The View From Olympus: A Lesson in Strategy

As I wrote in my last column, our performance in the recent crisis with Iran followed the typical American pattern of sacrificing strategy to tactics.  It appears the Iranians, in contrast, are putting their strategic goals first and making sure their tactical actions, or (of equal importance) inactions, serve their strategic goals.

Iran’s goal is to get us out of the Middle East and Persian Gulf.  That should be our own goal as well, and President Trump has repeatedly said it is an objective he shares.  Regrettably, the Deep State is deeply invested in the region and wants us to remain. As usual in Washington, the Deep State prevails over a mere President, so we will only get out when we are thrown out.

Iran does not have the military power to throw us out, but there are other paths to this goal.  Iran seems to understand that, and its response to our killing of General Soleimani shows it knows how to play the game at the strategic level.  It did the bare minimum it had to do in direct, military response, in the form of some missile strikes on a couple of our bases in Iraq. The missile strikes caused little damage and no casualties, which appears to have been Iran’s intention.  It followed the missiles with an immediate message to Washington that Iran planned no further actions at this time. That, in turn, moved the world away from a war Iran did not want and probably could not win.

I think Iran sees that the best and safest way to get us out of its region is to start with Iraq, and to act politically rather than militarily.  It largely controls the Iraqi government, and through its allied Shiite militias it controls much of the ground in Iraq as well. The current Iraqi prime minister was put in office by Iran.  Not surprisingly, he drafted a new law telling Americans to withdraw from Iraq and quickly got it passed by Iraq’s parliament. Now, the Iranians are waiting for him to enforce it.

This has in turn led to a bizarre situation where our neocon Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has told the Iraqis we’re not going!  Excuse me? Under the treaty which governs our presence in Iraq we have to leave if the Iraqis tell us to. Moreover, we have about 5200 U.S. troops scattered in penny-packets doing training for the Iraqi army.  Are those troops expected to refuse to leave when Iraqi state armed forces and militias, who number in the hundreds of thousands, show up weapons in hand and say, “Guess what, you’re moving”? Only neocons live in a world so detached from reality.

Such a refusal would play right into Iran’s hands, in that it could then activate its most powerful option: ordering the Iraqi Shiite militias to take every American soldier they can grab as hostages.  At that point President Trump becomes President Carter all over again. If our forces fought, they would be fighting Iraqis, not Iranians. Again, the strategic winner would be Iran.

I doubt Iran’s response to the killing of General Soleimani is over and done.  All that is finished is Iran’s direct, military response. On the strategic level, Iran’s actions are likely to include forcing all U.S. troops out of Iraq and Syria, thus guaranteeing its line of communication with Hezbollah in Lebanon; further reducing our presence and importance in the Persian Gulf through a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf State allies; and using what leverage it has in Afghanistan to push us out of that place as well.  Its strategic goal of having the U.S. military exit the entire region is within reach, if it plays its cards carefully and continues to subordinate the tactical level to the strategic. It can count on us to help it along by subordinating the strategic level to the tactical, as we always do.

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

The British Election

The most interesting contrast to emerge from the recent British election is not the gap between the winning Conservatives and Labour, who lost badly.  It is the difference between the elections of 2017 and 2019.

In 2017, the hapless Mrs. May, then the Conservative Prime Minister, tried the same thing Boris Johnson did this year.  She called an election in order to get a solid majority in Parliament so she could make Brexit happen. Instead, the Conservatives lost seats, forcing them into a coalition government and making Brexit impossible.  Why did it turn out so differently just two years later? 

Mrs. May was an Establishment Conservative, similar to Establishment Republicans here.  Her policies were geared toward Globalism and the big businesses such as finance that benefit from Globalism.  She played nice at meetings of European leaders, duly parroted the shibboleths of cultural Marxism and had nothing to say to the traditional Labour voters in the north of England.

Boris Johnson, in contrast, is a populist, similar in many ways to President Trump.  He was able to appeal to traditional Tory and Labour voters alike. He promised to make decisions and act where Mrs. May had dithered.  He played the bull in the European Union’s china shop, taking pleasure in tossing and goring Eurocrats and Establishment European leaders alike.  He seemed to care little for Political Correctness, standing instead for “Britain First,” or even “England First,” a point not lost on the Scots (who are massively subsidized by the English).  Many English voters who had been Labourites on economic issues were swayed by the cultural message of “let’s keep England English.” As President Trump understands, at least in times of relative prosperity, culture trumps economics.

These factors were, I think, more important in shaping the election’s outcome than were Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn’s neo-Marxism.  They represent a broad political movement that is growing throughout the West. More and more Europeans and Americans are rejecting cultural Marxism and all its works, including mass immigration, loser worship and the pretense that race, ethnicity, and culture do not matter.  They are proud of their nation’s history, including in England’s case running most of the world for several centuries and doing a rather good job of it, better, certainly, than those who came after them (King George would never have dreamed of taxing Americans as heavily as “their own” government taxes them now).

Establishment parties and politicians are going to have to adjust to the rise of a real Right or be sidelined.  In Europe, we see a combination of both. In Germany, the faux-conservative CDU is losing ground, as are the Social Democrats, and the real Right AFD is now the opposition in the Reichstag (as it will be called again when the AFD wins a majority.  In France, Monsieur Macron can only envy President Trump’s popularity ratings. Italians are again finding much to admire in the Duce.

What does it all add up to?  To the defeat of cultural Marxism, a.k.a. political correctness or “multiculturalism”.  Soon, throughout the West, majorities will be handing their governments to parties that reject the self-loathing cultural Marxism demands, the dismissal of proud nations’ history as just tales of “oppression”, the use of government power to put non-Whites and immigrants over native Whites, the flooding of orderly countries with agents of disorder.  The cultural Marxists have overreached and are on a ballistic course toward history’s wastebasket. As they perceive that course, they respond by becoming more demanding, more shrill and more absurd. People have seen the man behind the Left’s curtain, Karl Marx, now dressed in failed cultural policies instead of failed economic policies. Their reaction is, “Ptui.”

As the line from Cabaret goes, the future belongs to me.

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

The View From Olympus: Another Operational and Strategic Failure

Once again, the U.S. military has shown it has little grasp of operational art or strategy.  In revenge for a rocket attack on a joint U.S.-Iraqi base that killed one American contractor and wounded four American soldiers, the U.S. launched airstrikes on bases of Kataib Hezbollah, an Iraqi Shiite militia which it blamed for the rocket attack.  The airstrikes in Syria and Iraq killed 24 members of the militia. Kataib Hezbollah denied its forces launched the rockets.

In other words, the U.S., which has about 5,200 soldiers based in Iraq, bombed Iraqi targets on Iraqi soil.  Like other Shiite militias in Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah is part of the Iraqi state’s armed forces, although the state’s control over them is limited.  We did not clear our action beforehand with the Iraqi government.

To put this in perspective, imagine an American soldier had been killed in a terrorist attack in Germany.  In response, the U.S. Air Force bombed targets in Germany, killing two dozen Germans.

The results in Iraq were predictable and they follow a distinctively American pattern.  Tactically, we did what a Second Generation military does: we put ordnance on target and the targets were destroyed.  Operationally, we failed, because Kataib Hezbollah and allied Shiite militias, far from being cowed (which was our operational goal), went on the offensive, assaulted the American embassy in Baghdad, and penetrated into the compound.  An understandably angry Iraqi government let them do it. The militiamen besieged the embassy for two days, withdrawing only when their leaders ordered them to do so. They had made their point: with 5,200 hostages, er, soldiers in Iraq, a corporal’s guard compared to the strength of the Shiite militias, we were the weaker and more vulnerable party.  Operationally, they won.

Strategically, our operation was even more of a botch.  Our opponent of the moment in the Persian Gulf is Iran. Iran had overplayed its hand in Iraq and had become the target of increasingly angry and quite large popular demonstrations.  Mobs burned the Iranian consulate in Basra. Nationalist anger at Iran was in the process of overcoming friendship with fellow Shiites.

By bombing Iraqi targets and killing Iraqi citizens on Iraqi soil, we pulled Iran’s increasingly hot chestnuts out of the fire.  The street protests against Iran stopped, replaced by protests against America. One could almost hear the (non-alcoholic) champagne corks popping in Tehran.

This, then, is the typical American pattern: let the tactical level drive the operational and strategic levels, lose at the higher level because we optimized for the lower, and not understand why or how we lost.  We cannot break out of this pattern because our armed forces have reduced war to putting firepower (preferable aerial) on targets, and, with the exception of a rare commander here or there, can do nothing else. They understand neither operational art nor strategy, so they cannot foresee the operational and strategic consequences of their tactical actions.  If those consequences are unfavorable, their only answer is to put more firepower on more targets. The result is cumulative strategic failure. We are unlikely to see anything else anytime soon.

Postscript:  The above column was written January 2, before I heard of the U.S. (what else) air attack that killed Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, along with prominent Iraqis including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was deputy commander of the umbrella group over all Iraqi Shiite militias.  Again, we acted tactically–killing a “bad guy”–with little thought for operational or strategic consequences.

The most obvious Iranian countermove is to use the Iraqi Shiite militias to take as many Americans in Iraq as possible hostage.  Strategically, that would leave us without an effective response, and President Trump would be exactly where President Carter was when Iranian revolutionaries took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held the Americans there as hostages.  That was the end of Carter’s presidency, as this would be the end of Mr. Trump’s.

Operationally by responding through the Iraqi militias, Iran would generate a fight between Americans and Iraqis rather than between Americans and Iranians–a smart move that would leave any American response directed against Iran looking like aggression.  If we look at this situation through “the grid” (see the 4GW Handbook) we see, as usual, we win at the physical/tactical level while losing at the operational, strategic, mental, and moral levels.  As President Trump might say, “Not pretty.”

There is only one way the situation could turn out in our favor, and that is if the Iraqi government orders all U.S. forces to leave Iraq.  That would finally get us out of one or even two (Syria) endless, pointless Mideastern conflicts, which is what President Trump promised he would do in 2016.  At this point, anything that brings the boys home should be welcome, even if they arrive with their tails between their legs.

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

The End of Biden’s Candidacy

Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delaying the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate?  Because she and other Democrats know a Senate trial of President Trump could mean the end of the Democrats’ strongest presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s, quest for the White House.

If Republican Senators show a bit of courage and a modicum of brains, they will turn Trump’s trial into a trial of Joe Biden.  Why?  Because if President Trump’s request to the President of Ukraine to investigate the Bidens were based on a genuinely corrupt relationship between Joe Biden, his son, and a Ukrainian gas company, then President Trump was only doing his duty in making the request.  It isn’t simply a matter of corruption in Ukraine; it would mean corruption in the Obama White House.  And corruption in the White House, in a recent presidential administration, is something the American people should know about, especially when the person at the head of the corruption ladder is now a candidate for president.

Was Vice-President Biden engaged in corruption?  The evidence is circumstantial but significant.  His son was made a member of the board of directors of a Ukrainian natural gas company at extraordinary rates of compensation, $50,000 a month or more, which is far higher than normal remuneration for a board membership.  He was given the position despite having no background in or, presumably, knowledge of the oil and gas industry.  Why would the company do that?  There is only one possible answer:  because they thought it would buy them access to the Obama administration, at a very high level.

Did it?  What we know is that when the chief prosecutor of Ukraine showed indications he might investigate the gas company for corruption, Vice-President Biden demanded the President of Ukraine fire the prosecutor.  More, he threatened to withhold U.S. aid for Ukraine until he did so.  How do we know that?  Because Biden later bragged about it in a session that was videotaped and we have the tape.  Moreover, unlike President Trump’s request to the current President of Ukraine to investigate Biden’s role, Biden’s demand was met and the prosecutor was fired.  It seems to me that prosecutor would make a good witness in President Trump’s trial by the Senate.  And the tape showing Biden bragging he got the prosecutor fired should certainly be shown, in a session open to the public and press.

Again, the evidence is circumstantial.  Biden himself may or may not have profited by the deal, though his son obviously did.  Joe Biden’s mind may be too pure for the thought of nepotism ever to have crossed it.  His son may have brought unrecognized qualities to the gas company’s board, say, a particular grace in ass-kissing (always useful in business).

But the possibility that all this may be brought into the very bright light of a trial of a sitting president by the Senate must have serious Democratic politicians such as Pelosi worried.  I suspect that if she needs encouragement to block it, Mr. Biden is providing it, frequently and loudly.  That is why she is demanding Senate Republicans agree with Democrats on a structure for the trial before she sends over the articles of impeachment (without which President Trump may not have been impeached; Constitutional law scholars are in disagreement on that point).  That structure will have to make a trial of Joe Biden in the court of public opinion impossible or the articles will not be sent.

There is no reason the Senate Republican leadership should agree to the Democrats’ demand.  Or is there?  It seems a few Republican Senators also had dealings with that Ukrainian gas company.  The Senate Majority Leader’s phone may be receiving calls almost as frantic as those Madam Pelosi is probably getting from the Biden campaign.

It is obviously in President Trump’s interest to turn his trial into a trial of Joe Biden.  It means the end of Biden’s candidacy and it justifies Mr. Trump’s request to the President of Ukraine.  The Democrats will have ended up destroying their own best bet to retake the White House instead of President Trump.

All it takes for this story to unfold is some brains and some guts on the part of the Senate Republican leadership.  If a couple Republican Senators get caught up in it too, well, they are not ones whose loss we should lament.  There are only two Republican Senators in that category, Rand Paul and Mike Lee.  Neither of them were getting money from Ukrainian gas enterprises.

The View From Olympus: The Pensacola Shootings

On December 6, a Saudi pilot trainee shot and killed three American sailors and wounded eight other people in a mass shooting at the Navy’s premier pilot training base in Pensacola, Florida.  That should no longer shock us. The spectacle of a Moslem killing innocent people in Europe or the U.S. has become, if not an everyday occurrence, one we see with depressing regularity. What is shocking, or should be, was the response, or lack thereof.  Why, on a military base, did people have to wait until sheriff’s deputies arrived to take out the shooter? If our military cannot defend itself, how can it hope to defend our country?

The reason was not a lack of courage on the part of our sailors.  One of those killed, Ensign Kaleb Watson, a recent Annapolis graduate, did what every man should do in an active shooter situation: he attacked the gunman, saving the lives of others in the process.  According to the December 9 New York Times, he had previously told his parents that if confronted with an active shooter, “I’m going in full force.”  He did exactly that. Airman Haithim, who also died, reportedly did the same.

But with all these military men around, why did no one just shoot the Moslem gunman?  Because, as the December 7 New York Times wrote, “Weapons are not allowed on the base other than for security personnel.”  In other words, we do not trust American sailors to carry guns.

The reason, I’m sure, is “safety”.  Well, war is dangerous. If you’re looking for safety, join the Salvation Army.  A case might be made that letting the most junior servicemen carry weapons on base could result in some of them shooting themselves in the foot (remember, their generation can’t stop their thumbs from moving, even if said thumb is on safety).  But why is it not routine for staff NCOs and officers to carry pistols? A sidearm, whether sword or pistol (even swords would be better for confronting a gunman than bare hands) are traditionally a sign of an officer’s or staff NCO’s authority.  So, for the latter, is a spontoon, a short spear. And yes, the guns should be loaded. As a Marine friend of mine said recently, “An unloaded gun is just a stick.”

What has led to the bizarre situation where our military has disarmed itself?  The answer is to be found in two broad phenomena, both of which undermine our ability to fight.  Because of the “up-or-out” promotion system, officers soon discover that the way to get ahead is to avoid making decisions or taking action.  The higher you go in rank, the greater the desire to avoid responsibility. I might call it Verantwortungsfeindlichkeit, hostility to taking responsibility. 

“Joy in taking responsibility,” was the single most important quality sought in officers in the old German army.  By consistently rewarding our officers for the opposite, we end up with senior military “leaders” who are really just managers and whose first instinct in a crisis is to hide under the bed.  Who among them is likely to reverse current policy and let our officers and staff NCOs carry loaded weapons? Not one.

The second reason we have disarmed our military is the womanization of our armed services.  The feminist script is always the same. First, demand women be allowed to join what, for good reasons, has traditionally been men’s fields of endeavor.  Then, demand those places be made comfortable for women. Well, women are genetically programmed to have safety as their highest value. So now we have to have a safe military where women don’t see nasty things like guns.  I mean, good heavens, a woman might get hurt! That a military full of women arms itself with feather-dusters should not surprise us.

With the exception of the sailors who fought the gunman, the Naval Air Base Pensacola’s response to an active shooter was little different from what we would expect from a convent.  They waited for the cops to come and rescue them. And we expect a military like that to defeat 4GW fighters who from age five had to scrounge and scrap every day in a dump for their dinner?

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

The Left’s Cognitive Dissonance

The November 20, 2019 New York Times ran two stories on its front page.  One was about a Hispanic woman who had won a seat on the Yakima, Washington city council.  The Times reported that Miss Gutierrez became:

Among the first Latino politicians ever elected in the Central Washington community of nearly 94,000 where the number of Latinos has doubled in just one generation, now making up almost half of the total population.

Lower down on the same page, in a story about a “racist manifesto” at Syracuse University, the Times said the manifesto “warned of ‘the great replacement,’ a right-wing conspiracy theory that predicts white genocide at the hands of minority groups.”

Apparently the Times does not read its own front page.  Or if it does, its thinking is so compartmentalized by ideology that it cannot see the contradiction between calling a replacement of whites by other races and ethnic groups a “conspiracy theory” on the same page where it reports exactly that in Yakima, Washington.  This is cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.

A few facts may be in order here.  History reports many cases where one people has replaced another.  The Germanii the Romans fought no longer exist. They were replaced by other peoples migrating from the east.  The Celts who made up the main population in Roman Gaul and Britain were driven back into remote enclaves by arriving Angles, Saxons, and Franks, although there was some intermarriage.   The Bible records how the Jews replaced other people in Palestine, as they are doing again in our own time (ask the Palestinians what they mean by the “right to return”.) In Burma, the Buddhists are driving out the Moslem Rohingya because the latter’s much higher birth rate means they will otherwise eventually drive out the Buddhists.  The Chinese government is flooding Xinjiang province with Han people to overwhelm the Uighurs, as India is probably going to do in Kashmir by moving masses of Hindus. Replacement is an old, old story, not a “conspiracy theory”.

More, when one people replaces another, everything changes.  Even if the newly arrived people do not kill all the people they replaced, it’s no longer their country.  What defines a country is less its borders, rivers, and resources than its culture. When the Franks took over Roman Gaul, Roman culture was replaced by, well, barbarism.  Living in second century Arles was different from living in sixth century Arles. Some Romanitas did survive, just enough so people remembered how much better life used to be under the Roman Empire.  Back then, plumbing still worked.

When American conservatives warn the masses of immigrants from cultures who come here and do not adopt traditional American culture, with its Anglo-Saxon roots, are dangerous invaders, their warnings are well-grounded in history.  And while Western culture is almost uniquely open to people from other races and ethnic groups–no one who is not born Han can become Chinese–culture and ethnicity can be different when dealing with large masses of people, numbering in the millions.  Individuals may acculturate perfectly, but because most people prefer to live among and socialize with people like themselves–segregation is built into human nature–large groups of ethnically distinct immigrants often do end up replacing natives and their culture.  That is what the Times unwittingly reported happening in the Yakima, Washington, a place traditionally known for its apples, not its tacos.

The “great replacement” is an old story that is happening again, especially in Europe, where native Europeans have low birthrates and Islamic immigrants have high birth rates.  What cultural Marxists call a “conspiracy theory” is a fact, one Islamic leaders talk about openly as central to their strategy for destroying the Christian West. In the cultural Marxists’ lexicon, “conspiracy theory” is the term for facts you do not like.

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

The View From Olympus: Spreading Disorder and 4GW

In the United States, the number of mass shootings continues to climb.  In Lebanon, Iraq, Hong Kong, and Chile, demonstrators fill the streets for weeks or months on end.  In France, that cradle of disorder, the yellow vests have gone quiet for now, but probably not for long.  What is going on? And what, if anything, does it have to do with Fourth Generation war?

To address the latter question, we need to remember that Fourth Generation war is rooted in a crisis of legitimacy of the state.  As people shift their primary loyalty away from the state to a wide variety of other things, the state loses its monopoly on war and on social organization.  And as those monopolies vanish, disorder spreads.

What we are seeing in spreading disorder is not Fourth Generation war itself.  But it is a failure of the state. As Martin van Creveld argues in The Rise and Decline of the State, the state arose for only one purpose: to establish and maintain order and safety of persons and property.  States that cannot do that lose their legitimacy.

Here is where we see an answer to our first question, what is going on?  In more and more places, states are failing to maintain order but remain as vehicles of the New Class, the Establishment.  The Establishment runs the state, not to provide security of persons and property for all, but for its own benefit. It uses its control of the state to give itself careers, money (lots of it), power, prestige, etc.  It then employs these to exempt itself from the consequences of state failure, i.e., it lives in gated communities, its kids go to private schools and its jobs don’t get shipped overseas.

One of the interesting characteristics of the new world disorder is that it is coming primarily from the middle class.  The yellow vests are a striking example. But the young people filling the streets of Baghdad and Hong Kong are also often of middle class background.  They are college students or recent college graduates. They are taking to the streets because around the world, the middle class is under ever growing pressure.  College degrees no longer bring good jobs. Pensions and paychecks no longer last to the end of the month. Maintaining even a vestige of a middle class standard of living requires going even deeper into debt.  The state arose to provide security, but it now yields growing insecurity for the middle class.

So far, the disorder appears to be directed against the Establishment that runs the state, not the state itself.  That is why it is not Fourth Generation war. If it proves possible to boot the Establishment out and replace it with governors who serve the middle class instead of themselves, the state is likely to remain.  However, if the Establishment is able to hold on to power despite its failure in governance, then at some point people are likely to start giving up on the state itself. At that point we will be looking at 4GW, and lots of it.

One of the few benefits of the circus that is the impeachment of President Trump is that it has compelled the Washington Establishment, America’s Deep State, to manifest itself.  The “witnesses” against the President (none of whom seem to have actually witnessed anything) are in highly paid, high prestige jobs. They have had distinguished careers, from the “right schools” on up.  They are all deeply committed to the Globalist world order. And they loathe the President because he is not one of them.

Should the Establishment succeed in driving President Trump from office, one way or another, the message to the people who voted for him will be simple: you don’t count and you never will.  At that point, many of those voters will begin to question the system itself, if they are not doing so already. And that system is the state.

In the end, states cannot remain both legitimate and a private hunting preserve of the New Class.  As Martin van Creveld said to me years ago in my Capitol Hill office, everyone can see it except the people in the capital cities.

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

The Anti-White Party

An outtake in an article in the November 14 New York Times about the Iowa caucuses caused me to do a double take: “Democrats question the status of a state that’s 90% white.”

Imagine that the Times had instead said, “Republicans question the status of a state that’s heavily black,” or “GOP questions the status of a state that’s largely Hispanic.”  The crises of outrage would reach to the heavens. Every Establishment organ would demand the Republicans pee all over themselves, grovel in the dust, and kiss the feet of so-called black and Hispanic “leaders”, most of whom are con artists.  But when the Democrats dismiss a state because it’s largely white? Not a murmur of protest arose from any quarter.

Along with a growing number of other white Americans, I find myself saying, “Wait a minute, whites built this country. We took a vast wilderness inhabited by a few million howling savages (who unlike their cousins in Mexico and Central America had built no civilizations) and turned it into what was, as recently as the 1950s, the best country on earth of all time.  The contribution of other races was mostly muscle, not brains. In that respect, they stand well back from the ox, mule, and horse. And now we are to stand mute as Democrats make us a despised minority in our own country? I don’t think so.”

The Democratic Party’s hostility toward whites is a product of the broader ideology that party has embraced, the ideology of cultural Marxism, which is commonly known as “political correctness” or “multiculturalism”.  Like Moscow’s old Marxism-Leninism, cultural Marxism says certain kinds of people are a priori good and others evil, regardless of what individuals do.  In Marxism-Leninism, workers and peasants are good while landlords, capitalists and members of the middle class, the bourgeoisie, are evil.  The latter are fit only to be “liquidated”, which Soviet Communism did on a scale that put Hitler to shame: not six million dead, but sixty million.  (Ever notice how people on the Left swoon at the sight of a swastika but find the hammer and sickle gently amusing?)

Cultural Marxism says whites are inherently evil “oppressors” who must constantly beg blacks, Indians, immigrants, etc. to forgive their “white privilege”.  The average white family living paycheck-to-paycheck doesn’t see a lot of privilege in being white. In fact, it seems our “privilege” is to pay the bills, through our taxes, of non-whites who can’t or won’t pay their own.  If there is “injustice” here, it’s toward whites, who should be privileged in a country we made out of nothing. And by the way, when we ran the place, it worked pretty well. In the 1950s, the black inner city was safe.

It is now virtually impossible to be a Democrat and not embrace cultural Marxism.  That ideology condemns not only whites, but males, non-feminist women, straights, and Christians.  All are fit only to be–what? Liquidated, like Russia’s middle and upper classes? From what we see on university campuses where cultural Marxists hold power, it seems there are no limits on how far their hatred of whites will go.

What this all adds up to is that, for the 2020 elections, there is really only one issue.  The Democratic Party is anti-white, anti-male, anti-straight, and anti-Christian. Logically, that means no white, male, straight, or Christian should vote Democrat.  To do so would be to vote for their own persecution and eventual extinction in a country they created. If we really want to commit suicide, there are better ways to do it than by handing political power over to our enemies.

More and more white Americans are coming to understand this.  That’s why President Trump, if he runs in 2020, is likely to win in a landslide, regardless of who the Democrats nominate.  If you don’t think so, look at the racial breakdown among likely voters in the swing states.

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

The View From Olympus: Two Presidents, Both Wrong

The recent massacre in Mexico of nine American citizens, all women and children, by drug cartel gunmen elicited two very different reactions from the American and Mexican Presidents.  President Trump said, according to the November 9th Cleveland Plain Dealer,

The great new President of Mexico has made this a big issue, but the cartels have become so large and powerful that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army.  This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth.

In contrast, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said,

It hurts a lot.  But are we going to want to solve the problem in the same way?  Declaring war? That, in the case of our country, has been shown not to work.  That was a failure, that caused more violence. . . 

If we understand Fourth Generation war, we know both Presidents are wrong, although both show some insight into the situation.

President Trump is correct that the Mexican drug cartels are large and powerful.  But he underestimates the degree. Some of them are now more powerful than the Mexican state.  They have more money than the state, they have a much faster OODA Loop than the state’s forces, and, in classic 4GW fashion, they have penetrated the state’s forces to the point where they control many of them, in large part by paying higher “salaries” than the states.  If Mexico declares war on the cartels, it will lose.

President Lopez Obrador is right that warring with the cartels has been shown not to work.  But he does not appear to see any alternative but his famous line, “Hugs, not gunshots,” which has also been shown not to work, as the nine dead Americans testify.  So what is to be done?

Obviously, the best answer is to stop the cartels before they grow more powerful than the states.  But it is too late for that, in Mexico, in much of Central America, and around the world where many types of 4GW entities have become more powerful than their host states, e.g., Hezbollah in Lebanon.

For states that find themselves in that situation, 4GW theory suggests another approach: establish the rules of the game.  From the state’s perspective, gunmen from one cartel killing gunmen from a rival is not a big problem. As one Russian said to me in Moscow years ago when I asked about Chechnya, “Well, now Chechens are killing Chechens, so who cares?”

The problem is that sometimes civilians are killed, or kidnapped, or robbed, which reveals the hollowness of the state and undermines its legitimacy.  A President of Mexico or another country where non-state elements have become more powerful than the state might offer them a deal: if you avoid civilian casualties, we will stay out of the way of whatever is your top priority.  For drug cartels, that is making money by selling drugs.

While the state is not strong enough to wage war on and defeat the cartels, it can still raise or lower the cost of their doing business.  Like most businessmen, I suspect the cartels’ leaders want to lower costs. They might be open to a deal on those terms. Of course it is a worse solution from the state’s standpoint than destroying the cartels.  But it may be the best deal weak states can get.

If Mexico had a “rules of the game” agreement with at least the major cartels, an incident such as the massacre of nine American women and children would see the cartel whose gunmen did it execute those gunmen itself.

As always in 4GW, the war with drug cartels is at root a contest for legitimacy.  When civilians are killed in the war among cartels, both the state and the cartels suffer a blow to their legitimacy.  The state arose to bring order: safety of persons and property. States that cannot or will not do that lose their legitimacy.  In turn, smart 4GW entities such as Hezbollah know their legitimacy depends on providing safety and other services to the civilian sea in which they swim.  When they kill civilians, they hurt themselves.

Bismarck described politics as “the art of the possible”.  To preserve public peace and civilian safety in places where the state is weak, a deal with 4GW forces laying out the rules of the game may not be the best solution, but it may be the only possible solution.

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

A Rash Prediction

An old German saying warns that prediction is extremely difficult, especially when it involves the future.  But my track record so far has been pretty good, so here goes. I predict that Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee in 2020.

I don’t think this will happen because of impeachment.  The House will impeach the President, because the Democrats control the House.  But unless they come up with something far more serious than a few words in a telephone conversation, the Senate will not vote to convict.  Nor should they; this impeachment is partisan politics, nothing more. The Founders intended impeachment as a remedy only for the most dire cases, and this does not come close to qualifying.  Both Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton probably committed murder, and neither was removed from office by impeachment.

Could we see some other type of action by the Deep State to remove the President?  It’s possible, but they would need a legal fig leaf of some sort to cover up the coup, and it is difficult to see what that might be.

More likely is a crisis in the President’s health.  He is not a young man, his diet does not appear to be a healthy one, and the stress he faces every day as the Establishment howls for his head must be enormous.  Donald Trump is a fighter, and to some extent he relishes a fight. But when you find yourself undermined, spied on, and sabotaged by everyone around you–just how many people were listening in to that phone conversation?–it must be wearing, to say the least.  How long his frame can take it is an open question.

The most likely reason Mr. Trump will not be the Republican nominee is related to the health issue.  He will decide not to run because it just isn’t fun anymore.

The stress and strain from being under constant attack is part of that.  But there’s more. Mr. Trump is guided largely by his instincts. And for the most part, his instincts lead him in good directions.  He has avoided another war, despite the fervent desire of the neo-cons to push him into one (or two or three). He wants to get out of the wars we are in, though so far he cannot overcome the Establishment’s desire that we stay the course, presumably ‘till hell freezes over.  He has confronted China about its unfair trade practices, something previous Presidents should have done but were chicken. He recognizes that the main threat we face is excessive immigration, and is finally getting some results in his efforts to control our borders. 

But a man guided by his instincts is also impulsive.  President Trump has shown that is true of him. And I can easily see him making an impulsive decision, possibly quite late in the game, to say the hell with the whole mess that is Washington and not run.  He would need an assurance from the Republican nominee of a Presidential pardon, should he require one. That should not be difficult to obtain. In fact, it would be smart of the Democrats to offer the same, since he will most likely defeat whomever they nominate if he does run.  But they aren’t that smart. 

If my prediction proves correct, who should the Republicans nominate?  It must be someone who is anti-Establishment, because the real political division now is Establishment/anti-Establishment, much more than Democrat/Republican or even liberal/conservative.  Vice President Pence is conservative but Establishmentarian. He is also a wooden public speaker with no charisma or evident leadership potential. The Bob Dole nomination should be fresh enough in the Republican Party’s memory not to repeat that blunder.

My suggestion would be a Tucker Carlson/Tulsi Gabbard ticket.  Carlson is anti-Establishment, conservative (not neocon), and a major public figure.  Coming from outside Washington is a plus. Rep. Gabbard must know she will never get a Democratic Party nomination.  The ticket could present itself as bi-partisan, which would appeal to the millions of Americans sick of partisanship.  It would be an anti-war ticket, and also anti-Wall Street; Carlson recognizes that the concentration of wealth in the .1% is a populist issue.  It would offer everything President Trump does, without the Trumpian downsides. Most important, the voters who usually don’t vote but did come out to vote for Trump would do the same for Carlson. 

Such is my rash prediction.  If I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time.  But if I’m right, it won’t be the first time for that either, especially when everyone else predicted the opposite.

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