Trump in 2024? Yes, but. . .

. . . Not Donald.

I voted for President Trump in the 2016 Ohio primary, the general election that year and again in 2020.  I contributed to his campaign both times.  I think he was a successful President and would have been more successful had he not been repeatedly sabotaged by people in his own White House and in the broader Deep State.  Had he been re-elected in 2020, I doubt there would be a war in Ukraine today, among other benefits.

But it is time for Donald Trump to step aside and let other, younger men carry the torch.  It is true that time seemingly has no effect on him.  But the fact is, we now have an 80 year-old President, and voters will be leery of another, with some reason.  At age 75, I know neither my body nor my mind is in top form anymore.  Another five years won’t help.  The only respect in which I will grow from here on out is my waistline.

President Trump also faces some unpleasant political realities.  With the exception of my home state of Ohio, where J.D. Vance won, all the Senate candidates he endorsed were defeated.  Most of those races were winnable.  But Mr. Trump will not endorse any candidate who does not agree that the 2020 election was stolen.  

Was it?  It is impossible to know.  Once electronics enter into anything, security goes out the window.  The term “electronic security” is a contradiction in terms.  Now, in many states, the process of voting and vote-counting involves electronics.  So who knows what the actual votes were?  Electronic vote-rigging, like too many things electronic, is undetectable if it is done well.  And the Deep State can be counted on to do such things well.

President Trump’s policies are generally to his advantage.  Most Americans agree with him much of the time.  But there is no way around the fact that many voters, especially women, dislike him as an individual.  Women vote with their hearts, not their heads.  A majority of the electorate is now female.  Had the Founders ever envisioned such a situation, we would now be drinking to the health of our new monarch, King Charles III.  But we are stuck with it, and so is President Trump.

At the same time, his name remains magic to many Americans.  These are the “unpersons,” at least 74 million people, who the culturally Marxist Establishment has declared not to exist.  They are to have no voice.  Well, President Trump gave them a voice.  Their interests are never to be considered.  He represented their interests.  They are to be despised as “deplorables.”  President Trump was and still is happy to be labeled “deplorable” too.  He actually likes these mostly white, male or non-Feminist female, straight, usually Christian people, who live in “flyover land,” work hard for their livings, are kind to their friends and neighbors, and admire America’s history and culture.

So we have a conundrum: We need a Trump name on the ballot to bring these people to the polls (many do not otherwise vote), yet President Trump’s personal negatives are high enough to put another Democrat in the White House.  (If Biden runs again, it will be as a dead Inca.)  What do we do now?

In 2024, the Republican Party nominates Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida for President and Eric Trump, President Trump’s son, as Vice President.  

DeSantis won re-election by 20 points, carrying areas such as Miami-Dade that Republicans never carried.  His policies are largely those of President Trump, but without the personal negatives.  He is young and energetic.  He is not afraid to challenge cultural Marxism, aka “Wokeness.”  By running Eric Trump for Veep, the Trump name is on the ballot, President Trump can campaign heavily for the ticket and the Republican Party will once again be united.  If the Dems try to run against Eric Trump, all he need say is, “are you a carbon copy of your father.)

And so the circle will be squared.  Are Republicans smart enough to do it?  Or would they prefer to remain “beautiful losers?”

There’s Only One Issue in this Election, and It Says “Vote Republican”

Yes, I know there are many issues at stake in next week’s elections: inflation, the economy, crime, securing the southern border, and so on.  But these all pale into insignificance in the face of one other issue, one that is not overtly on the ballot and has hardly even been mentioned.  What is it?  Preserving freedom of thought and expression.

By this point, most Americans have encountered the growing censorship gripping our once-free country, either personally or by hearing about the experiences of others.  On university campuses, in corporate offices, in almost all media, any “offensive” word or remark means the person who said or wrote it is in trouble.  What defines “”offensive?”  The ideology of cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms, largely by the Frankfurt School.  More commonly known as “wokeness” or “Political Correctness,” cultural Marxism dictates that anyone who defies its dictates must become an “unperson:” fired from their job, expelled from their university, blackballed in their profession, unmentionable socially, hounded to the very gates of hell.  They are “thisists” or “thatists,” in a game with words that seeks to make aspects of reality vanish by calling them names.  Everyone knows it’s all cant, but they also know they will pay a price if they don’t bow down and worship its great clay god.

So far,  in this country, you won’t be jailed for saying or writing something “Politically Incorrect.”  But have no illusion: that is what the Democrats intend.  Just look at most university campuses, where the slightest offending word means you are dragged before a kangaroo court, assumed guilty unless proven innocent and often sentenced to “re-education,” meaning learning to mouth the lies “wokeness” requires.  Refuse to learn your lesson and out you go without your degree (or a refund).

But a quick look above our northern border at our once-nice neighbor, Canada, shows another picture.  There, an “unwoke” remark can get you in serious legal trouble.  “Hate speech,” with “hate” defined as any defiance of cultural Marxism, can mean arrest, trial before a “revolutionary tribunal,” not a real court, where the members are all cultural Marxists in good standing, and possibly prison.  The same is true in a growing number of European countries, including, shamefully, England, the source of our own liberties.  Not only can the same thing happen here, making it happen is at the top of the Democrats’ agenda.

That is why it is vital Americans vote in this off-year election and vote straight Republican tickets.  Most oRepublican office-holders fear cultural Marxism and must be pushed into confronting it, but when the alternative is losing their base, they will usually wobble up and do it.  If Republicans take just one House of Congress, they can and will prevent the Democrats from enacting more laws against freedom of thought and expression.  If Republicans take both Houses, they can pass legislation designed to roll cultural Marxism back and restore those freedoms.  Yes, President Biden will veto it, but by doing so he will make the Democrats’ role as the protectors and enforcers of cultural Marxism painfully clear.

There is no shortage of ways legislation can restore freedom of thought and expression.  In the last year of his first term, President Trump proposed a federal rule denying all federal funding, including research grants, to any college or university that will not adopt and enforce a code of strong protections of those basic freedoms (look to the University of Chicago for a good example).  That would change the balance of power on campuses overnight, because the hard sciences profs, their funding at stake, would go to the faculty meetings and outvote the nut-cases from the liberal arts and social sciences departments.  I’m sure that proposed rule died a quick death when Biden came in, but Republican majorities in Congress could easily resurrect it as legislation.

Another powerful piece of legislation in defense of freedom of thought and expression would be to add “political views” to the list if discriminations prohibited in civil rights laws.  Wouldn’t it be fun to make Biden veto that one?  Companies could still ban, let’s say, all political t-shirts in the workplace, but they could not ban just those reflecting conservative beliefs.  No Nazi tees?  Ok, so long as no tees with Che or Marx or Mao on them.  No Hitler salutes?  Fine, so long as Marxist clenched-fist salutes got the same treatment.  Any favoritism would be grounds for a lawsuit.

What it comes down to is this: if you want to preserve (and restore) freedom of thought and expression, vote next week and vote Republican.  A vote for Republicans gives the finger to all the “wokeness,” the “white supremacy” crap, the “64 genders” nonsense, the demands that we all bow down to blacks, Feminists, Third World immigrants, gays, etc, the whole “woke crowd around the bar in Star Wars.  Don’t be fooled by the Democrats’ “protecting our democracy” red herring.  All “democracy” means is voting for Democrats.  Freedom of thought and expression are issues that impact every American every day.  Those are the freedoms our ancestors fought for, the freedom we are now losing, and the freedoms without which America is no longer our country.  We can fight with ballots now or bullets later.  Go vote.

Words That Lie

Words have many meanings, and knowing their meanings is indispensable in any search for truth.  More, some words have semi-secret, “coded” meanings, known only to the Illuminati of a cult.  And while all words can be used to tell the truth or to lie, some words are themselves lies (one example is “homophobia:” unreasoning fear and moral disapproval are two very different things).

If we are to know our enemy, which on is cultural Marxism, we have to learn what the words it commonly uses mean.  Again, some of these words have both a common meaning, what they mean to you or me, and a coded meaning.  In political and spiritual warfare it is just as important to break the enemy’s code as it is in warfare with guns.

Let us start with one of the cultural Marxists’ favorite words, “hate.”  We all know what hate means.  But most of us do not know what it means in the mouth of cultural Marxists.  Again, to them, it has a coded meaning.  What is it?  Any defiance of cultural Marxism.  Now, the cultural Marxists are themselves champion haters.  They hate whites.  They hate males and non-Feminist females.  They hate Western culture and the Christian religion.  In the end, they simply hate God.  But in their lexicon, none of this counts as hate because it is coming from the left.  Only the right can hate.

Another word that lies is “divisive.”  Like “hate,” “divisive” means any rejection of cultural Marxism.  The lie embedded in the word is that most people are cultural Marxists, so any dissent represents division.  In fact, most people are not cultural Marxists and cultural Marxism itself fosters every division it can: sex, race, clase, etc., all with the goal of ripping society apart.  Unlike the old economic Marxists in Moscow, cultural Marxists offer no positive goal; they are about “negation,” which is to say they are nihilists.

A new word that lies is “violence.”  Everyone knows violence requires physical contact.  But in the cultural Marxists’ mouths, it means anything that disturbs or upsets cultural Marxists.  This word that lies is becoming common discourse on many university campuses.

Then we have the “ism” words: racism, sexism, classism, gourmetism (wanting your food to taste good), and so on.  The coded meaning in these words is that the things themselves, e.g., race and sec, are just “constructs,” castles in the air with no foundation in reality.  But we all know that’s can’t, to use Dr. Johnson’s favorite word.  There are real differences among race and among ethnic groups within races, taken as wholes.  Who can say with a straight face that there are no differences between, say, Swedes and Italians, or Russians and Irishmen?  How many people, looking for amusement on a Saturday evening, go to a Russian bar?  As to “sexism,” men and women are inherently different and their traditional roles reflect what we have learned over millennia about their inherent differences.  The endless stream of movies and shows in which lovely, petite young women beat up big men are fantasy.  And most men aren’t really keen on babies.

My answer when”thisist” or a “thatist” is that the name-calling is “ismism.”  “Ismism” is a magical, totemic belief that realities some people don’t like can be made to disappear by calling them names ending in “ism.”  Cultural Marxism is not unique in wanting to do away certain realities; all ideologies do that.  But none before it tried to abolish realities so fundamental, such as that there are two sexes, which are physically determined at birth.  One woman recently wrote that, when she was little, she told her mother she wanted to be a boy.  Her mother replied, “kiss your elbow.”  Go ahead, try it.  You can’t.

All this mendacity with words traces back to Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse’s essay on “liberating tolerance.”  Marcuse defined liberating tolerance as all movements and ideas coming from the right.  Today’s cultural Marxists are carrying that into language itself, giving words new definitions that add up to left good, right bad.  Conservatives need to see through what they are doing to words and expose it to all Americans.  Sunlight turns cultural Marxism, like other trolls, to stone.

Playing with Nuclear War

As of this writing (September 12), Ukraine’s counter offensives appear to be succeeding.  The widely telegraphed offensive in the south is making some progress.  But it looks as if its primary role was deception, where it has already succeeded because Russia responded by drawing down its forces in eastern Ukraine, opening the door for the main Ukrainian counteroffensive.  That is moving forward at Blitzkrieg pace, to the point where Russian units are disintegrating.  All this is, of course, wonderful news for Ukraine and for anyone who wants to see David beat Goliath.

But interests must be matters of cold calculation, not warm emotions.  Foreign policy is more than consulting Sant’s list of who is naughty or nice.  Yes, the Russians have been beasts and their invasion of Ukraine has been criminal.  But Ukraine’s victories are not good news for America’s most vital interest.

What is that most vital interest?  Avoiding nuclear war.

Throughout the Cold War, everyone in Washington understood this.  Party did not matter, liberal or conservative was of no consequence.  The whole foreign and defense policy establishment knew we and the Soviets were walking on eggs.  The slightest mis-step could mean nuclear catastrophe.  We came close on occasion; the closest was probably during the Cuban missile crisis, when the skipper of a Soviet submarine was about to fire a nuclear torpedo at an American destroyer.  His politruk stopped him.  As the representative of the Party, he knew Moscow did not want nuclear war any more than Washington did.

But it seems all the adults in the room died and a bunch of drunk teenagers now have their fingers on the button.  Russia has hinted from the outset of its invasion of Ukraine that the nuclear option is available.  If the Russian army is beginning to disintegrate, I suspect that option is or soon will be on the table.

What would it mean?  My guess is one or more nuclear strikes in western Ukraine, aimed at the supply lines bringing in American and European weapons.  Initially, I don’t think they would attack NATO territory.  But the winds blow east to west in Europe, and the fallout could be considered a weapon on its own.

This is, of course, madness in Moscow.  President Putin regrets the break-up of the Soviet Union; some old Party hands should remind him that no Soviet leader would ever have started a nuclear war.  Had one moved to do so, he would immediately have been recognized as a Trotskyite and toppled.

Unfortunately, the situation in Washington is as bad or worse.  Some circles there are planning to respond with American nuclear strikes if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine.  But what could our targets be?  If we target Russian-held regions of Ukraine such as Donbas, we create the bizarre situation where Moscow and Washington are both nuking Ukraine.  The latter will find out what it was like to be Germany during the Thirty Years War, the place where everyone from Swedes to Spaniards fought it out.  Some German towns still have not recovered.

It does not stop there.  These same circles (hint: there’s a “neo” in their name) know this, plan to hit targets on Russian territory and are calmly discussing the fact that we might lose some east coast cities.  The U.S. military has reportedly been directed to develop contingency plans for such a situation.

Playing with nuclear war goes beyond folly.  It is insanity, plain and simple, straight out of Dr. Strangelove.

If there are any adults left in Moscow or Washington, they need to kick the teenagers out of the room, consider their interests rationally and sit down and talk.  Let us imagine the man we need, old Bismark, returns as the Ghost of Crises past (I think Turkish President Erdogan might serve as his avatar).  Here’s a draft agreement:

Russia has a legitimate interest in Ukraine, namely that it does not constitute a threat to Russia.  That means Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, although it may join the EU.  If Ukraine succeeds in retaking Donbas, it returns to Ukraine, but as a special autonomous region with some degree of self-government and a general amnesty.  If Russia can hold it, it stays Russian.

Russia keeps Crimea, because it has historically been Russian.  Like the Donbas, the Russian corridor connecting Russia proper to Crimea stays with whoever holds it when the fighting stops.

In return for Russia getting Crimea, Ukraine gets East Prussia (now called the “Kaliningrad Oblast”) and a new, broad-gauge, heavy-haul railway connecting Konigsberg to Ukraine, giving Ukraine two seas through which it can export its agricultural products.

Finally, Russia joins an international consortium to rebuild Ukraine, with Russia allowed to concentrate its efforts in towns and cities where the population is heavily Russian.

In all this, there is one point Washington must keep in mind above all others: the United States has no vital interests at stake in Ukraine.  That is why it is insanity for us to be contemplating nuclear war.  For what?  How do we benefit?

The thought that, having avoided nuclear war with the Soviet Union for all those years, we are now planning for a nuclear war with a non-Communist Russia is beyond rational comprehension.

The View from Olympus: The Marine Corps Gazette Gets the Evolution of Maneuver Warfare Right.

The September issue of the Marine Corps Gazette includes an article for which there has been a long-standing need, namely an accurate recounting of the history of maneuver warfare’s evolution into official Marine Corps doctrine.  Written under the pen name Marinus as part of an ongoing series, the Maneuverist Papers, it does what none of the books on the subject have managed, namely provide a non-partisan account that identifies all the streams that fed into the maneuver warfare river.

Of these streams, which the article calls threads, there were five: intense dissatisfaction among Marine Corps officers over our performance in Vietnam and our final loss of that war (something that seems to have vanished with more recent defeats); interest in mechanized operations because that is what a conflict in Europe with the Soviet Union seemed to require; the model offered by the Prussian/German Army, for which I was the main spokesman; renewed interest in classical military literature, especially Clausewitz and Sun Tzu; and the theoretical work of Col. John Boyd, USAF.  My only quibble with the account is its failure to mention that I began the maneuver warfare debate with a critique of forthcoming Army doctrine that I wrote in 1976 and was published in Military Review in 1977.  Like it or not, I was first.

I appreciate the fact that the article gives credit to someone who played a highly important role in the process but is often overlooked, namely Col. John Greenwood USMC, the editor of the Marine Corps Gazette at that time.  Col. Greenwood did not always agree with what the maneuverists were writing, but he published their material anyway, because he understood the function of a professional journal.  The Gazette was the main forum through which I reached Marines; Col. Greenwood later told me that over a twenty-year period, I wrote more articles for the Gazette than any other single author.  Without the Gazette and its editor the maneuver warfare movement in the Corps simply would not have happened.

I highly recommend that all who have not read this latest Maneuverist Paper do so.  But my purpose here is to pick up where it leaves off.  Its last sentence reads, “Three decades after maneuver warfare became doctrine, we believe the Marine Corps is overdue to have a conversation about its views on the nature and conduct of warfare going forward.”  I agree.  In fact, that conversation has been going on for some time, but a lack of interest from senior levels has pushed it into something of a backwater.

The conversation is about Fourth Generation war, war with opponents who are not states.  We just lost such a war, the war in Afghanistan.  We have also given a big boost to Fourth Generation war throughout the Middle East by destroying the states in that region, including Iraq, Syria, and Libya, helpfully clearing the way for Fourth Generation entities to move in.  We have demonstrated no ability to win Fourth Generation wars.

But, as was the case with the maneuver warfare movement, individual Marines, mostly junior officers, have been thinking, studying, and writing in order to fill the vacuum.  For a few years, thanks to an initiative by then-colonel Ron Bailey, I co-led a seminar at Expeditionary Warfare School devoted to Fourth Generation war.  Just as was true in the earlier movement, it was quasi-clandestine (the seminar couldn’t be named for 4GW), the students received no course credit and the fact that I (briefly) had an office at EWS upset the brass.  But that seminar paralleled earlier maneuver warfare seminars by writing draft field manuals on 4GW.  Were General Gray still Marine Corps Commandant, those FMs would have come out as official Marine Corps publications.  Sadly, he was not, though some of us would like to bring him back.  Fortunately, as head of the Central Powers Military Mission to the Marine Corps, I was in a position to approach the relevant authorities in Vienna and Pola, with the result that they were published by the K.u.K. Marinekorps.  They are available in English in the “resources” section of

But unofficial efforts did not stop there.  The Marine officer who co-led the later seminars with me, Lt. Col. Greg Thiele USMC, and I drew on what we learned from those Marine captains to write the Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook.  It is available from Castalia House Press and on Amazon.  It is intended to serve as a starting point for the Corps as it moves to become the nation’s go-to force for 4GW, much as my Maneuver Warfare Handbook, published 1985, helped kickstart the Marine Corps adoption of maneuver warfare.  (With regard to which, I am currently writing a new, improved Maneuver Warfare Handbook, not to replace the current book, but to talk about some things we’ve learned since it was written.)

So let me offer a challenge to the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Gazette: let’s do with Fourth Generation War what the Corps did thirty years ago with maneuver warfares and develop it intellectually, experiment with it in the field, have another giant food-fight over it in the pages of the Gazette and finally make it doctrine for, again, America’s force of choice for this kind of war.

The Corps can move into 4GW while the Army remains stuck in 2GW.  The Marine Corps only survives by having an expertise the country needs that no other service can offer.  4GW is where war is going, whether it justifies F-35s or not.  Those of us who led the maneuver warfare fight – Mike Wyly, G.I. Wilson, Bill Woods, General Gray, John Schmitt, sadly not John Boyd – are still alive and we have one more campaign left in us.  Are HQMC and the Gazette up for it, or will us old guys have to hit this beach alone?

I want to close on a personal note.  “The Evolution of Maneuver Warfare Theory” writes that, in comparison to the Army’s top-down doctrine development process (which has left the Army stuck fast in the Second Generation),

The Marine Corps process more resembled the cafeteria food fight scene in Animal House, with Lind in the Bluto role

Animal House was inspired by one of the fraternities at Dartmouth College when I was a student there (1965-69).  I was known to occasionally have a drink and smoke a pipe at their bar, the picture of which in the film was not inaccurate.  So closes another circle in my life.

Two Political Dilemmas and One Solution

As we look toward the 2024 Presidential election, we see each political party faces a dilemma.  On the Republican side, if former President Donald Trump runs again, his personal negatives are so high that, according to recent polls, President Joe Biden would still beat him.  For a Republican victory, it is essential that he not be the candidate.  I say that as someone who voted for Mr. Trump both in the 2016 Ohio primary and in the general election that year and in 2020, contributed to his campaign and met with him in March, 2016 in Cleveland to give him a copy of Paul Weyrich’s and my last co-authored book, The Next Conservatism.  That meeting was not at my request but that of some of his campaign staff who saw the potential the book offered for a new and widely attractive conservative agenda.  

The dilemma here is that it is likely Mr. Trump will run again because he seeks vindication for his Presidency.  That is understandable, even laudable, because he was a successful President who gave us a booming economy, no new wars and Operation Warpspeed, without which we probably would not yet have Covid vaccines.  If he runs again, he will win the Republican nomination because he retains tremendous support among the Republican base – again, for some good reasons.

I think this dilemma has a solution: a Republican ticket of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and, for Vice President, Eric Trump, President Trump’s son.  DeSantis has been a true conservative, one willing to challenge cultural Marxism (most Republicans won’t), defy federal mandates and back effective local law enforcement.  He has also been a successful governor, and Presidential candidates should generally be governors rather than U.S. Senators or Representatives.  Why?  Because governors actually have to make things work while Senators and Congressmen need only give speeches.

By putting Eric Trump on the ticket as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, President Trump can get the vindication he seeks without having to run himself.  Why not Donald Trump, Jr.?  Because voters may get confused between two Donald Trumps.  Putting Eric on the ticket will bring millions of voters who voted for his father.  And if the Democrats try to run not against Eric but against former President Trump, all he will need to say is, “How many people are carbon copies of their father?”  A DeSantis/Eric Trump ticket will be the Dems worst nightmare.

Well, second-worst.  Their worst is the dilemma they face, for which I do not see a solution.  It is clear that President Biden is on his last leg physically and mentally.  I say that with sadness.  I remember him from when I was U.S. Senate staff.  Indeed, I once worked with him to get an amendment through the Senate Budget Committee.  He was intelligent, considerate, and a pleasure to us lowly staffers, which was not true of all Senators.  But running him again in 2024 would be like bringing out all the dead and mummified Incas, still dressed in their finery, for state occasions in the Incan Empire.  It is simply not possible.

That leaves the Democrats facing President Biden’s poison pill, Vice President Harris. She was a failure as a candidate in 2020 for the Democratic nomination and she will be a failure again if she heads the Democratic ticket.  But how can the Democrats deny the nomination to a black woman without enraging a large portion of their base?  The only way forward I see for them is to nominate a different black woman.  But someone like Stacy Adams would alienate not only whites but Asians and Hispanics as well.  Michelle Obama?  That would probably be their best shot, but I don’t think she wants to put her family through another Presidential campaign, or, for that matter, another Presidency.

If the Republicans solve their dilemma with a DeSantis/Eric Trump ticket while the Democrats remain trapped in their own, the 2024 election outcome is not difficult to forecast.  All it requires is for Republicans to be smarter than Democrats.   Ulp.


On the surface, the cultural Marxists’ war on normal pronouns is simply silly, the vaporings of unhinged women.  Even those unhinged women know that in the real world, men are “he,” women are “she,” things are “it,” and “they” is plural.  We all learned this by third grade.

So what is all the pronoun nonsense about?  As foolish as it seems, it has a serious purpose: it acts as a political barometer.  The cultural Marxists can and do gauge their power by the absurdity of what they command.  The more absurd the demand, the greater their power if we obey.

Obviously, from a conservative point of view, it is important that we not obey.  Yet many are tugging the forelock, bowing to requirements we call each nutcase whatever pronoun he/she/it wants, even if it sounds and reads like Esperanto spelled backwards.

Why are we yielding to such absurdity?  Part of the answer is that, at least in some institutions, we are forced to do so.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported a case where a child in elementary school was threatened with a federal felony charge for calling some girl by a pronoun other than the one she specified.  Sunlight killed that bacterium, but many like it go undisclosed.  In places such as university campuses where cultural Marxism rules (and our tax money goes to sustaining their rule), any student who uses the “wrong” pronoun, which is to say the grammatically correct pronoun, faces school discipline.  The same is true in “woke” workplaces.

This sort of enforcement points to 1984, where the mandated language was “Newspeak” and anyone who spoke normal English was sent to a labor camp or shot.  Do not doubt that the cultural Marxists want the same power here.  At the moment, all they can do is fire or expel the employee or student who defies their rules.  But they seek a totalitarian state like those the classical, economic Marxists created in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc.  Here, if cultural Marxism wins, a “wrong” pronoun will send you to the basement of the Lubyanka.

But there is more to it than threats and brute force.  The members of the Frankfurt School, the institution that created cultural Marxism, crossed Marx with Freud.  From psychology they took the weapon of psychological conditioning: working on people’s minds through “Critical Theory” and endless propaganda to the point where anyone who defies their rules thinks he has done something wrong, something terrible.  He looks in the mirror and sees “another Hitler.”

The pronoun game is a tool the cultural Marxists can use to further condition normal people and gauge the success of their conditioning.  If Ma and Pa Kettle use the standard pronouns, they have scorn heaped upon them, are called “thisists” and “thatists,” told how ignorant they are and ordered to grovel in the dirt and “apologize” to whatever creatures in the left’s zoo they have “offended.”  If they yield and use absurd pronouns, cultural Marxists can claim another victory and cook up yet more ridiculous demands.  

As is generally the case with cultural Marxism and other ideologies, the way to fight back is to defy their rules.  If you get expelled for using normal, standard English pronouns, sue.  There are conservative organizations that will take your case pro bono.  And make sure you demand trial by jury.  Most people on juries speak standard English.  In states governed by Republicans, pass free speech laws that outlaw requiring anything but standard English for employment or attendance at a state college or university (and defund any academic department at such schools that require non-standard pronouns).  There is one, only one case where I could accept a newly-created pronoun.  For women who are so bizarre, so ditzy, so plain old butt-ugly that calling them “she” is an insult to all ladies, I will consent to a new pronoun that combines the feminine with the neuter: “she-it.”  Wear it with pride, former gals, wear it with pride.

Repeating a Blunder

In my latest book, Reforging Excalibur, I argue that the threat of state disintegration and spreading Fourth Generation war is so great that only an alliance of all states can ensure the state system will survive the 21st century.  Further, I suggest that an alliance of all states must begin with a new Triple Alliance of the three Great Powers, the U.S., Russia, and China.  Only then can all other states be led to combine their efforts, because only then will other states not be pushed or pulled into one or another blocks built around contending Great powers.  I am saying that Great Power competition is obsolete, a mutual error on the grand strategic level that will lead to the destruction of all three of the current Great Powers.

The Blob, the Washington foreign policy establishment, will dismiss such a notion as piffle.  How could all three Great Powers possibly make such an error?  My reply is that three of the five Great Powers in the pre-1914 world made just such an error, and in the process all three were destroyed.

In the world of 1890 to 1914, all Great Powers were European countries, and by general consensus there were just five: Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Great Britain.  Three, Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary, were conservative, Christian monarchies.  France was a republic and the leader of Europe’s left.  Britain was a monarchy but all real power was in the hands of Parliament, not the monarch.

All five Great Powers shared a grand strategic orientation in which the threats they perceived came almost entirely from other Great Powers.  In 1890, Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary were loosely allied despite Austro-Russian rivalry; Bismarck’s Reinsurance Treaty allowed Germany to ally with Russia without openly betraying Austria.  Britain saw her threats as coming either from France or Russia; she was friendly with though not allied to Germany or Austria.  By 1914, these alignments had shifted.  Britain, France, and Russia were allied against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Unfortunately, this whole grand strategic orientation was an error, especially on the part of the three conservative monarchies.  The real threat they faced was democracy coupled with secularism and, often, socialism.  This new and growing threat meant more than the loss or gain of a province here or there or perhaps some colonies, with a resulting effect or prestige.  Democracy, secularism and socialism promised to wipe Christian, conservative monarchy from the board and all three ruling houses, Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs, and Romanoffs, from future history.  As we now know but they could not foresee, that is what happened, with the result a grand strategic shift of the whole political spectrum sharply to the left.

What I am saying in Reforging Excalibur is that all three of today’s Great Powers are repeating the blunder three of the five Great Powers made then, the blunder of operating within an obsolete grand strategic framework.  This is the largest and therefore the most damaging error a country’s foreign office can make.  Then, it damaged, perhaps fatally, Western, Christian civilization.  Now, it may fatally damage the state system itself, leading to global anarchy.  Just as the three conservative Great Powers of 1914 needed to be allied then, in a new Holy Alliance or Dreikaiserbund, so all three Great Powers need to be allied now in defense of the state system against the non-state forces which drive Fourth Generation war.

The Blob cannot think in these terms, because any departure from its institutionalized groupthink endangers the career of anyone suggesting there is a problem.  The same seems to be true in Moscow and Beijing.  All I can do is point to the price earlier foreign policy establishments in the Wilhelmstrasse, the Ballhausplatz and on the Nevsky Prospekt paid for making the same mistake.  Some mistakes are so vast and have such baleful consequences that the phrase, “Heads will roll,” becomes more than a metaphor.

The View from Olympus: My New Book

Finally, my new book is out (Arktos, London).  Written mostly in 2020 and co-authored by “John Ewald,” a nom de plume for someone vulnerable to DOD retaliation, Reforging Excalibur: Creating a Sustainable and Relevant Defense for 21st-Century America has two goals.  The first is re-structuring our grand strategy and armed forces for a world of Fourth Generation war, where the enemy is not other Great Powers but non-state forces such as al Qaeda, ISIS and drug cartels.  The second is getting ready for the inevitable debt crisis, financial crisis and hyper-inflation, which will drastically reduce the amount we can spend for defense.  When those titanic economic forces hit, we will be lucky if we can spend $100 billion (in today’s dollars) for defense, not the trillion we spend now.

The 90% reduction in our defense budget will not be voluntary; Reforging Excalibur does not advocate it, because there is no need for advocacy.  We will have no choice.  Rather, my new book shows how it can be done while preserving our ability to defend ourselves effectively.  “Defend” means just that: keeping Americans safe in their homes and beds, not attempting to dictate to the rest of the world.  We would still play an important role in the world, but it would be in the context of a new and very different national grand strategy.  Our new grand strategy would have as its goal the preservation of the international state system in the face of spreading state collapse, itself both a consequence and a cause of Fourth Generation war.  Our National Defense Strategy, which currently calls for preparing for war with Russia and China, would instead seek an alliance with both countries and then through that new Triple Alliance an alliance of all states in defense of the state system.

Objections will immediately be raised that we are now in a proxy war with Russia and Ukraine.  That is true, but why are we careful to keep it a proxy war rather than engaging U.S. and Russian armed forces directly?  Because Russia is a nuclear power – as is China.  Nuclear powers do not fight conventional wars with each other because the risk of escalation to nuclear war is too great.  Is Kiev worth Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago?  No, and even the hucksters saying we must spend trillions preparing for such wars know it.  The current National Defense Strategy is a fraud.

Other lessons from the Russian-Ukrainian war also point away from classic state vs. state conflict.  Russia, still thinking in those terms, launched a World War II style attack on Ukraine.  And how has that worked out for them?  Their initial attempt at a Blitzkrieg-type campaign failed.  It failed because a Russian army is not a Prussian army.  Russia has now fallen back on a typical Russian approach, relying on mass artillery followed by very expensive assaults by poorly trained infantry.  Ukraine seems to have learned something of maneuver warfare, i.e. the German style of war, and is practicing it rather well.  Is there perhaps some historic memory of German-Ukrainian ties in both World Wars?

Russia also found itself in a people’s war, not just a war between two armies.  From Napoleon in Spain onward, where that happens the invader faces a hard and lengthy slog to victory, or more often defeat.  People’s war is not per se Fourth Generation war.  It is not 4GW in Ukraine (despite some writers’ mis-definition of 4GW as just guerilla warfare) because it is still being fought in a state vs. state framework.  Where Fourth Generation war may rear a very dangerous threat is if Russia and the Russian state collapses.  That is not impossible, and it is why French President Macron among others is correctly warning against humiliating Russia.  A failure of the Russian state would give the forces of 4GW by far the greatest victory they have won to date, one we would find difficult to contain.

All this puts my new book well outside anything being considered within the Washington establishment.  So does one other point it makes forcefully: if you want your armed forces to lose,there is no more effective way to set them up than by filling them with women.  The cultural Marxists will howl, as will our senior military “leaders” who prostrate themselves before Feminism, but facts are facts.  When we see something that has been true for all of human history in almost every corner of the world, in this case that the fighting is done by men, there is probably a good reason for it.  Stuffing women into every nook and cranny of our military is, to borrow Roger Kimball’s apt phrase, an “experiment against reality.”  It will not end well.

Anyway, the establishment will hate this book.  I can give it no higher recommendation for your own reading.

Everyone will Hate this Column.

Throughout the Western world, everybody is rooting for plucky Ukraine.  It is the classic story of David and Goliath, and who ever rooted for Goliath?  Russia had no reason to invade Ukraine.  Ukraine does not qualify for membership in NATO, nor can it do so as long as it has a border dispute with Russia, which it always will.  The brutality of the Russian army has made the good vs. evil nature of the war even more apparent.  Ordinary people here in Cleveland are flying Ukraine flags, contributing to funds set up to help Ukrainian refugees and welcoming more Ukrainians to a city that already has a lot of them.  And it should; Ukrainians are exactly the kind of people America needs more of.  We should take as many as want to come.

But. . .

Foreign policy should never be based on emotions, however understandable the emotions may be.  By their nature, foreign relations are amoral.  That’s what Machiavelli is all about.  If they are to attain the objective they desire, they must be calculated purely on the basis of interests.  America’s interests in the Russian-Ukrainian war dictate that Russia not be defeated too badly.

At the outset, a Russian defeat seemed impossible.  But the Russian army has performed so badly that its outright defeat now appears likely.  Outright defeat means not only that Russia fails to take and hold all of Ukraine, but that she loses everything she held before the invasion began, including all of the Donbas and Crimea.  Again, let me say what everyone will hate: such a defeat for Russia is not in America’s interest.

The reasons are two.  First, President Putin cannot survive Russia’s outright defeat.  So what?, some might say.  The sooner he is gone the better.  I agree.  But with his neck on the line and no conventional options left, the pressure on him makes the nuclear option seem ever more unavoidable.  It is not in our interest that this or any war go nuclear, because even if the first use is of tactical nuclear weapons in a place far from our shores, the potential of strategic nuclear war, with American cities going up in fireballs, is all too great.  As I’ve said before, the number one interest we have in this war is preventing nuclear warheads from landing on American soil.  All other interests are trivial in comparison.

The second reason we should not want Russia to lose too badly is that such a dramatic defeat could lead to a breakup of the Russian state.  This war, its casualties and the economic damage it has brought on Russia are heavy burdens for the state to bear.  In the 1990s, under President Yeltsin, Russia was close to a break-up.  President Putin’s great achievement, and the reason he has been popular with most Russians, is that he strengthened the state.  His wild, uncharacteristic gamble on war with Ukraine has undone that achievement.  In a world of spreading state weakness and the rise of Fourth Generation war, an outright Russian defeat could mean not only the desirable fall of the Putin regime but a dissolution of the Russian state itself, creating a vast, stateless region with thousands of nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems floating around it.

This is not some alarmist fantasy.  Ukraine sees the possibility and welcomes it.  The May 21-22 Wall Street Journal interviewed the chief of Ukraine’s military intelligence, Major General Kyrylo Budanov, who said,

Putin is in an absolute dead end.  He cannot stop the war and he cannot win it. . .  If they finally realize that the czar is not as great and mighty as he pretends to be, it’s a step towards the destruction of the statehood of today’s Russia.

So, what should the U.S. do?  First, we should make it clear to Ukraine that we will support her effort to defend herself but not a strategic offensive aimed at re-taking the Donbas statelets and Crimea.  If Ukraine were to try anyway, we, the U.S. and NATO, should close her borders with the West.  Second, we need to offer Russia a peace where she gets something.  That something might include recognition of the areas of the Donbas she held before the invasion and Crimea as legitimately Russian and the lifting of all sanctions.  Third, we must move quickly on this, before events outrun it, possibly to the point where a complete Russian defeat will be inevitable unless she goes nuclear.

In wars where a state has limited interests but runs large risks, which describes America’s situation with reference to the war in Ukraine, her most important interest is to end it.  That is where Washington’s efforts should now be focused.