William S. Lind and the tR editors talk about the week’s news and how it plays into some bigger metapolitical topics. Look for a new livestream each week. If you have questions for a Q&A session with Mr. Lind, submit them as comments on this page, email us here, or use the live chat feature on the next stream.
One of war’s few rules is that failure at a higher level negates the successes at lower levels. This led to Germany’s defeats in both World Wars; she usually won at the tactical and operational levels but lost at the strategic level. The result was lost victories.
To look at our own situation today, we need to add John Boyd’s three levels of war, physical, mental, and moral, to the classic levels of tactical, operational, and strategic. If we plot these categories on a grid, we see that the highest and most powerful level of war is the moral/strategic. If we look at what we are doing around the world, we see that at the moral/strategic level we are taking actions likely to result in our defeat.
Three examples come readily to mind. The first is North Korea. President Trump made a major breakthrough toward ending the danger of another Korean War by meeting with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. Unfortunately, since that meeting, the President’s advisors have worked to undercut his achievement. Kim Jong-un wants the U.S. to declare a formal end to the Korean War, which at present is halted only with an armistice. South Korea favors it, Mr. Trump is said to favor it, and we risk nothing by giving it. But the President’s advisors are working against it. Their position is that we should give North Korea nothing until it completes denuclearization. That treats North Korea as something it is not, a defeated enemy. Not surprisingly, North Korea is rejecting that approach, which gives the foreign policy Establishment what it wants — a continuation of the Korean stand-off and all the budgets and careers that hang from it.
The second example is so bizarre it defies belief. Washington has placed new sanctions on Chinese companies and individuals because China bought weapons from Russia. Huh? What business it is of ours who China buys weapons from? Ever since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1950 China has bought most of the weapons it has imported from Russia. Of course it is going to continue to do so. It is not as if we want to sell weapons to China; we don’t. This action is so outlandish and absurd it turns the U.S. into Don Quixote, a madman wandering the world tilting at windmills. Who does Washington think it is?
The third case is similar, in that it is an attempt to dictate to other sovereign countries in matters that are none of our business. In one of his few serious foreign policy blunders, the President withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal with Iran. Wisely, the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese are working together to keep Iran in and thus avoid a war in the Persian Gulf, with all that would mean for the world’s oil supply. Washington has responded by threatening any foreign company or bank that does business with Iran. The October 10 New York Times quoted President Trump’s court jester, John Bolton, as saying, “We do not intend to allow our sanctions to be evaded by Europe or anyone else.” Again, who do we think we are to tell Europe or anyone else whom they may trade with? If the EU had a backbone, which it does not, it would forbid any and all European companies to capitulate to unilateral American sanctions.
Each of these cases represents something history has seen all too often, usually from countries that were past their peak as powers and on the downhill slide: the arrogance of power. We are playing the swaggering bully (just before his nose gets bloodied), wandering around the playground telling everyone else what to do. It doesn’t go over well.
But each case is more than that: it is a self-inflicted defeat at the moral/strategic level, the highest and most powerful level of conflict. Morally, it turns us into Goliath (a rather weak-kneed Goliath, given our military record), someone everyone fears but also hates and looks for a chance to get back at. Strategically, we are pushing China, Russia, and now Europe too, together against us. If, as Boyd argued, strategy is a game of connection and isolation, we are connecting everyone else and isolating ourselves.
Teddy Roosevelt famously urged America to talk softly and carry a big stick. Instead, we are yelling for all we’re worth while waving a broken reed, a military that can’t win, and that soon, thanks to feminization, won’t even be able to fight. That is not likely to end well.
Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.
The battle over the Kavanaugh nomination saw the Left take yet another giant step toward unreason. Apparently serious people argued that any woman’s accusation against any man must be believed. Suddenly, three thousand years of history and literature, in which perfidy of women, their lies and plots that brought disaster, loom large are to be tossed aside. In their place we are to believe that today’s women carry a “truth serum” gene that makes lies impossible. Even the (desirable) Victorian elevation of women did not go as far as this. Victorian women, presented with the idea that women cannot lie, would have responded with gales of laughter.
The left’s rejection of facts and reason in favor of romantic faith in “feelings” is yet another sign of our cultural decay. That decay has gone far enough to raise the question of whether we are following the path of Weimar Germany, Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s.
To summarize a complex historical period, the collapse of morals and culture in Germany in the 1920s alienated the German middle class from the Weimar Republic. When the Great Depression hit, that alienation was joined by deep anger at the government’s inability to set the economy right and provide jobs. Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists rode this mixture of alienation and anger to power (legally, by winning an election). They then abolished the Weimar constitution, reaffirmed traditional middle-class morality, pulled Germany out of the Depression, and gave jobs to everyone who wanted one (for which the brilliant head of the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Schacht, deserves much of the credit).
I was in Berlin for ten days in August, where my search for Germany’s history was aided by an excellent guidebook in the Companion Guides series, Berlin by Brian Ladd. Ladd quotes the interwar novelist Stefan Zweig’s description of Berlin in 1923, during the Weimar Republic’s hyperinflation:
I have a pretty thorough knowledge of history, but never, to my recollection, has it produced such madness in such gigantic proportions. All values were changed, and not only material ones; the laws of the State were flouted, no tradition, no moral code was respected, Berlin was transformed into the Babylon of the world. Bars, amusement parks, honky-tonks, sprang up like mushrooms. . . the Germans introduced all their vehemence and methodological organization into the perversion.Along the entire Kurfurstendamm powdered and rouged young men sauntered and they were not all professionals; every high school boy wanted to earn some money and in the dimly lit bars one might see government officials and men of the world of finance tenderly courting drunken sailors without shame. Even the Rome of Suetonious has never seen such orgies as the pervert balls of Berlin, where hundreds of men costumed as women and hundreds of women as men danced under the benevolent eyes of the police.In the collapse of all values a kind of madness gained hold particularly in bourgeois circles which until then had been unshakable in their probity.Young girls bragged proudly of their perversion, to be sixteen and still under the suspicion of virginity would have been considered a disgrace in any school of Berlin at that time…
Does this sound all too familiar? America now witnesses such behavior not only in one city, but throughout the land. And the Establishment media promote it, bless it, and denounce anyone who rejects it as a “hater”. A large portion of America’s middle class finds it alienating.
So far, the alienation is tempered by the good economy. But the Big One is coming, a world-wide debt crisis that will bring not just a recession but a depression and a long-lasting one. Unlike the Great Depression, I expect this one to be inflationary because central banks will respond to it by creating massive liquidity. At this point, it is all they know how to do.
If you take widespread cultural alienation, economic collapse, massive unemployment, and inflation and wrap them all up together, you get Weimar America. Someone will take political advantage of the situation. I expect that as in Germany under the Weimar constitution, you will have a faceoff between a populist, extreme Left–we’ve certainly seen enough Leftist extremism in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle– and a populist Right. At present, only a small slice of the populist Right is extreme. Most of it is well represented by President Trump, who is a very long way indeed from Adolf Hitler. President Trump is anti-Establishment, but his agenda lies well within the historical mainstream of American politics. After all, for most of its history the Republican party was the party of high tariffs.
As in Weimar Germany, the initial push to the extremes has come from the Left, which seems to imagine it can go as far as it wants without eliciting a reaction from the Right. In Germany, the SA arose largely to counter violence from the Communists. Here, the Left thought it could raise racial consciousness among blacks and Hispanics without creating a similar rise in racial consciousness on the part of the whites. It was wrong. Now, it is openly advocating violence against Republican Party leaders and other prominent conservatives, harassing them in public places, vandalizing their property, and threatening their families. This too will bring an equal reaction from the Right, and the Left will find to its sorrow that the Right fights rather better than the Left.
Conservatives do not want to see our public life move in these directions. The first conservative principle is order: safety of persons and property. But as in Weimar Germany, the combination of cultural decadence and economic collapse will drive politics to its extremes. Conservatives should work with moderates and such liberals as dare defy the extreme Left to preserve order. But if that fails, then only one thing will matter: winning.
Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.
Rome has fallen.
Beginning in the 1960s, most mainline Protestant churches fractured over two divergent understandings of Christianity. In one camp are those who believe Christianity was revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, in Holy Scripture, and in the traditions of the early church. The duty of present-day Christians is to pass that heritage, unaltered and undiminished to future generations until the Lord comes again. In the other camp are those who believe the faith must reflect the Zeitgeist, altering itself as necessary to maintain a broad appeal. They see revelation as an ongoing process in which new commandments can override old.
Under a veneer of unity, this same tension has been present within the Roman Catholic church. With the release of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’s recent letter attributing priestly pedophilia to a widespread toleration of homosexuality among Roman clergy, the fracture is in the open. The Zeitgeist has proclaimed homosexuality normal and, as in the mainline Protestant churches, the faction within the Roman church that follows the Zeitgeist must follow suit. To traditional Christians this is anathema. Rome appears headed for schism.
This may be good news. A schism within the Roman church and the emergence of a sizeable Roman “continuing church” would create the possibility of a second Reformation, with the difference that this Reformation would unify rather than divide. “Continuing church” Protestants and Catholics would have more in common with each other than with modernizers in their own denominations; the same would be true for the other side. It is conceivable that Catholics and Protestants could unite in two new churches, one reflecting Zeitgeist, the other upholding traditional Christianity. Given the number of both Catholic and Protestants traditionalists, a new, united “continuing church” might be the larger–large enough to wield substantial cultural and political power.
To be sure, the obstacles would be significant, especially for the traditionalists. Traditional Protestants and Catholics would each have to look back before the Reformation to find common ground. Protestants would have to accept a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and adopt a valid liturgy for their communion services (even some Baptist churches had liturgy up into the early 1900s). Catholics would have to share the Apostolic Succession with non-Catholic male clergy and forego requiring that Protestants accept the innovations arising out of the Council of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. The Holy Spirit would have to do some heavy lifting to make a union come about.
What might be the strategic implications of such a second Reformation? Since the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648, the West has discounted religion as a strategic factor. But at present, the primary strategic weakness of the West is that it no longer believes in itself. Western culture’s will to live died in World War I, in the mud and slaughter of the Western Front. After the Somme, Verdun, and Passchendaele, the best lacked all conviction. Fascism attempted to recover by exalting the will, but fascism failed, felled by its own errors. And so today as the old West, Europe, is invaded by hordes of mendicants from strange cultures, the European elites offer their countries as doormats.
As Russell Kirk wrote, “Culture comes from the cult.” Religion has been at the heart of most, perhaps all cultures since human culture arose. While the First World War collapsed the West’s faith in itself, the religion at the core of Western culture had long been under assault by rationalism. Fractured by the first Reformation, the church could no longer speak with the united voice necessary to reply convincingly (about this, see Brad S. Gregory’s recent book, The Unintended Reformation). To Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum,” a united church would have answered, “Non est. Dues cogitavit, ergo es.”
How can Western culture recover the will to live when, in Europe, the churches are empty because most of the clergy no longer believe the Nicene Creed, while in the U.S. many of the most popular churches preach a therapeutic narcissism that has little to do with taking up your cross and following Jesus? Among the ruling elites in both Europe and America, Christian faith is regarded as spiritual eczema, an unfortunate condition to be covered up in public. It can have no role to play in strategy; the very notion is absurd.
This, then, is the potential strategic significance of a second Reformation, one that unites all traditional Christians in one church: the West’s recovery of the will to live. Far from being strategically unimportant, religion is now as it always has been, one of the most powerful strategic factors, a lesson the Islamics teach us regularly on our own soil. Culture comes from the cult, and a united church, marching as to war, could revive Western people’s’ belief in their culture and in themselves. Deus vult.
Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.
Both the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps are failing to meet their recruiting and end-strength goals. One obvious reason is the hot economy which offers plenty of jobs. A less obvious cause, mentioned to me by a friend in the National Guard, is the effect on recruiting of the endless television ads about “wounded warriors”. These ads bring home to young men the unpleasant reality that joining the military can lead to life-changing injuries.
A third cause is the endless, pointless wars we continue to pursue in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Whatever the initial rationale for these conflicts was, most people have since forgotten it, including both the decision-makers in Washington and the young men in the recruiting pool. Who wants to sign up to fight halfway around the world for a cause no one can remember?
That question points to a larger one: in today’s world, what is an army for (here I include the Marine Corps as well)? Some Third World countries may still face a threat from another state and need an army to counter it, e.g., India and Pakistan. But even there, nuclear weapons make such a conflict unlikely, at least on a large scale. European militaries have atrophied to the vanishing point because they have no obvious mission.
In Washington, the neo-libs and neo-cons together have tried to answer the question by using our Army and Marine Corps to force the dubious benefits of “democratic capitalism” down the throats of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, and, if they get their way, Iranians. But the attempts have all failed and, in every case, made the local situation worse. In the end, even Robespierre said that missionaries with bayonets are seldom welcome.
So both here and in Europe, no one in the Establishment has an answer to the question, what’s an army for? No wonder our Army and Marine Corps cannot recruit. If the trumpet sounds uncertain, who will follow?
The question does, however, have an answer. It is one the Establishment refuses even to contemplate because to do so violates the dictates of cultural Marxism, aka political correctness. The real threat facing both the United States and European states is Fourth Generation war on their own soil. In both places, the most numerous carriers of that bacillus are immigrants to have not acculturated or, when we are talking about Moslem immigrants, will not acculturate.
The threat is greatest in Europe. Islamic immigration has so far been small enough that it is not yet a major security factor in the U.S. Our Hispanic immigrants are already Christians, and most want to acculturate and become normal, middle-class Americans. That is why they came here. They have come in such numbers that they have overwhelmed the acculturating mechanisms, and President Trump is correct that we need to stop illegal immigration and limit the legal variety. We faced a similar situation in the early 20th century, which we solved by doing exactly that. Over time, those immigrants became Americans.
But the Islamics in Europe have no intention of becoming Englishmen, Frenchmen, or Swedes. They are there to conquer the countries they have invaded and force Islam upon them. It is always to the state’s advantage to define such threats as problems for law enforcement, not the military. But the Islamic’s numbers in some European countries are so great that they already stand on the verge of civil war.
European armies, what is left of them, will discover what they are for: protecting their nation’s historic culture, patrimony, and native people from 4GW enemies. They are already doing that on the streets of France. But what about the U.S. Army and Marine Corps?
Blood is thicker than water. Will the U.S. stand aside if there is a bloody war in the cities of Britain or France or Italy or Sweden? No. At that point cultural Marxism and its “multiculturalism” will stand revealed as the lie and fraud that they are. Our families came from those countries, and we will send American soldiers and Marines to protect those we left behind. When that happens, we will have no problem finding recruits for wars that are worth fighting.
A police shooting last week in Dallas, Texas was interesting not because of what the mainstream press reported, but of what they did not report. What they did not report reveals how they often mislead the public, to the point of becoming “fake news”.
The incident, a tragic one, involved a female Dallas police officer who apparently mistook a neighbor’s apartment for her own, walked in, encountered a black male, and shot him fatally. The man was a respectable citizen, a risk analyst for a global auditing firm. Some facts remain in dispute, but the police officer has been charged with manslaughter.
In a major story on the incident, the New York Times reported on September 15 that
In some ways, the drama unfolding in Dallas looks and feels similar to other high-profile police shootings of unarmed black men that have gripped the country in succession in recent years.
The Times quoted State Senator Royce West,
a Democrat who is African-American and whose district includes the South Side Flats (where the incident occurred). “The question is whether or not she saw a black man and then decided to shoot. Regardless of whether or not he was in the right place or not, her first impulse appeared to be that she was going to fire her weapon.”
Two facts loom over this incident, neither of which the Times reported–nor, probably, did any other mainstream media. First, cops react to black males the way they do because the black rate of crime is twelve times the white rate, and most of that crime is committed by young black males. Two different studies, both based on U.S. government statistics, support the twelve times figure: Jared Taylor’s The Color of Crime and a detailed study by Ron Unz which was published some years ago in The American Conservative magazine (Unz did not report his findings in those terms, but I spoke with him at the time and he said his numbers also pointed to a black rate about twelve times the white rate). So high is the violent crime rate of young black males that everyone avoids them if they can, including other blacks (most of the victims of black crime are also black). Cops cannot avoid them; on the contrary, their duty to protect the rest of us means they must confront them, which often leads to cops getting hurt or killed. Police are and must be realists, however much the mainstream press passes over in silence the realities they face.
The Dallas shooting points to another fact the fake media ignore: women are poorly suited to most police work because they cannot deal with a hostile male except by reaching for their gun. Although the movies are full of petite, lovely women beating up big men, in real life that seldom happens. Most men will win a physical fight with most women, including most women cops. As any cop will tell you, police officers get in lots of fights. Most male cops can keep the level of violence below deadly force because they can win a fight with another man. A woman cop has to go for her gun, sometimes at the outset. That may be what happened in this case.
Why won’t the mainstream media report these facts? Because they are politically incorrect. Cultural Marxism demands we pretend there are no differences between races or ethnic groups or between men and women. As everyone knows, reality says otherwise. But the mainstream media is completely controlled by the cultural Marxists: defy them and you get fired.
So the “fake news” mainstream media wins that title not by what it prints but by what it leaves out. Over and over, on issue after issue, the mainline press misleads the public by refusing to report salient facts, like the two I have pointed out here.
We can even give them a little test. I am a New York Times subscriber. I challenge the editor to print this column. It speaks directly to one of your stories. It could not be more relevant.
Chicken? You bet he is.
In the instantly infamous anonymous op-ed published in the Sept. 6 New York Times, “The Quiet Resistance Inside the Trump Administration”, the Deep State found its voice. Anyone who doubted its existence can set their doubts aside. The op-ed is the Deep State’s equivalent of the burning bush and the voice proclaiming, “I am.”
The core of the op ed is found in its first and second paragraphs:
. . . many of the senior officials in his own (President Trump’s) administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda. . .
I would know. I am one of them.
The op-ed contains both less and more than meets the eye. It may shock the average American to think that members of a President’s own administration would work against his agenda, but anyone who has served in Washington knows it happens all the time. And not only to Presidents; Senators, Congressmen, Cabinet members, military commanders, anyone senior enough to have a staff also has staffers with their own agendas. They push those agendas when and as they can, including when they conflict with the agenda of the person they serve. It is so common it has become a rule of institutional behavior, known as Rankovic’s Law: It is easier for the subordinate to control the superior than for the superior to control the subordinate. The op-ed’s boast that there is an organized faction in President Trump’s administration working against parts of his agenda goes a bit beyond the norm, but it has certainly been seen before.
Also unsurprising is the op-ed’s revelation that this faction is attempting to promote orthodox Republican Establishment policies such as deregulation, tax cuts, and more money for the Pentagon as opposed to the populist policies that got President Trump elected. Much of what goes on in Washington is an effort to subvert the popular will. Those who can do so successfully on behalf of monied interests often get very rich.
This brings us to what the op-ed reveals that is surprising; surprising not because we have not previously suspected it but because the Deep State now feels confident enough to say it openly: the Deep State wants international conflict. The op-ed includes a bald-faced declaration to that effect:
Take foreign policy: in public and private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-Un . . .
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly. . .
The op-ed goes on to talk approvingly about how the Deep State has punished Russia against the President’s wishes, to the point of boasting about it:
He (President Trump) complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country . . .
But his national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
Here is the significance of the op-ed, not in what it reveals about President Trump but what it says about the Deep State itself, namely that it thrives on unnecessary and strategically counterproductive international conflicts. Those conflicts justify the trillion dollar “national security” budget off which the Deep State feeds, they provide the arenas in which the “national security team” builds its careers and power and they distract the public from our sorry military performance against the real threat, the threat of Fourth Generation war and the entities that wage it. They are, in short, bread for the Establishment and circuses for the citizens.
The op-ed seeks to paint a picture of a valiant band of prudent senior officials holding a dangerous, half-mad President in check. What it actually portrays is a corrupt bunch of interests that feed off the status quo sabotaging a President who seeks to improve relations with Russia and North Korea, avoid unnecessary wars (except possibly with Iran), and put America first. The op-ed should, as it intends, leave Americans scared–scared not of a maniac in the White House, but of a Deep State so confident of its own power and invulnerability that it can go public with the truth it has previously tried to hide: the Deep State, not the people elected to the office, runs the country.
The September 3 New York Times reported that General John Nicholson, our supreme commander in Afghanistan for the last 31 months, in his departing speech as he turned over his command called for an end to the war.
Nearly 17 years to the day (since 9/11), now a four-star general departing as the commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, (General Nicholson) stood under the shade of pine trees in Kabul on Sunday, and delivered an emotional farewell.
The general. . . said he wanted to speak from the heart.
“It is time for this war in Afghanistan to end,” General Nicholson said.
Well, yes. That has been true since the failure of the U.S. Army’s attempt to encircle and capture Osama bin Laden in the first couple months of the conflict. But why did General Nicholson wait until he was giving up his authority and leaving the country to state the obvious? When President Donald Trump wanted to end the war and bring our troops home, did General Nicholson support him? Or did he remain silent, or, worse, join the piling-on when our senior generals convinced the President to stay and send in more troops?
The frequency and blatancy of American generals’ failure of moral courage appears to be growing. It is not a new problem. During the entire Vietnam war, not a single service chief resigned in protest, though many said after their retirement that they knew we could not win. Generals and admirals alike have long done nothing in the face of vast procurement debacles, like the ongoing disasters that are the Ford-class aircraft carriers and the F-35 fighter/bomber. All senior military leaders have presided for decades over a Second Generation military, with only a few, such as Marine Corps Commandant General A.M. Gray, attempting to wake their service from its slumber and move it at least into the Third Generation as war moves into the Fourth. No one, it seems, ever told American generals one of the Church’s oldest truths, that the sin of omission is as grave as the sin of commission.
Yet now we are seeing more and more cases of generals making active blunders, blunders that reveal their distance from their troops and the realities they face in the field as well as a lack of moral courage. In the Marine Corps, a Commandant, General Neller, had to concur in the relief of Lt. Col. Marcus Mainz, the Corps’ best battalion commander, for the trivial offense of using a politically incorrect word when speaking to his Marines. Such public groveling before the idol of cultural Marxism should alone disqualify anyone from commanding anything. Now, the Chief of Staff of the Army is pushing a new physical fitness test, the ACFT (Army Combat Fitness Test), that from preliminary results may force at least a third of our soldiers out–at a time when the Army is falling short of its recruiting goals and end-strength. Does he have any awareness of his service’s realities beyond his (plush) office? Could he pass the ACFT himself?
Generals need two kinds of legitimacy if they are to be effective as military leaders. They need legitimacy in the eyes of the men they command and they need legitimacy before their political superiors, which in our case includes the American public. History is full of the names of generals who, by their own military incompetence, their disconnect with their troops, and their alienation from their political bosses were failures, often to the point of destroying their armies and their countries. Heading the list in the 20th century is Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf, Chief of the K.u.K. (Austro-Hungarian) General Staff before and during much of World War I. His campaign plans were such colossal failures that he virtually devoured his own army; his initial offensive in Galicia in 1914 wiped out the peacetime Austrian army in three weeks. During the entire war he visited the front only three times, living the high life of wine, women, and song in AOK, his headquarters in Poland, as Vienna starved. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination at Sarajevo touched off the war Conrad wanted and the Archduke did not, loathed him and tried to force him out. Franz Ferdinand could have saved the Hapsburg Monarchy; Conrad destroyed it.
America’s generals’ legitimacy is increasingly in question, for much the same reasons: military incompetence, i.e., wars lost; distance from those they nominally lead; and moral cowardice, as in the Mainz affair, that alienates much of their conservative political base. Who among our generals should get the Conrad Prize? Nominations are open.
I spent the last few weeks in Germany and the Netherlands. In the former, though not the latter, I received the impression that das Volk is waking up.
This is more than a response to the flood of Islamic immigrants. I saw plenty of those, women swaddled like mummies and attended by hordes of children, groups of young men with hard eyes, all living on welfare paid by Germans who work. The immigrants are a proximate cause of the German awakening, but there is more to it than that. As in the U.S. and some other European countries, ordinary Germans are starting to realize that the globalist Establishment has been giving them the mushroom treatment: keeping them in the dark and feeding them horse manure.
This came through most clearly when I got into conversations on trains, in beer gardens, or just sitting on a park bench smoking my pipe. When asked why I was visiting Germany, I replied that German history was a lifelong interest. That in turn interested the Germans, who know virtually nothing about their history. The Establishment has told them that apart from their war of national liberation from Napoleon, their whole history is just a lead-in to the thirteen years of the Third Reich.
That is ideology, not history. When I spoke of historical facts such as that the Second Reich, 1871-1918, was a normal country and a good country, that in 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm II neither wanted war nor expected war (so President Woodrow Wilson’s advisor Colonel House wrote to Wilson after spending substantial time with the Kaiser) and that France and Russia bore heavier responsibility than Germany for starting World War I (see Christopher Clark’s definitive book, The Sleepwalkers), the Germans were fascinated. Many said they had never heard such things before; they were taught to be ashamed of the whole of their country’s history. When I went on to suggest that if the Central Powers, Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, had won the First World War the world would probably have had a better 20th century – no Hitler, no Stalin – they were even more intrigued. Some asked me for my card, others what they should read to learn more. They were thirsty for reality like a German lost in the woods is thirsty for beer.
In the hands of its current political and intellectual Establishment, the Federal Republic of Germany is the anti-German Germany. That Establishment endlessly tells the German Volk that they must wander through all time to come lamenting the Third Reich, ringing a bell and crying “Unclean!” But most Germans alive today were born after 1945. Why are they responsible for Hitler?
Beyond historical facts, evidence that this nonsense is driven by ideology, the ideology of cultural Marxism (which Germans invented; should all Germans also be held responsible for that?), is the fact that it turns up elsewhere in Europe. In France and Britain, all native Frenchmen and Britons are to hold themselves endlessly guilty for colonialism, despite the fact that much of the world enjoyed the best government it ever knew or will know when it was governed from Europe as colonies. All present-day and future white Americans are to bow under the burden of slavery. And everywhere throughout the once-Christian West, all white people must grovel in the dust for the sin of racism, which is merely recognizing the fact that, taken as wholes, races are different, just as ethnic groups within races are different.
The good news from my trip is that Germans are beginning to recognize they’ve been had. They’ve been fooled, lied to, and swindled. For most of its history, Germany has been a country of which Germans can and should be proud. Other countries, too, had their dark times; I would not recommend visiting France during the terror, nor Britain under the Commonwealth. But just as you can visit Germany today and enjoy a wonderful trip, so you could do in the time of the Kaisers, the kings, and princes of pre-1871 Germany, and the days of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. As das Volk awakens, the days of the anti-German Germany may be numbered. And Kaiser Wilhelm II, whose grave at Doorn in the Netherlands I visited, may find himself on his way home.
In a society where most people have lost hope in a worthwhile future, the creep of nihilism gains ground in human hearts.
A mild-mannered airport worker with an affably broey affect commandeered a huge prop plane in a daring last act on earth rather than eke out another four to five decades as a wage slave in a drab and pointless neo-liberal society.
What is most telling about this event is not the actions of a single man, but the overwhelmingly positive public reaction I’ve seen so far on social media. Some are even calling him “Sky King”.
People often identify with the motives of mass shooters more than they admit but selfishly taking the lives of others dampens any sympathy they may feel. Even in the darkest and angriest periods of my life I was disgusted by the thought of petulantly lashing out against people I didn’t even know.
Sky King Rich Russell sets a new precedent by going out in a stoic and affable manner while harming no one.
This may be a natural reaction to incentives as mass shootings are now so common that like car crashes, they cease to be of much note. It now takes some more flair and creativity to get the mass society’s attention and hold it for a news cycle or two as one’s final legacy to the ages. A fleeting reward but still better for a few than to labor a whole lifetime away, appreciated by no one.
In this time of constricting internet censorship, this suicide is an important indicator of the culture. The more the system takes away from people, the less they have to lose. Isolated suicidal people and nutjobs are harmless on their own, but the crowds regard the Sky King as almost a Robin Hood kind of figure. He hurt no one else, showing millions a glimpse of real freedom, while putting a dent in some impersonal corporation’s bottom line. When crowds begin to support this kind of behavior, the real trouble for elites is just beginning. It is a sign that under certain circumstances, certain targets are seen as legitimate by most people.
Very tellingly, Russell was a European-American, especially when most airport workers I see running around are minorities. Suicidal behavior, especially that requiring real initiative and planning is endemic to higher-agency Euros and Asians. The Africans and Indios of this world may groan from time to time under the lash of their overlords but they resign themselves to the grimmest slog of daily life and always manage to push out progeny just the same. I honestly cannot completely blame the world elite for wanting to replace a troublesome population with more pliant and domesticable strains. If that task were completed, there would be no more airplane thefts and no more flamboyant aerobatic maneuvers born from heightened existential consciousness.
This article was originally published at Forward Base B.