The thing about dogs eating homework is, it could actually happen. This can’t.
“The dog ate my hard drive, broke into another building, ate the backup of the hard drive, then broke into six other top officials’ offices and ate their hard drives also.”
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
1. Sautee a mess of onions until caramelized. Season with salt and white pepper. Add a mess of chopped, seeded, and (ideally) skinned, tomatoes. Let it simmer for a spell. Add enough beef or chicken stock such that the ‘maters can have a nice swim. Let it simmer for another spell. Whiz it until smooth in batches in a blender. Careful. It’s hot. Add the whizzed-up slurry back to the pot and dump in a bunch of heavy whipping cream. Add a fistful of chopped fresh basil. Heat it back up, season to taste with salt and white pepper, serve with a sprinkle of parmesan cheese.
Cooking without a precise recipe, as with the tomato soup above, builds character, self-reliance and the ability to think and act on one’s feet. To paraphrase the old saying: Instructions will not be provided. Neither will permission.
If you can’t make a darn tasty pot of soup out of tomatoes, onions and cream without dependence on a disembodied voice telling you what to do and how to do it down to the minutest detail, then you better check yourself.
Be a man. Quit’cher whining. Figure s*** out. Get s*** done.
2. More on food and “picky eaters” of various stripes, this time from Orwell in “The Road to Wigand Pier”, circa ARSH 1937:
For instance, I have here a prospectus from another summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say ‘whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian’. They [Socialists] take it for granted, you see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of his carcase; that is, a person out of touch with common humanity.
Yup. Tru dat.
3. In case y’all poor, deluded folks who still think that there is hope for Washington D.C., specifically in the person of Ted Cruz, I’d like to go ahead and bust your little bubble – not that you won’t just blow a new one. But, here goes. Repeat this over and over again until you understand:
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
A position to which she ascended immediately after coming out of the Bush-Cheney White House, specifically a seat on the National Security Council. The same Goldman Sachs that is carrying over $48 TRILLION in derivatives exposure against an asset base of $89 Billion – levered up by a factor of over 500X. She VOLUNTARILY associates herself with this.
No, I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure Ted Cruz is DIFFERENT. I’m sure that the fact his wife is a Goldman Sachs executive has NO BEARING ON ANYTHING, and that he is as pure as the wind-driven snow. Youbetcha. EYEROLL.
3A.) In review, The Barnhardt Axiom:
Today, seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office.
4.) Yes. I saw that Nancy Pelosi “instructed” the Archbishop of San Francisco to NOT attend a pro-marriage march. The archbishop declined to accept her instruction, but he’s no hero. The fact that Pelosi has not been publicly excommunicated is a testament to how truly far-gone the episcopacy, and most especially the post-American episcopacy is.
This action of Pelosi (and the rest of the oligarchy) now openly attempting to command and intimidate prelates is YET ANOTHER analogue to the actions of the satanic proto-Marxist French Revolutionaries which I covered in my video presentation on the genocide in the Vendee region of France and its analogues to the current kleptarchical regime now ruling the former-U.S. landmass. I cannot name ONE bishop in the U.S. who I am confident will stand firm against these people. Not one. There has not been a single excommunication. There has not been a single denial of Holy Communion. Even conservatives, like Bishop Conley of Lincoln, NE, were immediately pushing the it’s okay if you capitulate, as long as you don’t LIKE it and do it under protest meme. (I would link to the Denver Catholic Register column from August of ARSH 2012, but it has been scrubbed from the ArchDen.org website.) UPDATE: A clever reader found the reprint at CNA. Bishop Conley outlines the “compliance under duress” option. Give me a break.
5.) And, in a related vein, Cardinal Timmy Dolan, who is an unmitigated jackass, has indeed slated for closing the THRIVING Holy Innocents parish in midtown Manhattan (fabulously located just off Times Square at West 37th and Broadway). This, after Dolan forcibly expelled a South African priest who DARED give a sermon at Holy Innocents in which he simply exhorted the congregants there to not view themselves as an underclass within the Church or allow others to paint them as such because they love the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered as it had been, with reverence, beauty and solemnity, up until ARSH 1968.
Dolan HATES, HATES, HATES the Mass of The Ages and all those who love it. Why? Well, see HERE for an explanation of that. Dolan is, most assuredly, one of those “cool kids who don’t actually believe any of that shit”, and like Judas Iscariot after the Eucharistic Discourse, is embarrassed by it to the point of sputtering, red-faced rage. How can I say that? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because Dolan can’t grovel to the satanic political class with any more boot-licking gusto?
Look at ME! I’m POPULAR! I hang out with FAMOUS PEOPLE! Evil, schmeval! Hell, schmell! Church, shmurch! Eucharist, schmucharist! God, schmod! Me, me, me. me, me, me, me MEEEEE!!!
Maybe because Dolan not just tolerates, but openly supports and encourages Masses that CELEBRATE THE SIN OF SODOMY at St. Francis Xavier parish across town? At 5:35 Dolan cheers the introduction of a group of unrepentant sodomites. Don’t kid yourselves. UNREPENTANT. Because, you know, PRIDE. BRAVO. GOOD FOR YOU, and all that.
If you click over to their parish website, right this second the top headline reads “Upcoming LGBTQ Events”, the first of which is a “Pride Mass”. As in “we are PROUD that we insert our erect penises into the feces-laden descending colons of other men, and then use said descending colons as the point of masturbatory friction.” I’ll spare us all the lesbian version of that. Or, stated another way, “we are PROUD to commit one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for God’s vengeance and thus we are PROUD to scourge and nail Jesus Christ to the Cross, are not the least bit sorry, enjoy it, and define ourselves by the fact we enjoy it, are not only entitled to do so but demand that you approve, and actively encourage and recruit others to do so with us.”
St. Francis Xavier parish has Masses in which wicca rituals are inserted into the Mass at the urging of LESBIAN WITCHES. I have readers who have EYEWITNESSED THIS on multiple occasions. Also, St. Francis Xavier parish openly encourages and facilitates within the church building itself, the practice of BUDDHISM. Buddhism denies not only the existence of God, but the existence of reality (which is the same thing, really). It is diametrically opposed to God and His Holy Church. So, yeah. THIS CRAP goes on in NYC with Dolan’s ENTHUSIASTIC support, but the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered as it had been for centuries upon centuries upon centuries MUST BE ELIMINATED according to Dolan. Oh, don’t be fooled by Dolan. He will continue to sell out God Almighty and His Holy Church for a tinker’s dam. When the cameras aren’t on, you either play ball with the “Timmy Dolan: Superstar” project or Dolan will END YOU. Although, I cannot understand how anyone could be fooled by him, because the guy is so transparently phony, his mannerisms, faux-hyper-sincerity and “aw shucks” demeanor so utterly rehearsed, and is so clearly a self-aggrandizing, sleazoid politician – but, apparently many are.
6.) False premise check. Obama is never going to be impeached because the government of the former-U.S. was overthrown years ago, and thus even if they wanted to impeach him (which they don’ t – there’s another false premise), since the Constitution and Rule of Law itself is no longer in force, there will be no impeachment, much less a conviction. Like I said, every 36 hours or so you are given a new vector for your “outrage”. When I wrote that piece it was the VA scandal. Hey? Remember that? Seems like ancient history already, huh? Yup. Because in just that short time, you have consumed the outrage porn of Bergdahl (over that already, too) and have now moved on to the capture of Iraq by the ISIS (aka Muslim Brotherhood) … oh, but wait. That’s old outrage porn now, too. NOW we’re on to the IRS “losing” those emails….
7.) Hey! Let’s blow another false premise! The IRS didn’t lose anything. They have everything, are lying without compunction or shame, everyone knows they are lying, and there will be no disclosure of any of these emails because they don’t have to do shit and they know it. There is no Rule of Law. All there is is thuggery. The IRS is an operational arm of the regime that has overthrown the United States, specializing in intimidation and enforcement. Thinking the IRS will hand over anything to Congress is like expecting Rudolf Hess and Hermann Goering to hand over correspondence with Hitler in the summer of ’43 to the Vichy French. You know. Because we suspect there may be some *untoward and possibly illegal* activity going on here. Give me a break. Listen to yourselves.
8.) Let’s do one more! The Obama regime WANTS the ISIS (aka the Muslim Brotherhood) to overthrow governments and reform the islamic Caliphate. Obama hasn’t “lost” Iraq due to incompetence. THIS WAS THE OBJECTIVE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
9.) I’m on a roll, now! The Obama regime HATES Christians, Christianity and primordially God Himself because the Obama regime is PURE EVIL, and thus not only is it unmoved by the genocide of Christians by the ISIS (Muslim Brotherhood), it is HAPPY that Christians are being wiped out. They’re not going to do anything to stop it because they WANT Christians exterminated on general principle.
10.) I can’t stop! The Obama regime has had as a specific objective the dissolving of the U.S.-Mexico border and the ensuing chaos. Remember Operation Fast & Furious, the ARMING OF THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS? I’ll repost the piece I wrote on July 30, ARSH 2011 on this tomorrow. It’s creepily uncanny. Here’s a snippet of the seven objectives I outlined three years ago that would be accomplished by Obama dissolving the U.S.-Mexico border:
So, we would have:
1. Completely open borders 2. MILLIONS of refugees streaming into the U.S. 3. Global insistence that the U.S. accept these refugees 4. Instant de facto amnesty for both pre-Zeta and post-Zeta Mexicans in the U.S. 5. Obama cast as savior of these Mexican refugees 6. Millions of new welfare-dependent Obama voters 7. A lawless Mexico, wide-open to unlimited muslim and Chinese staging
11.) One more? Oh, okay. The Obama regime WANTS oil prices to surge, thus crippling the economy even worse than has already been done, thus driving more people out of work and presumably onto the government teat. Why? Because the Cloward-Piven strategy, the execution of which we are now squarely, undeniably in the throes of, dictates that the only way to fully collapse the power structure of the former United States and establish an open, Marxist tyranny is to consciously overload the government from within with welfare and entitlements, drive the populace into poverty, use the resulting orchestrated poverty to “prove” the failure of free market capitalism, and then use the useful idiots and media to agitate the unwashed masses until they demand their own enslavement in exchange for a mess of pottage, and perhaps a tepid, albeit lying assurance that they will be killed last. And so shall it be.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/06/18/tomato-soup/
America to Chelsea Clinton: Shut your bucktoothed bitch-hole!
“She’d bloody well care about money if every time the gas and food prices go up it’s another supper of macaroni and cheese for us!” Maybe, from your $10 million dollar pad in Gramercy Park you can hear the young couple weighed down with college debt: “She’d freaking care about money if she was living in her mom’s basement while trying to find a real job and carrying $45,000 in college loans.”
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
. In a ruling Wednesday morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office cancelled six federal trademarks for the name of the Washington Redskins.
Currently, federal trademark law does not allow the registration of any names that bring individuals or groups into contempt or disrepute. The PTO cited this rule in their decision regarding the Redskins’ name.
Here are twelve other trademarked names that apparently didn’t come up on anyone’s offense radar.
Figgas over Niggas: This pending trademark seeks to cover a line of “Apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets.” “Niggas,” of course, is a slang version of the word “nigger,” a term considered highly offensive towards black Americans.
Kraut Kap: Another recently-filed trademark, this one for a line of plastic lids. “Kraut” was made famous in World War II as a derogatory term for opposing German soldiers, as well as Germans in general.
Dago Swagg: A label created for a line of clothing. ”Dago” is a corruption of the common name Diego, and is used in English-speaking countries as an offensive term for those of Italian descent, and occasionally people from other Mediterranean countries as well.
Cracka Azz Skateboards: Unsurprisingly, this trademark was taken out for a line of skateboards and longboards, as well as associated clothing such as bandannas. While the USPTO helpfully notes that “The wording ‘cracka azz’ has no meaning in a foreign language,” “cracka” is a slang version of “cracker,” which in this context is a term of derision for whites, used primarily within the black community.
You Can’t Make A Housewife Out Of A Whore: This trademark for T-shirts and hats appears to imply that women involved in prostitution can never transition into the domestic role of a housewife. Such an accusation would certainly “bring them into contempt or disrepute,” the stated reasoning for eliminating the Redskins trademark.
Blanco Basura: A seemingly innocuous phrase, Blanco Basura, rendered into English, is actually the highly offensive slur “white trash.” White trash is a derogatory insult that typically refers to poor, white Americans, who have a penchant for crime and a patent disrespect for authority. Apparently, they thought they could go unnoticed designing a hateful beer.
Home Cookin Biscuit Head: Intentionality, as we well know, is not required in order for something to be highly, highly offensive. They should’ve done their due diligence before designing this logo for the restaurant industry. The term “biscuit head” has its origins in the Korean War, when American GIs picked this unseemly term to describe the shape of Koreans’ heads.
‘teensdoporn.com’: This is a classic example (Safe For Work) of a harmful stereotype used to justify condescension toward teens in the form of countless hours of sex-ed in high school. It wrongfully supposes that all teens are sex-crazed maniacs, who given the chance, will opt for trading their sexuality on a website for fame and fortune.
Gypsy Soule Women Who Live By Their Own Rules: This line of makeup containers and tote bags is a double whammy. “Gypsy” is a term for the itinerant Romani people that derives from the erroneous belief they originated from Egypt, rather than India. In addition, the “Live by their own rules” component hearkens to the common stereotype that Romani routinely ignore the law and engage in criminality.
Mammy Jamia’s: A company going by the name of A & S Cairns Limited has decided to attach its good name to an antebellum slur used to refer to an enslaved black woman who was in charge of household affairs, particularly caring for white children. The product? Frozen fruits and vegetables. Was it really worth it, A &S?
Uppity Negro: Intended to be imprinted on mugs and apparel, this trademark references the frequently used adjective “uppity” to describe blacks who agitated for greater respect and civil rights in the Jim Crow-era South.
All Natural My Dadz Nutz Carmelized Jumbo Redskins: Available at MyDadzNutz.com, this line of savory peanuts is unlikely to run into trouble for applying “redskin” to a line of peanuts. One might argue the two terms describe different things, and so the overlap does not matter, but that hasn’t stopped the old name for Brazil nuts from fading away. Kaffir limes, meanwhile, are a discouraged name in the Oxford Companion to Food, as “kaffir” is a highly offensive term for blacks in South Africa.
Found at TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Terrorists boarded a flight out of London .One took a window seat and the other sat next to him in the middle seat.
Just before take-off, a Royal Marine sat down in the aisle seat.
After take-off the Marine kicked his shoes off, wiggled his toes and was settling in when the Arab in the window seat said ‘I need to get up and get a Coke.’
‘Don’t get up,’ said the Marine ‘I’m in the aisle seat, ‘I’ll get it for you.’
As soon as he left one of the Arabs picked up the Marine’s shoe and spat in it. When the Marine returned with the Coke, the other Arab said, ‘That looks good. I’d really like one too.’ Again, the Marine obligingly went to fetch it.
While he was gone the other Arab picked up the Marine’s other shoe and spat in it. When the Marine returned they all sat back and enjoyed the flight.
As the plane was landing the Marine slipped his feet into his shoes and knew immediately what had happened. He leaned over and asked his Arabneighbours, ‘Why does it have to be this way?’
‘How long must this go on? This fighting between our nations? This hatred? This animosity? This spitting in shoes and pissing in Cokes?’
Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Nixon in Black Face
This is the flashing red headline on Drudge this morning. First we were told there was a mysterious glitch in the IRS network that resulted in the loss of only the e-mails under subpoena. Now we are being told that the IRS is the only organization on the planet that does not backup its e-mail system. Instead, they rely on users to take care of that on their own, along with securing their own government issued laptops.
Even I’m starting to get insulted by the lies.
For those of you too young to remember, we ran a president out of town a long time ago for these sorts of things. This is from the articles of impeachment for Mr. Nixon, way back in the disco era.
Article #2 Section #1:
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Then we have this:
He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
The whole sorry episode has been washed down the drain of history, but the IRS stuff was probably the most outrageous at the time. The Watergate break-in was a big deal, but it was clear Nixon did not know about it before it happened. It was not all that clear he knew about it before it became a big deal in he press. It is where we get the expression, “It is not the crime, it is the cover-up.”
At the time, the stuff that truly offended the people as well as the political class was the potential misuse of the IRS and FBI. I say “potential” because it is not all that clear Nixon ever ordered anything of the sort. It is less clear that anyone else seriously tried to use the IRS as a political weapon. We now know that the FBI was corrupt in ways independent of Nixon so that’s a different story. Hoover created a monster that has never truly been tamed.
The FBI had been out of control for decades, but the IRS appears to have been fairly clean. You’re always going to have some level of corruption. When you’re dealing with sensitive data like taxes, petty abuse is inevitable. What led to including the IRS in the articles of impeachment was the mere suggestion of using the IRS for political purposes. The worst you can say about Nixon and the IRS is he would have abused it if it were a different organization.
That’s what makes this story so outrageous. This administration appears to have turned the IRS into an organization that can and was used as a political weapon. In other words, Team Obama went well past anything Nixon imagined. They have corrupted a government agency that was resistant to the Nixon people. Nixon’s corruption meter may have been pegged at ten, but Obama’s goes to eleven.
What this should do, but most likely won’t, is throw cold water on Conservative Inc and their fantasies about the Left. For decades the Left held Nixon up as the poster child for bad government. Today, they are defending a guy who makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout. These are not people who are merely mistaken. They are not people with whom you can have honest dealings. These are not men of principle. The best you can say about them is they are mendacious, cynical opportunist. In reality, they are religious fanatics. Pretending otherwise is suicide.
Pardon me for not being optimistic about where we are heading as a nation.
From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=2069
“Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the “control” and “containment” of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.” — AD, 2003
[Originally published @ American Digest in it's first year, October, 2003 ]
Sections of “The First Terrorist War”
1. Calling the War By the Right Name. 2. Not Process But Victory Restores Freedom 3. Playing for Time is Playing to Lose 4. The Goal of Radical Islam is Our Destruction 5. The War of Two Religions 6. The Unspoken Role of the Ballistic Missile Submarines 7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War
“[Arabs] were incorrigibly children of the idea, feckless and colour-blind, to whom body and spirit were for ever and inevitably opposed. Their mind was strange and dark, full of depressions and exaltations, lacking in rule, but with more of ardour and more fertile in belief than any other in the world. They were a people of starts, for whom the abstract was the strongest motive, the process of infinite courage and variety, and the end nothing. They were as unstable as water, and like water would perhaps finally prevail.” — T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
1. Calling the War By the Right Name. In a war, “Know your enemy” is one of the first axioms in formulating a strategy for victory. It is an axiom the United States has ignored for over
two seven years. Instead we’ve seen a host of euphemisms and slogans thrown up in the belief that, having had many decades of a life where ugly things are given pretty or neutral names, Americans can no longer “bear very much reality.” In the years between September 2001 and today, the public has had little asked of it and seen nothing happen on our soil that alarms it. All is quiet on the western front. [Update April 2013. This is no longer true.]
Foggy thinking, attractive in politics, means defeat in war. War requires “a mind of winter;” a mind that is precise, cold, and unrelenting. War requires that we call things what they are and cease to skirt issues that make us, “uncomfortable.” Vague names create fluffy policies, hamstrung strategies, and wishful thinking. This is where we are drifting.
To say we are “involved” in a “war on terror” extends our infatuation with euphemism and obfuscation into dangerous territory. The phrase lulls us into a state where all dangers seem unclear and distant. The “war on terror” joins an expanding list of “wars on…” such as drugs, poverty, or profuse paperwork in government. The “war on terror” implies a “process” rather than a campaign; an indeterminate series of unresolved encounters rather than decisive actions that lead to an end, to peace.
Peace is the goal of war. To accept a perpetual “war on terror” is to accept a plan for mere “management” rather than victory. The failure to plan for victory is the construction of a plan for defeat.
To those with a clear vision of this war and a knowledge of history, it is a lie that we are “involved in a war on terror.” Our presidents, pundits and policy wonks may prefer it that way, but war is not the same as being “involved in a business slump” or “involved in a troubled relationship.”
Wishful souls in the West may see the war as a “process;” as an exercise in supply chain management. Our many millions of avowed enemies do not. Our enemies have no truck with vague thinking and phrases front-loaded with vacillation and pusillanimous wishing. Their thinking is driven by an ancient religious doctrine designed to manipulate, exploit and harness societies into servitude.
Our enemies commitment to our destruction is adamantine. It is no accident that many of their spiritual leaders speaking from the centers of their faith call for the death of the “Crusaders.” Obfuscation has no place in their plans except as if creates confusion and doubt among us. Our enemies’ goals are the same goals they have held for more than 500 years. They are the goals announced several times a week in tens of thousands of mosques throughout the world. For our enemies, the wars of the Crusades and the wars surrounding the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire were merely prologues to this war.
One such wave (and not the least) I raised and rolled before the breath of an idea, till it reached its crest, and toppled over and fell at Damascus. The wash of that wave, thrown back by the resistance of vested things, will provide the matter of the following wave, when in fullness of time the sea shall be raised once more.” – T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Our present reality, brought home to us in the cataclysm of September 11 (and last week in Mumbai), is that we are now fighting The First Terrorist War. We had best know it by that name. When we persist in calling it the “war on terror” our implied goal is control and containment; a “management problem”. This is a lethal illusion.
In war the only acceptable outcome is complete victory. A negotiation does not end a war – - as Oslo shows. A partition does not end a war – - as we learned in Vietnam. A cease-fire does not end a war — as we saw in the Gulf War. The Cold War taught us that a wall does not end a war. Only victory, clear and decisive, ends war and creates peace. To date, we have failed to learn this lesson. In life, when a lesson is not learned, it is repeated.
In war, language is a strategic asset. Indeed, we see daily how language,here and abroad, is used to weaken the resolve of the United States. The central problem in calling The First Terrorist War the “war on terror’ is that the phrase soothes us into accepting less than victory; makes us accept war-without-end as a new deal; a new normality where terror is accepted as the status quo. This is the state in which Israel has existed for decades as terrorist violence becomes the scrim screen against which that nation’s life lurches on. Although our present foreign policy may impose this on Israel, a garrison state may, over time, prove less popular here at home. We are not yet the kind of country that easily accepts “The Forever War.”
2. Not Process But Victory Restores Freedom An open-ended “war on terror,” like a ‘war on drugs” invites a continuing erosion of small liberties. As this persists, once rare infringements on liberty become the norm. If it is to be the case that the shoes of all air travelers are to be inspected from now until the last ding-dong of doom, we will all be wearing sandals on airlines for the rest of our days. In this, many are correct to be wary of the long term effects of The Patriot Act. Short of military conquest, a free society does not lose its freedom. Rather, freedom is lost through small infringements on liberty and dignity in the name of security. A perfectly safe state is a state without freedom. As our policies look to sustain rather than defeat our enemies, we are to that degree held hostage to both our policies and our enemies. When war is reduced to a process, that process becomes a self-renewing system in the same way that the “war on drugs” has become institutionalized in our lives; a normal part of the background noise that defines our days. A strategy based on “management,” on diplomacy rather than victory, leads only to the establishment of internal organizations dedicated to their own perpetuation.
During the Civil War and the World Wars of the last century certain freedoms were, at times, curtailed, infringed or suspended. Following victory in 1945 these freedoms not only returned but even greater states of equality and liberty emerged. Had the Second World War ended in a negotiated stand-off at the Rhine and Okinawa, a state of war would have continued for an unknowable time and, in such a state, a less-free United States would have been a certainty. Only the destruction of the Axis powers yielded a peace out of which freedom surged, not only in America but in the lands of her former enemies as well. Victory yields freedom in peace. An armed process yields only stasis.
3. Playing for Time is Playing to Lose Our enemies (many of whom have studied and lived or now live among us) know us better than we are prepared to know either them or ourselves. In order to reform, rearm and launch future attacks they depend upon our belief that we are effectively managing the “war on terror.” At the same time they know that, absent any large attacks, we will grow weary with small but constant losses tallied daily by our “caring and sensitive” media. They depend upon us being lulled back into the state of slumber we enjoyed on September 10th. And we grant their wishes. If they are as wise as they are ruthless, our enemies will continue with their strategies of constant attrition and small, distant attacks. They will, for the present, avoid large shocks to the nation in hopes that the ambitions of our political factions and the intellectual lassitude of our major media will result in the defeat of the present administration in the coming elections.[Check... ] The goal of this strategy is the expectation of a more somnambulant administration less invested in war and more inclined towards the failed policies of appeasement, negotiation and payoff. [... and double check.]
When that happens our present “war on terror” will become even softer; will be said sotto voce if said at all. It will be supplanted by something resembling “a diplomatic initiative to ameliorate terrorism.” In effect we shall find ourselves, as we have so often in the past under liberal guidance, trying to buy out way out of the “war on terror.” Our error will be believing that we are dealing with reasonable extortionists rather than blood enemies. And the measure of our leaders’ cowardice will be how deeply they promote this belief and the false hope it engenders.
4. The Goal of Radical Islam is Our Destruction The consequences of a political and military stand-down would be to allow our enemies the time, basing and mobility to grow in numbers, advance in training, achieve greater tactical position within and about our borders, and acquire ever more sophisticated and powerful weapons. Once they have advanced to the next level of lethality they will strike us again with an effect on our lives, liberties, property and economy more extreme than 9/11. The goals of the Radical Islamic forces arrayed against us are the same as their factotums, the Palestinians, have for Israel. In the jihad against Israel we can see what the Islamic forces have in mind for us: the complete destruction of our systems, the occupation of our land, the usurpation of our government, and the death or conversion of all our citizens. These are the goals of Radical Islam as understood by their fundamentalists and as tolerated by the vast majority of believers.
Much has been written about these goals. Most of our scholars conclude they are only fantasies. A nuclear weapon detonated in Seattle does not care if a fantasy set it off.
Whether the goals of Radical Islam can be achieved is a matter for history to determine. It is the belief that they can be achieved that brings the First Terrorist War upon us. To the extent that we fail to recognize the intensity and commitment of our enemies in this war; to the extent we fail to match their passion for our destruction with our passion for victory; to the extent we cast our lot with our “process” as they cast their lot with their god, we weaken our ability to decisively defeat them.
Ours is a “war on terror” while theirs is a “Jihad.” Our efforts are a process. Theirs are directed by divine mandate. Whether you are of a secular or religious persuasion, it is well to remember that if you go to war you’d best have God on your side.
It is time to put away the feeble designation of our actions as the “war on terror” for it is not “terror” that shooting wars engage. Wars engage combatants, armies, populations, institutions, nations and religions. It is unpopular, almost unsayable, to designate the First Terrorist War as a religious war, yet all serious people know that this is the case and that this, in the end, is what it shall come to.
5. The War of Two Religions Through the violent attacks of a Radical Islam, two religions have been brought into conflict. The first is that of Islam, a faith that at its core requires absolute submission from its adherents, and looks towards the subjugation of the world as its ultimate apotheosis. As the youngest of the monotheistic religions, Islam is at a point in its development that Christianity passed through centuries ago. And it is not with Christianity that Islam is currently at war. Islam is saving that for the mopping up phase of its current campaign. The religion that Islam has engaged is a much younger one, the religion of Freedom. As a religion Freedom has been gaining converts since the success of the American Revolution enabled it to go forth and be preached to the world. Freedom is easily the most popular of the new religions and historically converts nearly 100% of all populations in which it is allowed to take firm root. This is the religion which we have lately brought to Iraq.
The genius of the religion of Freedom is that it allows all other religions, from the venerable to the trivial, to exist without fear of censure or destruction. Indeed, the only thing that the religion of Freedom firmly forbids is the destruction of Freedom itself. “Thou shalt not destroy Freedom” is Freedom’s single commandment. And Freedom has been shown to resist efforts to destroy it in the most ferocious way. It’s enemies would do well to ponder the fate of previous attempts to do so.
On September 11, the agents of Radical Islam began their attempt to destroy Freedom by attacking it at its core. The reaction of Freedom to this assault has been, once you consider the destructive power of the weapons systems it possesses, measured, deliberate and cautious. This is because Freedom, although sorely wounded, does not yet feel that its very existence is threatened. A more serious attack at any time in the future will put paid to that specious notion.
Following a second attack at a level equal to or exceeding September 11, any political opposition to pursuing our enemies with all means at our disposal will be swept off the table. The First Terrorist War will begin in earnest and it will not be a series of small wars with long lead times and a careful consultation of allies. The war will become, virtually overnight, a global war of violent preemption and merciless attack towards the spiritual and geographic centers of our enemy. Arguments revolving around the true meaning of ‘imminent’ will be seen as they are — so much factional prattle. Due to the nature of the enemy, the First Terrorist War will be fought here and there and everywhere. It does not matter when or where the second serious strike on the American homeland takes place, it only matters that on the day after this country will be at war far beyond the current level of conflict.
6. The Unspoken Role of the Ballistic Missile Submarines Since 9/11 there is one element of our strategic forces that has not been discussed. Indeed, you seldom hear a question asked about its status. That element is our fleet of ballistic missile submarines. We currently possess 18 of these “ships,” but a ballistic missile submarine is known not as a ship, but as a “strategic asset.” Each submarine has 24 missile tubes. Each tube holds one missile with from 5-8 nuclear warheads. Each warhead can be targeted separately from the others. The range of these missiles is classified but is thought to be in excess of 6000 nautical miles. The total number of warheads is approximately 50% of US strategic warheads. In sum, any single one of these strategic assets can create the end of a significant portion of the world. At present roughly 40% of this fleet is deployed at unknown and unknowable locations throughout the world’s oceans.
Originally built in order to deter, these strategic assets now assume a more aggressive role in the First Terrorist War. Because of the religious nature of the war, our enemy is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of obliteration. He will view that as highly unlikely since it would, of necessity, involve us in the deaths of large number of civilians in countries known to harbor or be friendly to Islamic terrorists. He believes we would not employ these weapons. This misunderstanding of the history of Western democracies under arms and in a state of total war invites global tragedy.
Nevertheless, the character and goals of our enemy are as fixed as the words of the Koran and he is not to be dissuaded by the threat of annihilation. Only actual annihilation will, in the end, suffice and yield victory. In attempting to achieve this annihilation we can only hope that the political and military situation does not evolve to a level where the submarines would have to play a role.
7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War Because we are large, lumbering, impatient and somnambulant our enemy depends on these factors to defeat us. He uses the opportunities of Freedom in order to make war upon it. He is able to infiltrate our society and institutions. He is able to be infinitely patient. He plans for the decades while we can barely manage to plan from one fiscal quarter to the next. This is a war that will play out over years and will not be resolved in months. In order to gain victory and defeat our enemy we must put in place policies and strategies that cannot easily be altered by reports, polls, or election cycles. In order to achieve this we must be, as we were in the Second World War, united in purpose. It is, sadly, the nature of our society today that September 11th’s unity was fleeting. To find this unity we must suffer through one more horrendous attack the nature and timing of which will not be of our choosing.
Still, as surely as the next attack will come, so will the unity that it creates in its wake and at that point the full power of Freedom’s Arsenal will at last be used to defend it. This is the social and political conundrum that confronts us in the First Terrorist War. And this is why the war must be divorced from ‘process’ and the goal of victory be cut into the stone of the American soul.
During the Second World War, our system, with few alterations, brought us through to a peace in which there were greater freedoms than before the war. Victory validated our way of life. Not only were our freedoms intact in 1945 but they were poised, with the economy, for a great expansion throughout the rest of the century and into this. If you had proposed, in the summer of 1946, that within 50 years all minorities would be fully enfranchised, that women would be fully liberated, that homosexuals would be a dominant force with their enfranchisement only a moment away, and that an African-American could be elected President, you would have been dismissed as a socialist dreamer. And yet, here we are.
The same situation can also be envisioned as the result of our victory in the First Terrorist War at the end of a less-clear but no less threatening passage of arms. But this will only happen if we remain clear about the real nature of the First Terrorist War, and committed to unequivocal victory regardless of the costs in lives and treasure. Only by matching the determination of our enemy to destroy us will we prevail. The only thing that can defeat us are a dull reliance on management, a fascination with process rather than victory and the reluctance to believe the extent to which our enemy desires our annihilation.
Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the “control” and “containment” of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.
What we must press for in the Terrorist War is a victory so decisive that we can, in the end, avoid the larger war lurking on the not-so-distant horizon – - a true war between civilizations. That war, should it come, will not take the name of The Terrorist War, but of The Islamic War.
The Terrorist War is still a struggle that can be fought and won with conventional means. An Islamic War, should it come, would engulf the world and be anything but conventional.
“Some of the evil of my tale may have been inherent in our circumstances.”T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
“The trouble with Afghanistan is it is full Afghans. The trouble with Iraq is there are not enough Iraqis.”
Arab culture is not like Western culture so their way of making war is different from that of the West. “War without battle” is the preferred mode in the Arab world. That means insurgencies, terrorism and social disruption are where Arabs excel. This makes perfect sense for a culture where blood relations trump all else. Kin based societies are low-trust societies. It is trust and altruism that enable societies to engage in large scale projects like fielding large armies.
Arab societies are low trust societies, which is why they have never been good at the civilization stuff that requires large scale organization. If you can only truly count on blood relatives, scaling beyond 100 or so hands is nearly impossible. Even when you expand the circle of trust beyond second cousins, you limit the number of people capable of working as a unit to a few hundred.
It is why Arab countries are authoritarian. The people will never willingly go along with the leader, if he is not at least from their tribe. That means coercion is the only way to rule. You never hear Arab leaders talking about “their people” with any degree of pride, like you hear in the West. They don’t even have the concept down. Instead, “us” is almost always defined by blood.
The other interesting thing is all of this was predictable. The American military spent billions designing and training a military for Iraq along western lines. The trouble is they left an Arab culture that is still an Arab culture. Eventually you end up with the same old half-assed Arab army with a bunch of American gear they can barely operate. A guy named Norvell B. De Atkine wrote about this 15 years ago in a paper called Why Arabs Lose Wars. While he tried hard to inoculate himself, the author can’t help but notice the reason Arab countries are as we find them is they are full of Arabs. The Z Blog › Ruminations on Iraq
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Americans are missionaries, not imperial mandarins.
America cannot ignore the Middle East
because it has critical interests in the region, including the free flow of hydrocarbons, but it cannot fix it. It tried to fix Libya, and traded the nasty regime of Muammar Gaddafi for a Petrie Dish of jihadist militias; it tried to fix Egypt, and traded the miserable regime of Hosni Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, and the inevitable return of military rule in the face of the twin threats of terror and starvation; it did not even try to fix Syria, which has collapsed into sectarian division. It spent US$1 trillion, 5,000 dead, 50,000 wounded, and several million disrupted American lives trying to fix Iraq and Afghanistan.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Suicide by Immigration of Western Civ. Those that Have an Ear To Hear, Let Them Hear Truth. Most Will Not.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage: Speech at Volkstrauertag 2012
In light of Volkstrauertag last month, I wish to present to you this speech given last year by German center-right political activist Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, in front of the Reichstag in Berlin. Kleine-Hartage is the author of The Jihad System: How Islam Functions, Defend Europe, Why I am No Longer a Leftist, and The Liberal Society and Its End—On the Suicide of a System.
For many of us have not learned to cease the mourning.
Transcript below translated by Yours Fraternally.
In normal times and under normal circumstances, a day like the today’s People’s Mourning Day would be a day of quiet remembrance, and the common grief of all the people and their representatives.
In normal times, it would be a day of prayer: for the dead of past wars, so that the future wars may be spared from us.
In normal times, there would be agreement over the meaning of the People’s Mourning Day; there would be no need, on such a day, to hold political speeches and so to speak of the disagreement.
In normal times, we would not have to gather in front of the Reichstag building, to set a counterpoint to what is going on inside of this building.
But the times are not normal. This People’s Mourning Day falls not in a period of peace, but in a time of undeclared war being waged against the peoples of Europe.
It comes in a time, in which it is necessary to explain in detail the self-evident truisms that one feels connected to his own people in a special way, and that this has nothing to do with resentment of other peoples.
We live in a time in which such self-evident truths are not to be understood even when explained in detail, because a whole cartel of propaganda institutions are working to defame him who utters them.
We live in a time in which the people must fight to even get a word through, for their so-called representatives put words in their mouths which they would never say themselves.
We are here today to give these people a voice, and therefore today’s remembrance cannot be a silent remembrance, although we all would like to have one. The circumstances, which we have not chosen, but are forced upon us, do not let us.
That my name is on the list of speakers for today’s People’s Mourning Day is a coincidence. It might as well be on the list of victims of xenophobic violence whose names are yet to be read here.
Two and a half years ago, I was approached and beaten by a Nigerian. And he hit and hit and did not stop. The reason for this violence and hatred was that I had asked him to turn down the music which from his shop could be heard throughout the entire Altstadt Spandau. What had saved my life was the fact that a very athletically-built former police officer came along by chance, who had the ability and the courage to intervene. As we all know, this is an extremely rare stroke of luck, and to this stroke of luck I owe that I am standing here.
The case is in three ways characteristic: by the triviality of the event, by the excessive brutality of the reaction, and by the hatred towards the local people, which explodes at the slightest provocation.
Sure, is it a unique case, in the sense that every single case is tautologically an individual case. But as a social scientist, I cannot be satisfied with flat tautologies. When thousands and thousands of such “individual cases” follow a recognizable pattern, when repeatedly the same constellations emerge, when repeatedly the same mentality is recognized, when repeatedly the offenders come from the same group, then I cannot pretend that the victims of such crimes are only victims of general crime, which exists like a background noise in every society and always will. These violent crimes must have nameable causes.
Up to this point, presumably even leftist and liberal do-gooders would go along. The talk of the “social causes” of immigrant violence (provided it is ever named as such) is almost one of their standard phrases. By this they mean that the violent crimes committed by immigrants have social causes; but at the same time they hold that these oft-cited “individual cases” have nothing to do with each other and there is no identifiable pattern exhibited.
The ideology industry of our country will therefore have to decide on one of its two excuses, for they are logically mutually exclusive. Because an excuse is also part of the “social causes” produced incessantly by the progressive ideologues: if these ideologues—no matter whether they are politicians, journalists, religious leaders, teachers or professors—speak of “social causes”, then they do so as a norm, without having researched according to the real social causes.
The list of their so-called social causes is extremely clear: Immigrant violence is committed—according to the mainstream discourse—because immigrants are poor, the society is not integrating them enough, the fight against the far right has not been vigorous enough and—this above all—because the German racists out of pure malice discriminate against the immigrants.
I want to see one of these ideologues show me one country in the world that is less racist than Germany! Just a single one! There is no other country in the world where people are as careful as here not to infer anything about individuals from general views of ethnic groups, where it is considered as important as here to prevent prejudice in order to see each person as an individual instead of a mere instance of a group to which one attributes properties.
And this aversion against prejudice can even be dangerous. Take this Nigerian for an example: Had I had the preconception already that he was violent, I would not have gone to him, but would instead sent the police to him. That I did not have this prejudice almost cost me my life.
Let us set this straight: This is not a plea for people to orient themselves in the future towards prejudice. But it is a plea to dismiss the wholesale suspicion of the German people as a nation of racists as the baseless—and racist itself!—defamation it actually is!
The progressives never look into the real social causes of immigrant violence; they just use this violence to demand what they demand anyway and what they have been doing: the expansion of the welfare state at the expense of the taxpayer, more positions and more means of control for deserving comrades and their projects, the muzzling of their political opponents, more propaganda, more censorship and the increased intimidation and defamation of their own people. What the progressive ideologues mean by the “social causes” of immigrant violence is only one thing: that their own ideology has not been sufficiently implemented, that their owninterests have not been sufficiently served.
It is not automatic, and it does not happen by chance, that people indeed manage to live together peacefully and orderly; it is an astonishing wonder that they do. Every culture is a fine network of thousands and thousands of largely unwritten rules, values, shared memories, shared beliefs. Every culture is a unique, specific answer to the question of how people do it, and when I say “unique”, then that means inevitably these answers vary: there are cultures in which the family clan and its unconditional cohesion is the basis of society, which protects individuals, and there are on the other hand individualistically-influenced cultures like ours, in which you trust the state and the laws to provide this protection, and which relies on everyone else doing the same. There are cultures in which the ability and willingness to use force has prestige value, and there are cultures like ours in which violence is outlawed. There are cultures in which yielding is considered a sign of weakness, and there are cultures like ours, in which conflicts are regarded as mere differences of opinion, which are at best discharged discursively and at worst in court.
Yet these other cultures do not necessarily work worse than ours, but just differently. Islam, for example, does what is needed to provide a cultural system: it organizes the society. But it organizes it differently than our Christian or Western system. The problem only begins where one locks together two, three, four or more different and incompatible cultures in the same country, so they are crammed together, but do not belong together.
In wanting and introducing a multi-ethnic state, society is put in the state of an (at least) latent civil war. In running this, the society falls into a permanent structural crisis that is constantly reinforced with progressive mass immigration, which stirs up conflicts, encourages vigilantism, destroys the social consensus of values, and destroys the conditions of social peace. He who teaches his own children peacefulness does so because of ethical values ultimately rooted in Christianity. Then forcing the thus peacefully behaved people to live together with others who come from cultures married to violence—such as that Nigerian—makes them specifically and systematically victimized. This invites an endless liability.
The 7500 Germans since 1990 who have become victims of immigrant violence are victims of a policy daring enough to destroy society: out of ideological blindness; out of greed for cheap, easily exploitable labor, whose situation is precarious at the same time, for the welfare state will collapse at the point of exhaustion (this one also a quite desirable result of mass immigration for certain circles); out of hatred for his own people, those damn Germans they want nothing to do with; and—not the least—out of lust for power. There is a reason why there are elites in all Western countries who carry out the destruction of peoples and their transformation into mere splintered “populations”: peoples are in fact solidarities that can also kick their rulers out. The battle cry with which the rule of the SED [the Soviet-installed Socialist ruling party of East Germany] was overthrown 23 years ago did not read “We are the population.” It read: “We are the people!” A mere population, consisting of dozens of warring ethnicities, will never overthrow the ruler. They cannot. A democracy needs its demos. A despotism on the other hand, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime—yes, such a thing needs a population.
The destruction of the people is one side of the same coin, to which the other side is the transfer of their rights to supranational institutions: to the EU, the WTO, the IWF, the NATO, the UN and dozens else—all institutions that cannot be controlled from below, but that determine our lives: that dictate to us the rules by which we live, and dictate to us which foods we should eat, which people we have to live together with in our country, against whom we must go to war, and into what inscrutable bank-conglomerate our tax dollars disappear.
What is here in the making as understood is a global despotism of elites who resist any responsibility and any control. And the systematically induced mass migration, this largest mass migration in 1500 years—when this migration of peoples led to the collapse of Roman civilization—is part of this process.
Against today’s events it has been argued, the People’s Mourning Day is dedicated to the mourning of German war victims, and crime victims were indeed not war victims. And I say: They are just that! They are victims of a war that is being waged against all the peoples of Europe, not only against the Germans. But when I point out that a war is being waged, I have to answer the question of who the enemy is.
Are the enemy young immigrants, who lead their private jihad against the people despised by them for educating its children to peacefulness? I would say: They are at most the auxiliary, as were the Antifa: the autonomous, anti-German little leftists fighting against law with taxpayers’ money, acting all too gladly like pig-men, reveling in self-righteousness, denunciation, bullying and witch-hunt; such sort of auxiliary troops.
Might the enemy sit in the Muslim Brotherhood, or in the Turkish Government, or in the Millî Görüş? I would say: There sit at most—but still!—the rods of the auxiliary troops. No, the enemy that is waging war against this people sits here: in this building that is dedicated to this very people. And not only here: He sits not only on government chairs and parliament seats, but also in electoral offices, in ivory towers, at the headquarters of banks and large corporations, in the EU bureaucracy, on the boards of multi-billion-dollar propaganda foundations and within the luxury villas of their financiers. He sits in Berlin, in Brussels, in New York, in Washington—he sits where social power is clustered together, visible and invisible alike.
The war which has taken the victims we mourn today is a war of those in power, a tiny elite, against the rest; it is a war of the rulers against the people.
This parliament, this political class, so concerned with the political affairs of the rich and powerful, this political class has no right to grieve German dead—because they are not their dead! They have not the right to host a People’s Mourning Day, because they have broken away from their people, cheated them, betrayed them, sold them out, and now are working on their destruction! They have not even the right to, as they do now, mourn the foreign victims of right-wing extremist violence, for it is these dead too whom they have on their conscience! And the tears which they now shed are crocodile tears.
We mourn today the victims of an extremely one-sided war. It is time that the peoples of Europe accept the unspoken, but highly effective declaration of war by their so-called elites and respond appropriately.
I thank you!