrifying individual whose theories should be held up as a horror-example of what one should fight against.

Likewise, I was angered when reading quotes from Ayn Rand who came across as a delusional fraud, the antichrist incarnate, without any concern for her fellow humans at all. Robin demonstrated this by comparing quotes from her with quotes from Hitler. They aligned perfectly.   

Thank God for Adam Smith who came across as the only sensible thinker in regards to labour.

Obviously it all made me think about my own efforts in regards to my art and inspired me to initiate a new art-concept for this year (2019) named: “The Value of Labour.“ 

I will not go into great detail in describing this particular art-project until the end of the year.

“When labor becomes the norm, in both senses of the term, culture does not stand a chance.” (p.163)

I highlighted several quotes in the book that were of great interest, but I will not quote them all here since it dawned upon me during Christmas that I have a tendency to write rather large book-reviews and quote what I read to such an extent that it all becomes a bit too much.

Ultimately I want people to read the books that I mention but I also want to share information since we live in a time where people don’t seem to take reading seriously!

I have to say that it feels strange to read a book written in proper American. Rather than writing labour, the text goes for labor instead. The same can be said for the usage of the letter z or c vs. s. After having gotten used to the more French way of writing English words, it feels like I’m reading simplified English.

What I find troubling about “The Reactionary Mind“ is that Corey Robin is portraying Democrats and liberals as inherently peaceful and “lame” which couldn’t be further from the truth, he also fails in addressing current political movements such as: transgenderism, LGBTQ, 3rd wave feminism, racism, censorship and iconoclasm, and declarations of total war written by members of the political left, etc;

His criticism and portrayal of Trump also falls into the category of “Orange man bad,“ with the by now familiar name-calling. He adds to this by quoting “The Art Of The Deal,“ a book ghost written by Tony Schwartz.

It is difficult to find anything illuminating in regards to Trump’s character, barring the support of his children and friends of the family. After all of the negative articles that I’ve read (and openly ridiculed here on my blog) I’ve only come across three sources in regards to Trump’s personality that can be seen as plausible or informative. One is the video of Tony Schwartz in Oxford, another is the video interview with one of the women alleging that they had an affair, the other is a long article in The New Yorker written about his tv-show “The Apprentice.” What these three have in common is that they align and paint the sort of picture that would be credible considering Trump’s vast wealth and business accomplishments; all other critics are namely repeating the same words over and over without ever giving any reasons for why they are doing so…

That being said it is unlikely that anyone will care much for what Schwartz have to say for himself since Trump’s larger than life personality and star eclipses that of a journalist hired to write about another man’s accomplishments…

Trump’s magnitude is so immense that it is impossible to come across a media outlet not mentioning him (the publishing houses clearly see it as their mission to use any outlet to influence potential voters), impossible to come across anyone in the music industry who does not have an official opinion broadcasted on their social media (regardless of their size and influence), his very presence has driven his political adversaries to nothing but visible madness; it is not even possible to go to a random coffee-house in Cheltenham without overhearing the neighbouring table talk about Trump’s latest Tweets.

Such is his fame and such is his influence.  

He has made everyone reveal themselves and their true colours on an international scale.

Those who want: border security, a crack-down on gang-warfare, private guns, religion, jobs and a future for their families love the man and are his fans; those who hate him want: no borders, no jobs, no police, no private guns, no religion, and no children.

Yet those who oppose him do not really see this since all they chant is: “Orange man bad,“ they are fighting an unjust system presided over by a bigot – in their opinion.

His most devout fans burnt their Nike gear to show their contempt for “flag-disrespecter“ Colin Kaepernick. Meanwhile the political activism on the left increasingly resembles persecution with doxing and physical assaults a staple; it brings to mind “give us the man and we’ll find the crime.“

A most celebrated and respected investigative journalist referred to the spectacle by saying: “this is political war.“

It is also worth noting that liberals were terrified of a potential “military junta“ in the White House when Trump appointed retired Generals to certain positions. Once these characters were fired one by one, the very same people voiced their complaints, since they apparently wanted a military take-over if this take-over would stand opposed (even if just a little bit) to President Trump.

“… or, as the Kagans would later put it, “to intervene decisively in every critical region” of the world, “whether or not a visible threat exists there.” (p.213)

“… to ensure that no other power ever arose to challenge the United States and that no regional powers ever attained preeminence in their local theatres.” (p.214)

To conclude; 

There is a real danger of “state-worship“ both on the right and left side of politics. This is never in the interest of the people when contemplating the exploitative nature of the modern “state.“ There is also a danger of denial when people are clueless of past tensions between those who yearn for change and those who oppose this.

Right-wing people do have a tendency to greatly admire enforcement professions only to despise big-government and bureaucracy in the next sentence. I guess it is an admiration for being badass and for being patriotic. I certainly consider myself a fan of the military and others who keep us safe and know how to kick ass!

Ironically enough these enforcement professionals are in our times acting as agents of the very state that conservatives either loathe and/or doubt.

Those on the left side of politics meanwhile bemoans war-mongering from the right, while frequently calling for military interventions in the name of “saving humanity“ or “standing in solidarity“ with whomever. They greatly expand the state “for the greater good“ while simultaneously lamenting “power-abuse,“ “the patriarchy,“ and “hierarchies.“

It is immensely ironic that left-wing characters erect the very abuse time and time again that they criticise or see (whether legitimate or not) in already existing political structures. They do have a tendency of being very right in their analysis of what doesn’t work while failing spectacularly when enacting their remedy. Usually resulting in monumental losses in the millions. 

The use of language and grammar is an abuse of power in the mind of a true deconstructionist, yet the ideological children of these radical thinkers are the very ones who are forcing everyone in public academic settings to announce their pronouns and talk like fools.

On the other hand; conservatives regularly re-write and update their own history so that they will not be seen in an unflattering light by whatever modern standards. If you believed in maintaining the established order of your time and you lived in the American South, you would obviously have been pro-slavery, if you believed in maintaining the existing orders in Europe, you would obviously have been pro-Monarchy. If you believed in the captains of industry and this newly established elite you would have supported the suppression of workers, and so and so on.

Establishments and elites change.

I disagree with Corey Robin’s argument that violence is one of the pillars of the conservative mindset and would rather counter-argue that violence is at the heart of humanity as a whole.

Geneticists would obviously know more about the topic.

I take it as self-evident that most lust for power and that few would ever be able to resist the temptation of greatly expanding their spheres of influence if given the chance.

Inevitably this results in the infringement upon other people’s borders and rights to self-rule.

A right is only a right as long as humans decide to respect it, just like a law or a system is only operational as long as people decide to play along with it. The moment that people do not, it will simply cease to exist.

Political orders are living organisms which makes it ironic to be a conservative, unless ones definition of conservative aligns with mine; namely that conservatism means conserving any traces and tools of ones cultural heritage such as: texts, buildings, artefacts, music, practises, languages, etc; in addition to the protection of ones own population group from existential enemies both internal and external.

It would also make sense to include borders but this would not take into consideration our ancestors nomadic tendencies, which led them to move wherever they could find resources. Which grounds to be defended would be defined by the actual value to the tribe. This obviously includes farmland in these “modern“ times of ours.

Expansion due to necessity would also have to be included if concerned with the survival of ones population group, since mass evacuations are sometimes a necessity. You have to be flexible and willing to re-locate if your current territory becomes inhabitable.

Borders follow the tribe.

Traditionalism on the other hand does in my opinion mean that you consciously re-enact past patterns of behaviour, which is something that a great deal of conservatives would not be interested in doing.

In this day and age conservatism is largely seen as a financial model which means that nothing is ever really seen as worth “conserving“ if it gets in the way of the sanctity of “the free market,“ socially there may be a little sprinkle of religion, but this is largely absent from the Nations of Europe.

Lately I’ve been thinking that globalism must appeal to those who see all humans as replaceable cogs in the industrial like state system. If 10 Swedes die tomorrow it makes no difference since 10 Nigerians can be imported to take their place. It is however interesting to note that the argument is never really reversed because then it becomes imperialistic and racist. Overpopulation in Africa can be solved by Europeans not having any kids, in the eyes of a globalist it makes no difference at all if China all of a sudden is swapped demographically with India. We are all just cogs in the machine. This is the only way I can think of to explain their thinking.

It is worth noting however that if celestial beings create humans to worship them you cannot simply exchange them for other creatures while expecting a continuation of praise. This will probably come as a rude awakening to many in the years to come.

When reading this book it is informative to see that conservative critics do have a tendency historically to lament the inertia of the establishment while both fearing and admiring the vitality of revolutionaries.

Like biblical prophets they warn of a looming danger, but a danger nonetheless that seems inevitable.

“What is important is not what freedom I personally would like to exercise but what freedom some person may need in order to do things beneficial to society; this freedom we can assure to the unknown person only by giving it to all.” Hayek (p.159)

 

President Trump & Imprisoned Soldiers In The U.S.A.

Ever since I heard about that U.S. soldiers can be imprisoned by their own government if they do their job I’ve been mortified! The stories are horrendous. I’ve been sending words of support to these forgotten fighters – which is something that you can do as well – just search for United American Patriots! They are a non-for profit who work to give these men legal help.

President Donald J.Trump tweeted this today which is really great:

I hope that he will look into all the other fighters who have also been wronged and targeted by their own government (that they are fighting for)!

Christmas might come early this year for warriors ignored by Obama & Bush! One can hope! ❤

https://thecommanderinchief.blog/2018/10/04/united-american-patriots-the-royal-british-legion/

 

 

 

United American Patriots & The Royal British Legion.

An online petition was being passed around a while back about an imprisoned American soldier, wronged by his own government. This evening I received a mass email describing another horrifying case. This is the website of an organisation called:  United American Patriots   They help forgotten and betrayed US fighters.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there are similar cases over here in European countries as well; if that’s the case then it’s well hidden, which would make sense considering that the Norwegian government, just to pick one example, has repeatedly denied in the past that Norway is at war, even though we have veterans and have suffered casualties due to contributing to America’s numerous war efforts around the world…..Yet we are apparently not fighting anyone and have officially no enemies anywhere…..Hopefully the current administration have stopped the official denial, because how can you aid veterans who officially do not exist?

I’ll paste in the email I received from UAP below. What truly stood out to me was the bit about the Afghan who received a US Citizenship; read the whole thing. It’s freaky to say the least. This is the sort of injustice you may risk by enlisting in the U.S.A.:

Dear Berit,

I am so scared for my son’s life that I’m writing you this e-mail today, even though we’ve never met.

My name is Renee Myers and my son is Sgt. Derrick Miller of the Maryland National Guard.

Derrick is the kind of man every mother wants her son to grow up to be – strong, kind and loyal. He’s a proud daddy who adores his two daughters – this photo is one of my favorites of him holding his oldest daughter, Karina.

But what I love the most about my son is that he felt it was his duty as an American to join the National Guard. In fact, he volunteered for two of his three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I wish I could go back in time and tell him not to…

Because for volunteering to defend our nation, Derrick has been sentenced to life in prison for doing exactly what the Army trained him to do!

You see, while on a combat mission in September of 2010, Derrick watched an Afghan national walk through his unit’s defense perimeter. The same man had been detained the day before under suspicion of driving insurgents to a nearby combat firefight.

So to be safe, Derrick and another U.S. Soldier took him into custody for questioning with an Afghan interpreter.

Derrick asked the man why he was within the American defense perimeter. First, the man claimed to be an electrician responding to a downed power line. Then he claimed to be there to fix a water pump. Either way, he had no tools with him.

The Afghan grew more and more agitated as Derrick continued asking questions. Suddenly, he grabbed for Derrick’s weapon.

Derrick reacted immediately – firing and killing the suspect.

Just days after the incident, Derrick was arrested and charged with “premeditated murder” of the Afghan insurgent!

For eight terrible months, we waited for the trial that would finally set the record straight and bring Derrick home to us. After all, there were witnesses who saw the whole incident and would testify on his behalf.

But instead, our government turned its back on Derrick – a decorated U.S. Soldier – to appease Afghanistan officials.

Remember, another Soldier had witnessed the interrogation and confirmed Derrick’s account. But he changed his story after the government threatened to charge him with accessory to murder.

The other witness was the Afghan translator. And in exchange for testifying against Derrick, he was granted U.S. citizenship.

Yes, our government brought him here to the U.S. and paid for him to live in an on-base hotel for six months with food, a personal van, and a $630 per month allowance – all provided at taxpayer expense!

Worst of all, the Army destroyed every bit of forensic evidence that could have proved Derrick was acting in self-defense. There were no photos. No autopsy. Nothing.

But I still believed the government would do the right thing. Instead, I held hands with my husband and Derrick’s wife, Katherine, and listened in shock as Derrick was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

His feet were shackled, his hands cuffed to a leather belt around his waist, and, just like that, my only child was taken from me.

Since then, the world has simply fallen apart for his precious family.

The military immediately stopped Derrick’s paychecks. Derrick’s wife and my husband and I had pooled together all our money to hire a civilian attorney to represent Derrick. It cost $50,000 – every cent we had.

Now, with no money in the bank, his wife couldn’t pay their mortgage, utilities, car payment, or Derrick’s student loans.

Derrick had always worked two jobs so his wife could stay home after their babies were born. Now she can’t. The girls are so little and they don’t understand. They ask her over and over again, “Why can’t Daddy come home?”

They wake up at night and cry for him. And honestly, sometimes so do I.

Berit, I can’t bear the thought of the girls growing up without their dad. Or Derrick not being able to scoop them up in his arms before they’re grown. But we have only one hope left now…

You see, we got a phone call from United American Patriots (UAP), an organization that helps Service Members who have been unfairly indicted for their split-second actions in combat.

The good folks at UAP know firsthand that you can’t send U.S. Soldiers into terrorist combat zones and second-guess their actions from a desk in Washington. And their support has been instrumental in getting Derrick to this point.

But even though the end is in sight, UAP must raise money to cover hours of legal research, expert witnesses, and legal motions throughout this parole process. UAP is a non-profit organization, which means they don’t receive any funding from the federal government – only private donations from patriotic Americans.

It also means that I’m going to take a deep breath and ask you one of the hardest questions I’ve ever asked another person:

Can you help me fight to free my son by making a donation of $35, $50, $100 or more to UAP?

Your gift is tax-deductible. And it will help us pay for Derrick’s parole hearings – and help other innocent Service Members who have been unfairly charged, too.

The federal government has already spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to convict Derrick and grant U.S. citizenship to the Afghan who testified against him.

But I must rely on the generous hearts of people like you to save my son.

That’s why I’m writing you today – to do what I can as the mother of a U.S. Soldier to find good-hearted people out there who care about defending our nation’s troops.

Our attorney is going above and beyond the call of duty to fight for Derrick. But the parole process is unpredictable and will cost us at least $30,000. It’s money we simply don’t have.

Can you please help UAP fund this legal battle and bring Derrick home to us?

Your $35 contribution could be the difference between letting my son rot in prison for another decade for a “crime” he didn’t commit… or bringing him home to me and his girls where he belongs right away!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for any help you can send to UAP today.

Yours truly,
Mrs. Renee Myers

P.S. As a member of the National Guard who volunteered for two of his three tours of duty, my son has sacrificed so much for our country. Yet in return, our government has taken away his family and his freedom! Right now Derrick desperately needs to know that he hasn’t been forgotten! Thank you for whatever amount you can send today to give him hope and to help bring him home!

This is a very famous organisation here in the U.K. that supports British veterans:

Having A Raison D’être & An End Game – The Impression One Can Get.

When reading about the Iraq war last year I was stunned to see the willingness to sacrifice the integrity of Europe on the altar of momentary territorial access needed in order to get into Iraq.

“Plan Of Attack” by Bob Woodward.

“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

I was further mystified by the fact that 4-star Army General (ret.) Colin Powell came across as the one lone voice of reason, since he tried to raise awareness of tribalism and ethnic diversity in the targeted area.

The reading certainly gave me the impression that humans are simply being seen as replaceable cogs in the machinery by the establishment.

Culture and ethnicity simply doesn’t matter, it is all about momentary victory, without any overarching solid narrative selling a clearly defined End Game, that will be reached by many separate actions all serving the same underlying objective.

This is a startling realisation.

When reading “The Art Of War” I was surprised about what sort of advice it contained. Prolonged warfare with no end in sight is depicted as one of the worst projects that a Nation can ever engage in. A group that engages in warfare also have to ensure that they have access to an efficient supply line, taking advantage of whatever resources the group can get their hands on as they expand into a territory. A war effort should be swift and precise, without too much meddling from sovereigns located far away. The people who are on the ground need to be able to do what is necessary to reach their goal in a completely mobilised way, to the extent that this is possible.

All of this certainly made me question the sort of warfare that people my age have grown accustomed to. All of our Nations’ war efforts seem concentrated in “alien territories,” fighting and training “aliens” that might turn on the West later, and all of our Nations’ major war efforts seemingly drag out for ever…

No proper end game that logically makes sense is ever presented to the public and when getting an insight into the world of those who run these things, it doesn’t really seem like these characters know what the deal is either (unless a battle ground is simply needed in order to train soldiers and test new equipment).

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

A parallel can be drawn to hacker activists, who don’t seem too concerned with allies. They’ll attack an enemy of the West one day only to target Western political and military structures the next, potentially jeopardising the integrity and safety of a Nation State or its military operations.

When reading about community organisers you see this pattern of behaviour once again.  A lot of left-wing activism simply cancels itself out, since the only common denominator seems to be emotionalism. Due to this you’ll get contradicting agitation and advocacy that will leave someone like myself slightly confused, as there is no End Game in sight anywhere.

If you look at Islamic agitation in Europe it is very easy to understand what their End Game and overarching goal is. They engage in demographic expansionism into Europe, which gradually gives them a political advantage. Wealthy Muslim power-players buy themselves into Western Corporations which gives them cultural influence and leverage. Street-level Muslims carve out their own territories and then defend these. Mosques are erected further cementing a claim to a specific territory boosting confidence, while a romanticized fantasy of Islamic Imperialism, appealing to people’s sense of identity and innate penchant for ancestry-worship, is promoted. Of course, as always, not all. But you don’t need every member of a specific group to behave in this particular fashion for it to have its desired effect. My impression of European Islamification is that there is a long-term vision, coupled with a willingness to commit to certain behaviours, in order to eventually reach a clearly defined outcome: Nation States that become compatible in their policies and in their cultures with the Muslim faith, preferably paving the way for a new “Golden-Age.” Of course it is of importance to point out the ethnic and racial diversity within Islam, and that there are numerous conflicting denominations within the faith as well. As an example: we can now clearly observe, imported tribal disagreements and feuds, in Europe, in addition to all of our own inter-ethnic issues that we had from before….

Inter-ethnic dissonance is very prevalent in Africa; which is generally referred to as the most diverse continent on the surface of the earth.

So what can be said of the West? What is our End Game? What can be observed and what conclusions can be drawn? 

What would make sense, instinctively,  would be to have common ancestry as the glue holding Europe together. Race has become way more inclusive than what it used to be, since we now largely see Race as something observable, while ethnic groups give us what has become our European Nation States, with its specific cultures and characteristics.  Back in the day these used to be chopped up into various tribes that probably displayed a lot of similar traits to one another, hence our generalisation regarding population groups contained within the boundaries of the modern Nation State: an extended family sharing common ancestry and a similar distribution of genetic traits on average.

It would make sense if our Nation States in Europe concerned themselves with the protection of our shared and individual cultural heritage, doing everything to ensure the survival and majority status of white children (and mixed whites) in the only territory that actually belongs a 100% to whites, protecting our continent’s borders and integrity.

A strong unified Europe and more broadly speaking, a strong unified West with the more multi-racial configurations found within territories conquered by whites, would in theory make sense.

Is this an End Game for what is collectively known as The West though? No.

This would be a racist objective. It would insinuate that Ethnic-Europeans have a natural claim to a specific territory and that conquest is a legitimate way to establish a Nation, which is what a white presence in all other territories other than Europe is a result of. (To my knowledge … It certainly looks that way when observing strange geographic settlements by Whites and the presence of dark-skinned indigenous groups).

The prevalent mythos championed in the West is this:

  1. that all other groups are minorities, even if Europe looks very small when compared to other continents, and we are outnumbered globally speaking.
  2. That the magic soil theory is truth, meaning that you’ll automatically become  Swedish by simply breathing the air in Sweden.
  3. That all human beings are born equal due to a blank slate, and that genetics simply don’t exist.
  4. That talking about genetics and genuine diversity is dangerous because that will instantly turn you into Hitler and result in a new Holocaust.
  5. That it makes sense to celebrate white ethnic groups becoming minorities, after years of civil-rights battles in the U.S.A. to ensure equal opportunity regardless of skin colour, and after years of Whites trying to do good towards previously marginalised and abused non-white minority groups within their domains. Not to forget: the constant focus on the challenges faced by so-called (and genuine) minorities within traditionally White-majority constructs. None of this paints minority-status in an appealing light … yet we should do everything in our power to lay the groundwork for our own marginalisation…. which is particularly interesting when reading about the merciless brutality in other parts of the world perpetrated by non-white majorities…
  6. That previous white expansionism will just be forgotten, since Whites have decided to “play nice,” which means that we no longer have any enemies and don’t really need any borders….
  7. That only white ethnic groups can be guilty of racism and imperialistic activity.
  8. That white ethnic groups are not under any circumstance “indigenous” and that there will at no point be any need to give any white demographic the status of “protected group.”
  9. That race and/or ethnicity is only real and only counts if/when dealing with “indigenous people,” who can under no circumstance be white. These “indigenous” groups are also the only ones entitled to certain territories that have to be protected in order to ensure their survival.
  10. That charity is only needed in the 3rd world as it is probably your own fault if you are poor and hungry in the superior, egalitarian, socialist inspired constructs that make up the Western World.
  11. That you have to import workers from Africa and The Middle East, rather than employing individuals from territories closer to your own, or within your own continent.
  12. That mixing on a massive scale is always peaceful and not the result of violent demographic change or militant conquest.
  13. That re-writing history and engaging in gas-lighting on a National and/or Continental level is perfectly alright in order to salvage vanity projects initiated by international organisations, that might look good on paper and in theory; until inserting the human factor into the equation actually implementing the idea.

Ok. So this doesn’t look too promising. Then what about Christianity? This is multi-racial, multiethnic and global. It is way more inclusive and has been used as a unifying factor in Europe before…

The West has continuously acted as an enemy to Christian groups in the Middle East, facilitating genocidal persecution of genuine Christian minority tribes. Western governments not only promote the build-down of Christianity within Europe and all other territories under White influence, they actively side with Nations and regimes known for violent Christian persecution.

What about human-rights, enlightenment ideas, world peace and the “human race”?

Western governments have repeatedly sided with regimes guilty of outrageous human rights abuses, making themselves guilty of gross hypocrisy since human rights and the protection of humanity as a whole has become the main narrative and general raison d’être of Western groups.

Portraying oneself as a defender of the human race also becomes tricky as you cannot possible go out there and claim that population group A needs more protection and privileges than population group B as this would be racist and undermine universal rights. And how on earth can you even say population group A and B when race/ethnicity isn’t even real? You cannot say that religious group A is more guilty of persecution than religious group B, because why would religious group B be more righteous or in need of more protection than the other? Are you a bigot or what?

Who are you to say that Terrorists don’t have rights or don’t have a point, when you claim to be a defender of all of humanity? And how on earth do you even define a “War on Terror” or “Terrorists”? Any person or group could fall into this category when nothing is specified.

These kind of points can be spinned indefinitely putting The West in a situation where none of its actions can be seen as righteous and/or legitimate.

It opens up the door for a potential legal, moral and PR nightmare where The West and its natural inhabitants never win.

It also puts Western Nation states in a situation where an enemy cannot be clearly defined, at least not in public, due to important exotic alliances and potential diplomatic disasters. By relying on exotic alliances for abstract military operations, the West paints  itself into a corner, where they cannot kick out subversive elements within their own nations if these stem from their good “friends and allies.”

The West is forced into a position where it cannot really look after the interests of its own inhabitants, nor enforce the heritage and integrity of itself.

Not to forget that The West is put into an incredibly awkward situation when Western leaders cannot clearly formulate anything, if interested in maintaining good international relationships.

This results in cringe worthy narratives that leaves all of those who don’t just parrot our “modern shared values” confused and puzzled. What are we all about really? Does anyone know?

What about Capitalism then? A support for this must surely be a constant factor from The Americans at least? 

No. Think again. The U.S.A. is willing to tolerate oppressive communist regimes that in the long run pose a threat to the American experiment and their global influence, as long as the U.S.A. can gain from such an alliance in the short run.

So what is The End Game of The West? 

Strangely and worryingly enough there doesn’t seem to be one……(but I might be very wrong, after all, who knows what goes on behind the scenes…).

At best it can be argued that there are forces within The West championing stability trough whatever means by expanding the police state and surveillance of their own citizens. This though is worked against by leaders who don’t want to acknowledge the effects of demographic change. In addition it facilitates the very form of governance that Western Nations are outspokenly against, not to forget that the identity destruction currently happening in The Western world work against any conservation efforts intended to protect our cultural and ethnic inheritance, while simultaneously compromising stability and security; in short, all of it compromises the survival of those people who occupy the territories that we collectively refer to as The West.

 

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.