The View From Olympus: Afghanistan

The United States has lost another Fourth Generation war.  To his credit, President Biden has stuck with President Trump’s decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.  Will that mean the fall of the current Afghan government, a return to Kabul for the Taliban, and renewed civil war?  Of course.  That’s Afghanistan.  We could stay one hundred years in that wretched hellhole and nothing would change.

The astonishing thing is that we went there in the first place.  I was a Senate staffer on Capitol Hill when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.  Everyone was glum, expecting the Red Army to win a quick and easy victory.  I was exultant, because I knew the Soviets had just joined the tar baby in the briar patch.  I found it hard to believe Moscow would do anything so foolish and I was confident it would end badly for them.  And then, with the Soviet example staring us in the face, we made the same obvious blunder!  Why?

The first answer is that the Washington foreign policy establishment is willfully ignorant.  They know the history of places such as Afghanistan and the Balkans, but they don’t think it applies to them.  So they behave like bad children, doing whatever they want and leaving adults, in the form of the U.S. military, to clean up the mess.  Unfortunately, the senior military is also willfully ignorant, in their case of the fact that they lead a Second Generation military that is doomed to defeat in Fourth Generation wars.  So thousands of lives and trillions of dollars later, we accept our inevitable defeat and go home with another loss on the board.

Why does it take us so long–twenty years in the case of Afghanistan–to admit defeat and go home?  Because both the civilian and senior military Washington establishment is made up almost exclusively of moral cowards.  Their focus is their personal careers, they got to the senior positions they occupy by avoiding decisions and passing every buck, and they don’t want to be the ones holding the bag for losing another war.  So they kick the can down the road, letting a lost war continue at vast human and financial cost.  Twenty years is a long time to be kicking the can.

We should have gotten out of Afghanistan no more than 90 days after we went in.  By that point, we had done all a foreign invader can do.  We had taken Kabul, thrown out the government we didn’t like, put a puppet government in its place and given it some money and weapons.  After that, if an invader stays he becomes everyone’s target.  Within those first three months we had also botched the chance we had to grab bin Laden, so that mission offered no justification to stay.  Again, the only reason we did so is moral cowardice in high places. 

That military failure points to the third reason we have scored another loss: military incompetence.  Osama was in the caves of Tora Bora when we tried to grab him there.  He escaped because the U.S. military does not know how to fight battles of encirclement.  It draws a line on a map with us on one side and the enemy on the other, then dumps vast quantities of firepower on their side of the line.  Such a reductionist approach to war has little chance of success unless the enemy must move while under fire, which in most cases he does not.

Generally, decisive success in battle requires either ambush or encirclement, not just a firepower dump.  The U.S. military makes few attempts to do either, and, as at Tora Bora, the few times it does attempt it the result is usually failure.

Dealing with these three causes of our repeated defeats in Fourth Generation war requires replacement of the existing Establishments, civilians and military.  They cannot be reformed; they are too far gone for that.  Replacement will come only from a national catastrophe severe enough to grab the public’s attention.  I suspect that lies just over the horizon.

The Last Woman

July 9, 2147: AP reported today that the last female human has died in her enclosure at the Philadelphia Zoo.  Her remains have been sent to a taxidermist, to be subsequently displayed in a glass case in the bar of the Union League Club, a la Jeremy Bentham.

The last woman’s passing marks a sad but inevitable milestone in the progress of mankind.  It is hard to grasp in this day and age, but just a few centuries ago the extinction of women would have been inconceivable.  It would have meant the end of the entire human race.  Men could only create progeny through a woman.  More, women played a multitude of vital roles in men’s lives, from providing sexual pleasure, through housekeeping, cooking, washing, and caring for children, to making certain the family had adequate food to get through the winter.  Men and women were as inseparable as fuel and fire.

What happened to bring such a change in the lives of men?  Two developments, both underway by the late 20th and early 21st centuries, set men on a course for a world without women.  The first was technological: it became possible to create babies outside wombs.  In vitro fertilization was the start.  Then came cloning.  It was no great step to making babies in bottles, just as in Brave New World (as prophetic a book as was ever written).  At the same time, progress in robotics gave men sexbots that delivered sexual pleasure beyond what women could provide while happily spending their days silent, in closets, until their services were desired.  While initially expensive, their life-cycle costs were small compared to those of a wife.

All this made a world without women possible.  But technology seldom determines the course of events alone.  Before the 21st century, women played a vast number of roles in mens’ lives, all complementary to the roles of men.  As the Victorian concept of “separate spheres” laid out, the woman created and ran the “higher sphere” of home and family, while the man had to go out into the world of work to provide the wherewithal to support that family.  When he returned home from the office or the mill, he entered into a delightful world of peace and plenty of beauty and gentleness, with a good dinner waiting for him on the table and a clean, ironed shirt for tomorrow hanging in his closet.  He knew he owed this delightful world to a woman, his wife.

Then, beginning in the 1960s, women in increasing numbers decided they wanted the life of a man.  This was feminism, an absurd notion that men and women were interchangeable.  From being helpmeets, women became men’s competitors.  Men found themselves working for women, taking orders from women (in the military!), and being accused by any woman they displeased of “sexual harassment”.  Worse, as women attempted to become men, women’s duties went undone.  Children were raised (badly) in daycare instead of in a home, meals went uncooked, houses unkept, clothes unwashed.  No-fault divorce turned marriage from a mutual benefit to a scheme for stripping a man of half his assets.  In movies and on television, petite, lovely women were regularly beating up big men. 

It was all flight from reality, and, for women, a journey to extinction.  As sex selection became the norm, people, including many women, selected more and more males.  This should not have been a surprise; it has been true throughout history.  When in the late 20th century China instituted a “one child” policy, the Chinese chose boys over girls two-to-one.  Now, all over the world, men could choose sons over daughters, and they did.

The feminists howled, of course, but they could not stop a train they had set in motion.  Bots replaced them not just for sex but for all the work women would no longer do.  Once again, men came home to clean houses, great meals, ironed shirts, and well-mannered sons.  What men had traditionally regarded as “girls’ stuff” was now “bots’ stuff”, at a lower price and with no headaches.

And so, like the Cheshire Cat, women slowly disappeared, leaving only the grin on the face of a bot.  The last woman’s passing was certain to come (her name seems to have been Mabel, but everyone called her ByEve).  It’s a man’s world now, where the fountains run with beer, endless free pizza is a birthright, and you can pee anywhere.  Do we miss them?  Nah.

Critical Race Theory

Across the country, grass roots resistance to “critical race theory” is growing, and that is a good thing.  But what is critical race theory and where did it come from?

At its core, critical race theory is the argument that all white people have an unjustified negative attitude towards blacks and some (not all) other races, which leads whites to treat blacks et. al. unfairly.  No white is exempt from this bias, and if they are to avoid being “racists”, they must be psychologically conditioned to mouth a set of lies about what evil people they are, grovel in the dirt before blacks, pay “reparations”, etc.  For blacks, it’s a racket, what Tom Wolfe called “mau-mauing the flack catchers.”  For black “leaders”, it’s a highly remunerative shakedown: pay me off or I’ll call you a racist.  It should be ridden out of every town and campus in America on a rail, wearing tar and feathers.

The question of where critical race theory came from points to a larger threat.  In a column in the June 3 Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger wrote,

Critical race theory refers to an idea that emerged some 40 years ago in academia.  The idea’s originators, most famously the late Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell, argues that “race” infuses virtually every aspect of American social reality.

Henninger is not wrong, but this history is incomplete.  Critical Race theory is a subset of Critical Theory, which was invented in the 1930s and ‘40s by the Frankfurt School, the group of Marxist intellectuals who created cultural Marxism, now most commonly known as “wokeness”.  Critical Theory quickly became one of the most important tools in their quest to destroy traditional society, Western culture, and the Christian religion.  The term “Critical Theory” is something of a play on words: the theory is to criticize, to damage and eventually destroy all traditional institutions by unremitting criticism. 

Critical race theory has already destroyed the generally functional relationships whites and blacks had developed in most of America, starting after the Civil War, and replaced them with a witches’ brew of black racial anger and growing white resentment that constitutes a dire threat to blacks, who are only a small minority (about 13%) of America’s population.  When a small minority of any country’s population becomes a threat to the majority, the minority’s future is uncertain.

To understand critical race theory within the context where it originated, the Frankfurt School’s translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms, people need to learn more about Critical Theory and cultural Marxism generally.  A good place to start is a short video documentary history of the Frankfurt School, “The History of Political Correctness,” available on Youtube.  Another good introduction is a recent book I co-edited, Political Correctness: A Deceptive and Dangerous Worldview, published by the Nehemiah Institute and available on Amazon.  For those seeking in-depth knowledge of cultural Marxism, the definitive work is Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School.

I must note that the Left has taken to labelling my work on the Frankfurt School and cultural Marxism an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theory”.  They have called it that in a number of places, including in my biography on Wikipedia.  This is a lie.  First of all, it is not a theory, it is history, the history of the Frankfurt School, which is well-documented in an extensive academic literature.  Second, they call it “anti-Semitic” because I point out that the reason the Frankfurt School left Germany in 1933 and moved to New York was that all its members during its German phase were Jews, as Wiggershaus states.  Do you think Hitler’s coming to power in 1933 might have led Jews to leave Germany?  The move was of great significance for this country because had the Institute not moved to the U.S., its influence here today would probably be much smaller.  Third, the Frankfurt School had aspects of a conspiracy from the outset, often concealing its real objective and its Marxism; this was especially true during its New York phase.  Indeed, the Institution was originally to be named the Institution for Marxism, but instead chose the neutral-sounding name Institution for Social Research, again with the purpose of concealing its real nature.  If there is conspiracy here, it is theirs, not mine.  My pointing out that the Left is telling a lie about my work will not stop them, since everything they say is a lie, but it at least corrects the record (and might shame Wikipedia into not publishing the lie?).

Note:  My columns on Traditional Right will be on hiatus for a few weeks as we upgrade our steam plant.  We are installing a new, triple-expansion engine, putting in four high-pressure boilers and, to do our bit for the planet, converting from solar heating to coal.  The work should take about a month.

The View From Olympus: Groundhog Day in the Marine Corps

Over the past year or so, the Marine Corps Gazette has again become an important forum for debating maneuver warfare, a.k.a. Third Generation war.  That is to the good, and I am happy to participate, as I did in the first round of that debate in the 1970s and ‘80s.  The Gazette’s editor at the time, the late Col. John Greenwood, told me I wrote more for his publication over a twenty-year span than any other author. 

But what does it say about the state of intellectual life in the Marine Corps that it is again fighting over old ground, ground it traversed forty years ago?  The debate of those years culminated in the then-Commandant, General Al Grey, making maneuver warfare official Marine Corps doctrine.  So why is maneuver warfare the latest hot topic now?  How did the Marine Corps get caught in its own groundhog day?

Part of the answer is that the Marine Corps adopted maneuver warfare on paper but not in practice.  Beyond its doctrine manuals, it remains a Second Generation, French-model armed service: centralized, preferring obedience to initiative, depending on imposed rather than self-discipline, and inward focused: rules, processes, (highly specific) orders etc. are more important than getting the result the situation requires.  Tactics, to the degree they exist at all, consist of wandering around until Marines bump into an enemy, then calling in remote firepower.  Success is measured in attrition. 

A debate over why the Corps has failed to adapt to its own doctrine and how to fix that would be useful, and part of the discussion in the Gazette is on that subject.  But much of it just repeats what I and others were writing before most of today’s Marines were born.  That points to a second reason for the Corp’s groundhog day problem: most Marine officers now read little or nothing.  During General Gray’s Commandancy, reading and discussing serious books, books such as Martin Van Creveld’s Fighting Power that were and are directly relevant to the changes the Corps needs, were common activities among not only officers but NCOs and Staff NCOs.  Perhaps that is still true to some extent with the latter, but the officer corps seems to have left its brain at the hat check.

That is especially concerning because war has not stood still.  Since General Gray’s time, the Marine Corps has found itself fighting Fourth Generation wars, wars with non-state opponents, in Iraq and Afghanistan.  With the rest of the U. S. armed forces, it has been defeated.  If we do not grasp the significance of President Biden’s choice of September 11 as the date for the end of our efforts in Afghanistan, our victorious Moslem enemies do.  That was the date the Turkish siege of Vienna was raised in 1683.  This time, the shoe is on the other foot.

Nor does the Marine Corps’ intellectual collapse end with its failure to address, much less win, Fourth Generation wars.  It has failed on the strategic level as well, both in terms of its role in our nation’s defense and in its strategy for political survival.  The two are linked: the Marine Corps has survived as an institution because Americans could see a need for it.  They could do so because the Corps had a unique strategic role.

At present, it does not, and its attempts to find such a role border on farce.  In a war with China we ought not fight and almost certainly will not fight, because China has nuclear weapons, the Marine Corps is to take strategically meaningless islands from the Chinese on which Marines will base anti-ship missiles to shoot at Chinese ships that will all be in port.  In pursuit of this “strategy” that needs only music by Sullivan to become a comic opera, the Corps gave up substantial force structure in the naive assumption it would get the money saved thereby.  OSD said “Thank you very much,” and took all of it.

The obvious and necessary strategic role for the Marine Corps is to be the nation’s force for Fourth Generation war.  Both Capitol Hill and the public could grasp that readily.  Unfortunately, doing so requires thought, high-quality thought and lots of it.  No one yet knows how to win such wars.  But figuring that out would have been the Corps’ intellectual Schwerpunkt under General Gray.  Now, it’s not even on the map.

John Boyd stressed that winning wars requires people, ideas, and hardware, in that order.  Without ideas, the Marine Corps is more than a few bricks shy of a load.

The View From Olympus: Did Hamas Win?

In the latest dust-up between Israel and Hamas–a few hundred dead is not a war–Israel once again appears to have triumphed.  Hamas suffered around ten times as many casualties, and property damage ran at about the same ratio, or perhaps better, for Israel.

However, this assessment is open to question.  In my view, the actions of both Hamas and Israel were driven by domestic politics, as is usually the case in foreign policy.  Hamas’s real target was the PLO, which had just for the umpteenth time, canceled elections Hamas was likely to win.  By attacking Israel, Hamas deepened its support on the West Bank and diminished further the almost gone legitimacy of the PLO.  That’s a win.  Israel’s disproportionate response was part of Netanyahu’s drive to remain Israeli Prime Minister, since if he is not in that job there is a good chance he will go to jail for corruption.  So far it’s a win for him.

But if we look at the conflict between Israel and Hamas through the lens of Fourth Generation war, we see, emerging wraith-like from the rubble, what looks like a strategic victory for Hamas.  How so?  In 4GW, the most valuable target is the enemy’s homeland.  Sometimes, as on 9/11, it can be struck physically.  More often, and more potently, the goal is to hit it on the mental or, better still, moral level.  The ideal attack bypasses the enemy’s defenses completely and goes straight for his soft underbelly. 

That Hamas seems to have achieved, and not with its rockets.  For the first time, Israelis fought each other in the streets, Israeli Arabs vs. Jews, in a spillover from the external conflict.  That spillover is Hamas’s chi, while the rockets vs. bombers war was the cheng.  In 4GW, and in 3GW as well, the chi, not the cheng, is often decisive.  Hamas did not win a decisive victory this time, but its success in generating civil conflict in Israel points the way toward a strategy that could win decisively: exacerbating tensions within Israel to the point where it is not just Israeli Arabs fighting Jews, but Jews fighting Jews.

Until I went to Israel, I did not realize how deeply Israeli Jews are divided.  Like most Americans, I thought history and Israel’s fragility combined to create unity.  Once there, I quickly encountered divisions that are shockingly visceral.  The main gulf is that between secular Jews and the ultra-orthodox.  Both sides regard the other with bitter disdain, and outbreaks of physical clashes are not unknown.  Among the non-ultra-orthodox, further divisions create more potentially dangerous fissures. 

Let me add that I enjoyed Israel.  I liked the place and the people.  I have Israeli friends.  I do not want to see Israel destroyed, from within or from without.  But the Israeli military still operates within a state vs. state mental framework and doesn’t get 4GW.  That is dangerous anywhere, and especially so in Israel’s neighborhood.  I write this column to draw their attention to the danger.

To win decisively, Hamas must find ways to ramp these frictions up.  That is a tall order, and so far there is little evidence that Hamas is led by deep strategic thinkers.  For that we should all be thankful.  But any such strategy would focus at the moral level of war, where the Netanyahu government seems almost entirely blind.  To use Martin van Creveld’s analogy, it is an adult giving a small child a prolonged beating in a public place.  Oddly for Jews, it does not seem to realize that in the end, Goliath always loses.

In terms of their primary objectives, both Hamas and Netanyahu won.  Hamas ramped up its legitimacy, as the only people willing to fight Israel, compared to the PLO, and Netanyahu is still Israel’s Prime Minister.  But in the Israel vs. Hamas conflict, Hamas has reason to think it won strategically.  It hit Israel’s unity at home, moving its internal conflict beyond the political system to fighting in the streets.  It is typical in 4GW for states not to have the internal unity they tend to presume in wars, at least short ones.  But few states grasp this or any other aspect of 4GW.  If Israel and the IDF do not come to grips with Fourth Generation war soon, Hamas and its other 4GW enemies may win big.

PS:  The IDF might want to take a look at The Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook, with special attention to “the grid”.  It might help them get off the track of losing by winning.

Barometers of Legitimacy

Readers may wonder why I keep returning to the theme of legitimacy.  The reason is simple: legitimacy is the ground on which Fourth Generation war is fought.  It is, above all, a contest for legitimacy, and winning (or losing) is measured by gains or losses in legitimacy.  Fourth Generation war on our own soil is by far the greatest threat this country faces, and as the legitimacy of the government, and even more of the state itself, wains, Fourth Generation war spreads and intensifies.

From this perspective, barometers of legitimacy–anything that helps us measure the rise or fall of the legitimacy of the current order of things–are earnestly to be sought.  I can identify at least three.  The first is widely recognized: opinion polls that ask Americans how much trust they have in various institutions.  These include the Presidency, Congress, the courts, and, perhaps most important, the integrity of the electoral process.  As I noted in a previous column, the latter is the equivalent of a claimant to a throne having (or lacking) royal blood.  Nothing else in the political system is as important for legitimacy.  For decades, polls have shown a downward trend in Americans’ trust of all these institutions.  Since the 2020 election, distrust of the electoral process has spiked, not surprisingly given the abandonment of long-standing rules designed to prevent vote fraud.

I think a second barometer of legitimacy is Americans’ willingness to be vaccinated against Covid-19.  According to the Wall Street Journal, about 58% of our population has received at least one dose.  (I have received both shots, which probably means I will have a large green horn growing out of my forehead by Christmas, which should look festive; I may add tinsel and lights.)  But as vaccine availability increases, the number of people lining up to get jabbed is shrinking.  As we begin to get some sense for how many people will refuse the vaccine, we also get a measure of the state’s legitimacy, not just the government’s.  Why?  Because the whole establishment, Republicans (or most of them) as well as Democrats , along with the usual “celebrity” riffraff, is urging people to get the shot(s).  Those refusing are rejecting the entire system.

A more interesting, and ominous, measure of the whole system’s legitimacy is the rising number of shootings.  Such an important barometer is moved by more than one thing; the war on cops is a factor, the cultural collapse of the black urban community is another, the 15 minutes of fame the media gives a shooter motivates some.  But I think a broad and spreading sense that the establishment has transformed what used to be America into an insane asylum may be a major and unacknowledged cause.  Down is now up, white is black, day has become night and night is filled with nightmares.  This is Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values,” and it is a core component of the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism, aka “wokeness”, “Political Correctness”, etc.  In an insane asylum, people do insane things, including shooting their families, friends, co-workers, and anyone else they can.

In all of these barometers we can read the change in political weather most easily if we compare what is happening now to life in America’s last normal decade, the 1950s.  President Eisenhower was widely popular.  Congress did not top anyone’s list of most trusted institutions, but ordinary Americans did not think they had to invade it to make their voices heard.  The Warren court was disliked and distrusted by many conservatives, for good reason, but the problem was Warren, not the court itself.  Everyone knew vote counting in some big cities might be crooked, but elsewhere the process was trusted.  As to vaccines, when the polio vaccine became available virtually every kid in the country took it, because mom and dad told them to.  And gun violence was rare, beyond mobsters killing each other.  The government and the state were accepted as legitimate by the vast majority of Americans.

No more.  The future looks grimmer still, because no one in the establishment will consider for a moment how their actions affect legitimacy.  Add in the coming debt crisis and inflation and it begins to look a lot like Weimar.  As was true then, what replaces the current dysfunctional mess will come from the right, not the left.

Silence of the Lions

Sometimes the most important indicator of what is to come is not noise but silence. I think that may be the case now, not only here but in Europe as well.

Since the events of January 6, the 70+ million Americans who voted to re-elect President Trump have gone silent.  Judging by the mainstream media, it is as if they ceased to exist.  We do not hear their voices.  In politics, the Democrats serve their “victims” groups and the Republicans carry water for Wall Street, as usual.  No one represents or speaks for the 70+ million.

The news is dominated by the travails and demands of just 13% of our population, the blacks.  While President Trump did remarkably well for a Republican among black voters, the large majority of those who voted to re-elect him were white.  The media that regularly headlined “Black Lives Matter” (except, apparently, to blacks, from the rate at which they kill each other) have nothing to say about these white Americans.  Many have been devastated by the coronapanic and the repeated shut-downs of normal life, but they don’t count.  They have all become “unpersons.”

The situation is similar in Europe.  But there, some ordinary people are starting to make themselves heard.  Berlin just saw a large and violent demonstration against the latest virus-justified shutdown.  To understand the German situation, you have to know that when Germany’s short summer arrives, most German life moves outdoors.  This is partly a factor of most Germans living in small apartments and partly of Germans’ romantic relationship with nature.  But to tell Germans they may have to stay inside through another summer is a very big deal–especially when everyone knows the reason, namely the EU’s typical bureaucratic incompetence in distributing effective vaccines.

The most explosive situation may be that in France.  For decades, ordinary Frenchmen have found themselves pressured by a large, growling, increasingly fanatical and violent Moslem population that, for the most part, rejects acculturation, i.e., becoming French.  The Thursday, April 29 Wall Street Journal reported a countermove by the new French Resistance:

Marine Le Pen, leader of the anti-immigrant National Rally party, threw her support behind a group of retired generals who published a letter in the far-right magazine Valuers Actuelles, saying the spread of Islamism and other ideologies is pushing France towards a civil war. . .

“There’s no time for procrastination.  Otherwise, a civil war will put an end to the growing chaos,” the letter says.

Anyone familiar with French history will not take this lightly.  Civil war is a long-standing French tradition, as are mass uprisings against situations ordinary Frenchmen view as intolerable.  As an Englishman, writing during the Napoleonic Wars, said of the French, “Individually they are contemptible, but in a mass they are terrible.”

Events in France also have a history of exerting influence throughout the rest of the West.  If the French rise up against Islamic immigrants and the cultural Marxism of the elites that bids the immigrants welcome, what might the spillover effects be in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, all of which face the same problem?  Germany’s Turks are partially acculturated, especially those born in Germany, but what of Frau Merkel’s disastrous million-plus Arabs?  You see them everywhere, the women in black bags and surrounded by many children, all being raised at German taxpayers’ expense.  The conflict in Syria is almost over; time to go home, folks?

The left forgets that when you finally push the whites, European or of European descent, too far, they remember they come from great warrior peoples.  Compared to some other ethnic groups, they are hard to arouse.  But once you’ve done it, blood flows in great quantities.  They don’t just kill; they kill in highly organized ways, ways that can dispose of millions.

The lions that are Western peoples are currently led by asses.  The asses think the lion’s silence, enforced by political correctness, means they have been beaten.  But that is not what it means.  It means that, not allowed to vent, the pressure among those populations is building.  If they blow, it’s not going to be pretty.  Should that happen first in France, don’t be surprised.

The Chauvin Show Trial and the State’s Crisis of Legitimacy

On Tuesday, April 20th, a Minneapolis jury found police officer Derek Chauvin guilty of three counts, including second-degree murder, in the death of George Floyd.  The “trial” had the usual characteristics of a political show trial, including an automatic verdict of guilty, even though we still do not know whether Floyd died from officer Chauvin’s actions or because of Floyd’s combination of heart disease, breathing problems, and ingestion of both fentanyl and meth.  In show trials, the facts don’t matter anyway.

The markers of a show trail include:

  • The President of the United States, Joe Biden, said publicly before the verdict that he was praying for “the right verdict.”  Could anyone doubt what verdict he meant?
  • One defense witness had his former home vandalized, presumably by people who thought he still lived there.  Witness intimidation, anyone?  Hello?
  • The Left openly threatened riots unless the jury caved and voted Chauvin guilty.  In a column in the Saturday-Sunday, April 24-25 Wall Street Journal, Joseph Perkins quoted Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is black, saying in Minneapolis the weekend before the verdict, “I hope we get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty.  And if we don’t. . . we’ve got to stay on the street.  We have to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational.”  Perkins quoted attorney Alan Dershowitz saying Waters’ words were “an attempt to intimidate the jury,” which they certainly were in a city that had already suffered major riots over Floyd’s death.
  • In an editorial on April 21, the WSJ noted that, “Even after the verdict, commentators who applauded the jury gave last year’s riots in American cities the credit for inspiring it.  Not the facts.  Not the law.”  If that doesn’t define a political show trial, Lavrentii Beria took in orphans’ washing.

Blatant show trials are a sign of a regime’s lack of legitimacy, not of its strength.  They show a state is afraid of facts.  Some of the facts those now running the executive and legislative branches of government fear are:

  • Cops react to blacks, especially black men and most of all young black males, the way they do because they have to.  Floyd had already done time for violent crimes.  The black violent crime rate, almost all of which is committed by young black males, is twelve times the white rate.  If cops cannot use force against blacks, they cannot protect other citizens (including innocent blacks, who make up most of the victims of black crime) or themselves. 
  • The Chauvin show trial is part of a broad assault on policing and order by the cultural Marxists.  Cultural Marxism’s goals are purely destructive: they want to bring everything down (“negative dialects,” to use their own term).  Since the state arose to keep order, there is no more effective way to destroy a state than to create massive disorder the state cannot stem.  The cultural Marxists believe a stateless paradise of all play and no work will arise on the ruins, as per Marcuse’s book Eros and Civilization.  What will actually happen is going to be less enjoyable.
  • Thanks to the mindless encouragement to “act out” we see “leaders” white and black give to blacks, the 13% of our population who are black have become 90% of our problems.  That is a perilous situation for the 13%, and it is not likely to end well.  What real leaders need to tell Americans, blacks, whites, and whatever, is that freedom is not some impossible “right” to do whatever you feel like at the moment, i.e., embrace a culture of immediate gratification.  Freedom is the right to substitute self-discipline for imposed discipline.  Those who cannot do the former are not fit for freedom and must live under the latter.  Jim Crow may soon find himself a welcome bird.

Most Americans long ago wrote off both the White House and Congress in terms of legitimacy.  The one remaining element of our tripartite system that has retained legitimacy is the courts.  With demands for political show trials rising and court-packing schemes afoot in Washington, soon that element of our system may also shed its legitimacy.  At that point, all that can keep a state afloat is terror.  Terror will be hard to pull off in America, where states retain substantial leverage against Washington, the population is well armed, and cops are usually conservatives.

The war on cops is not moving us toward “racial justice.”  It is moving us towards anarchy, followed quickly by an authoritarian state.

The View From Olympus: Are Neo-libs Even Dumber than Neo-cons?

As expected, the Establishment Biden administration has rounded up the usual suspects to fill its defense and foreign policy slots.  That means the neo-liberals are back, once again dictating to the rest of the world how it should live.  Just as the neocons bamboozled America’s dumbest President, George W. Bush, into invading Iraq to spread “democratic capitalism” to the Middle East, so the neo-libs are pushing the dotty Mr. Biden into confronting Russia and China to promote their brand of patent medicine, more “democracy” (so long as it elects people like them) coupled with such bitter herbs as Feminism and “gay rights.”

But China and Russia are not Iraq.  They are nuclear powers with substantial conventional military capabilities.  How competent the Chinese are militarily remains to be seen–we may find out the hard way–but the Russians do seem to know what they are doing.  They undertook a substantial and effective program of military reform after the Soviet Union fell apart, including learning from Fourth Generation forces around the globe, merging some of their tactics and techniques with those of a conventional army. 

Now it appears the neo-libs are maneuvering poor Mr. Biden into a confrontation with the Russians in Ukraine.  Do these people even look at a map?  Geography says that even with NATO support–no sure thing–we could at most logistically support two or three brigades of American troops in Ukraine.  War in the Russian heartland (which geographically includes Ukraine) requires hundreds of divisions.  Has anyone in Washington heard about Operation Barbarossa?  Probably not, since it wasn’t about expanding “transgender rights”, whatever those are.

The reason Russia is stirring up trouble on Ukraine’s eastern border is that NATO threatens to expand by inviting Ukraine to join.  However, NATO rules say that no country with a border dispute can join NATO.  So, Russia has given Ukraine a border dispute, which will continue so long as NATO plays footsie with Kiev.  Remember, the U.S. promised Gorbachev that if Moscow dissolved the Warsaw Pact, NATO would not expand further east by inviting those countries to join.  And then we promptly tossed that promise in the wastebasket and expanded NATO into former Warsaw Pact lands.  Why should Moscow trust us again when it comes to expanding NATO?

In addition, Washington has been arming and training the Ukraine armed forces.  This is both an offensive act strategically and a foolish policy because it puts American prestige on the line if Ukraine attacks in the east.  The last time we played this game, the country we helped arm and train, Georgia, got its butt kicked swiftly and hard by the Russian Army.  The same thing will happen if Ukraine mounts an offensive in either its eastern regions, now Russian-controlled, or Crimea.

That’s the point where I fear the neo-libs, who know nothing of war (like the neo-cons), could push President Biden into sending American troops into a hopeless situation.  When they all end up in a Russian Kessel–Stalingrad, first as tragedy and then as farce–what’s our next move?  Go nuclear?

Against any competent opponent, and the Russian Army should be one, the U.S. Army has a sucking chest wound that a Democratic administration cannot even acknowledge, much less address.  What is it?  Women, lots of them, scattered throughout the force, including now in combat units.  An army full of women is an army that will quickly be in full rout if it finds itself in serious combat.  The key factor in whether men fight or not, unit cohesion, is greatly undermined by the presence of women, because instead of forming a “band of brothers” the men see each other as rivals for the women, because that is human nature.  The same nature says many of the women will panic.  It is a disaster waiting to happen.

Just as the idiot neo-cons gave us a failed war in Iraq, so the neo-libs may trump them (or Trump them, come 2024) by getting us into a militarily impossible situation in Ukraine.  We are putting American prestige on the line, step by step, in a place where our defeat-waiting-to-happen Army cannot support with a competent army.  How much dumber can you get?

White Supremacy

The latest cackle from the Left’s henhouse–all cultural Marxists are chicken, because they are terrified of facts and reason–is “white supremacy”.  We are supposed to grovel in the dust before this charge, endlessly apologizing for being white.  But what do facts and reason say about this?  Are whites in fact superior to other races?

The question cannot at present be investigated by science because where only one conclusion is permitted there can be no science.  Academics who have studied the matter and concluded that whites are, on the whole, smarter than some other races have been subjected to a campaign of terror: shouted down, fired, blackballed, sometimes even physically attacked.  But the evidence from IQ tests seems to indicate that East Asians are on top, whites come in second, and the rest are also-rans.

History appears to confirm that verdict.  Only two cultures have been successful over time, i.e., for thousands of years: Chinese (Han) culture and Western culture.  These are the products of East Asians and whites.  Civilization first arose around five thousand years ago among these two peoples.  Was race the only factor?  Undoubtedly not.  All major historical developments are the product of multiple factors.  Whenever you hear a single-factor explanation of history, you should know you are listening, not to facts and reason, but to an ideology.  Beware!  But was race one factor?  Almost certainly.  Are the differences between, say, Sweden and Italy today in part products of the differences between Swedes and Italians?  Who, other than an ideologue, can deny it?

Other places and peoples have produced splendid civilizations: the Maya, the Khmer, the peoples of India, etc.  But all rose, peaked, declined, and never rose again.  They followed a bell-shaped curve they could not escape.

In contrast, Han civilization and Western civilization have endured.  They took two very different paths in doing so.  Han civilization rose and never fell.  China fell numerous times as a political entity, both to foreign invasion and to civil wars.  But Chinese culture was so superior that her conquerors quickly adopted it.  Over five thousand years, China has maintained a remarkable continuity.  If you look at an artifact from the Shang dynasty, you immediately know it is Chinese.

In contrast, the West has risen, fallen, and risen again repeatedly.  The great example is Rome, but there are others.  The high and successful Medieval culture that eventually replaced Romanitas fell in the 14th century, largely thanks to the plague.  The first blooming of Western culture in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean oceans collapsed around 1200 BC for reasons we do not fully understand.  But in the former case the fall was followed by the Renaissance and in the latter by the glories of classical Greece.  The Western pattern is very different from that of China, but both have succeeded over time, as has no one else.  Again, is race one factor?  Almost certainly.

When the cultural Marxists throw their boogeyman words at us, our response, after we have stopped laughing, should be to do what I have done here: respond with facts and reason.  Nothing scares them more.  In fact, they denounce facts and reason as “white”.  To that, our answer should be, “Thanks for the compliment.”  Reason and logic are one of whites’ great contributions to civilization, among many others, including classical architecture and classical music, both of which are now found all over the world because of their superiority to all others.

History says that white supremacy means a society that is constantly striving in every field to reach greater heights, to the benefit of everyone, including all other races and peoples.  Just look at how Africa and Asia have profited from modern medicine, overwhelmingly a product of whites.  Thanks to the uniquely white concept of noblesse oblige, supremacy does not mean oppressing others but raising them up, serving them and giving them the blessings of peace, order, and commerce.  After all, most whites worship a God who said, “I came not to be served but to serve.”  Don’t expect to hear that from Quetzalcoatl any time soon.

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.