Whittle on Race War, Narratives, and Political Correctness.

This one has been around since 2010 but, nothing has changed, except that Breitbart has multiplied


The origin of Political Correctness, from 2012



Some Thoughts on Ferguson; and the Police

923 (1)No, I’m not going to tell you who is right or wrong here, I don’t know, and you don’t either. Even the prosecutor doesn’t really have a handle on it yet. I can make any argument you want on it – but it all bulls**t until the facts have been found.

Still like many of you, I have become concerned with the increasing militarization of American police. In my lifetime we have gone from, if not quite Andy Griffith, Adam 12 was a fair portrait of what we expected of our police. Firm when necessary, fair, spending more time helping people than anything else, and always respectful of their boss, the taxpayer.

That started to change after the riots in 1968, when the police found themselves with several handicaps, not least being under armed, with .38 caliber revolvers and shotguns. To carry on the TV comparison, the next hit show was SWAT, and that showed us a squad of police who had special training to handle the tough chores, snipers, barricaded suspects and stuff like that. Almost universally they were part of big city police departments, and were in actuality used rarely. And that was fine with us, we understood why sometimes the patrol officer with his pistol and shotgun wasn’t enough. (In some rural areas, the shotguns were replaced by rifles, just as in the thirty’s Thompson submachine guns, while rare, did show up occasionally.)

On TV the SWAT guys showed up in a step van, which was kind of intimidating, with its dark paint and all, but it was just a truck, many of us have driven similar.

But what we’re seeing in Ferguson is so different as to defy description. These guys don’t look, or act, like American cops at all. They look, talk, and act like the armored infantry in Fallujah, and to be honest, Ferguson likely has its problems, most cities do (some local friends say the locals are actually pretty good and most of the troublemakers are from elsewhere. I have little problem believing that) but it is by no stretch of anybody’s imagination comparable to Fallujah circa 2005.

Mark Steyn wrote on this the other day and his thinking is valuable, as usual. One thing that he reminds us is that ‘the police’ is a modern idea. The Metropolitan (London) Police were the first modern force, put together by Sir Robert Peel (Thus both Bobbies in England and Peelers in Ireland), during the Duke of Wellington’s Prime Ministership. Few men have had more fear of the mob taking over. Some of my English friends have told me that this fear of the mob is why our American emphasis on the individual nonpulses them. At which point I remind them that no less than John Adams also warned about the Mobocracy.

As they got started, establishing the force Sir Robert and his people established Nine Principles of Policing. Here they are

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

  2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

  3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

  4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

  5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

  8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

  9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

It would be very well for many, many in police leadership to review these carefully and to understand that number 7 is literally true. We the people have delegated our rights and authority to them. They do not have any more power de jure than any other citizen, we just pay them to do it, so that we may pursue other things.

Note that here we are talking about the police, local and state. The Sheriff and his deputy goes far back in our history to the Shire Reeve who was responsible to the king for maintaining the King’s law in the counties of old England. Remember the Sheriff of Nottingham that chased Robin Hood (who was not the wonderful guy you’ve heard of, he was an early redistributionist, taking people’s private property to give to others who had not earned it). Marshals, I suspect, could trace their lineage back to the marshals of England, which was a military office, probably also the progenitor of Field Marshals.

Most police wear blue uniforms, leading to the phrase “The thin blue line” and that also goes back to Sir Robert. Law enforcement had traditionally been done (at least in the last resort) by the military, usually after reading the Riot Act, (see also: The Boston Massacre in 1770) and Peel wanted to differentiate his police from soldiers. British soldiers wore red uniforms of course, leading to such terms as Redcoats, and the not quite so nice Lobsterback, so Peel gave his people blue uniforms.

When we imported the idea, I suspect, in our usual method, we just brought it over lock, stock, and barrel. Maybe we made a mistake there though, While British troops traditionally wear red, American troops traditionally wear blue. maybe American police should wear red uniforms, of course then they’d look like the Mounties, and that wouldn’t be bad thing, either.

The thing is when I was young we were taught that we would act as we dressed, and just importantly, that was also how people would treat us. We would behave more like ladies and gentlemen if we dressed like it. Our sports teams were required to wear a jacket and tie (until you had an award sweater or jacket, and you still wore the tie). Basically we dressed like civilized (sort of, anyway) human beings. We almost always wore a shirt, not a t-shirt advertising something and so forth. It did no harm, and I think it instilled a sense of self-worth in us. What does that have to do with this? If you are wearing a police uniform, likely you’ll act like a police officer. Yes, I do dislike the newer uniforms with their stuffed pockets, drab gear, and ball caps. I think they reduce respect for the wearer.

But if you dress like an infantryman, you’ll likely act like one too, and that is a lot of what I see around St. Louis right now. I’m not saying those police think they are in combat, or anything else derogatory about them, I just think they would get better results looking like police officers, and not soldiers. And incidentally, my recollection is that the British down around Basra in 2004 and or so, got much better results when they took off their version of the Robocop helmets and wore there berets, on patrol. Apparently the locals found them much more approachable.

So maybe this whole militarization thing is not only wrong, for a civilian agency, but counterproductive, as well.

[Update 14:48] I take nothing I said here back but, if your would like to know what is really going on in Ferguson, go here for a local perspective. CL is one of the best bloggers I know, and never wrong on her home town. (At least as far as I know.)

Video Friday

Let’s start with Bill Whittle on Putin (Hint: he’s not a friend of freedom)


And Andrew Klavan explains income redistribution


Simplified a bit, he doesn’t account for the huge overhead involved but, he is correct.

Bill Whittle again on Robin Williams and 20 other very important people who died that day.


A few days ago, Sean Hannity interviewed PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and it’s here


And this, just to round out the day

Good v.Evil

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You know it is rare in the case of moral men, for an opponent to be so unequivalently evil as to gain condemnation from every responsible statesman, and the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, never in the lifetime of living men has the Pope issued a statement calling for the use of armies in a war of suppression. But he has in the case of ISIS.

And so the armies of freedom are gathering right? No they are not. Because in the world of relative humanism evil is the same as good. Any thinking person knows that acquiescence in evil is evil as well, and today, as the United States and Great Britain stand aside in the face of pure evil, we understand why that is so.

There are few thing so despicable as a man who will not defend his weaker brother, let alone his sister and children. This is who Obama and Cameron are. If they were better men they would be cowards, but they don’t even rise to that craven level.

There is a new Trifecta series out, as always, it is outstanding.


In a closely related matter, I understand that the White House has halted resupply to Israel of Hellfire missiles. The reason? Israel’s Army talked to the Pentagon instead of the White House.

I guess we all know what happened to the strawberries, don’t we.

We all know how this ends, don’t we? Pastor Niemöller pretty much said it all

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And so civilizations die, from the rot within, God help us.


Perfidious Albion the Anti-Semite

Courtesy of Eccles is saved

Courtesy of Eccles is saved

I dearly love my British friends, as you all know, but it takes a special kind of waffling to make Obama look like a stand-up guy. Apparently Cameron is up to that as he is few useful things. He has managed to get “a few” C-130s to fly in to help the relief effort in Iraq, but the Tornados to protect them aren’t there yet, and the Chinook helicopters haven’t even started the journey. Hope the refugees can hang on for another week or so without water and food, if they were depending on the Brits.

Not that we’re doing all that great but at least we’re doing a bit more than that. The Brits are mounting an effort that would be a credit to, oh say, Lichtenstein. But, hey, Britain thinks it’s a world power, permanent seat on the Security Council, nuclear weapons and all. Maybe Cameron is too busy down in Portugal on his holiday worshipping dead fish or something. You can find out more about that here.

This is from a Prime Minister who a few weeks back told us that Great Britain is a Christian country. Seems to me that he lends a lot of weight to GK Chesterton’s comment that, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

Of course, I’ll have to admit that he got a lot of blowback for saying it, guess he was wrong.

But what really set me off yesterday, was the news that Britain has decided that if the Gaza war starts up again, they will suspend arm shipments to Israel. That’s rich, nothing like giving Hamas control of Israeli arm purchases. Johnathon S. Tobin over at Commentary magazine has the best write-up of this that I have seen, here’s some of it. Of course nothing will be done to curtail the funding of Hamas (or the Russians for that matter)

The rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe has been harder to ignore in the last month. The war in Gaza has given a green light for Jew haters to take to the streets of the continent’s cities to vent their spleen at Israel’s efforts to defend itself against Islamists intent on genocide. But the decision of Britain’s government to threaten the Jewish state with a ban on arms sales shows just how far the discussion about the Middle East conflict has been perverted by prejudice.

The announcement that the UK would suspend arms exports to Israel if the fighting in Gaza were to resume is a victory for the Liberal Democratic members of Britain’s coalition government over its Conservative majority. Tory Prime Minister David Cameron has not always been the most stalwart friend of Israel during his term of office but he has stood up for Israel’s right of self-defense after Hamas launched a new war in which it rained down thousands of rockets on Israeli cities and used terror tunnels to breach the border. But his allies in Westminster are hardened foes of Israel and, aided by the pressure generated by massive anti-Israel demonstrations, have worn down Cameron.

The advocates of this semi-embargo claim it is nothing more than an assertion of British neutrality in the conflict. The fact that they have not included the sale of components of the Iron Dome missile defense system purchased in Britain is also seen as a gesture indicating their good will toward Israel even as they push for a cessation of hostilities.

Later he hit on exactly what I thought of, as the perfect comparison

How would the Brits have treated a decision on the part of the United States in 1940 to approve the sale of anti-aircraft guns to the one nation standing alone against the Nazis, but not other armaments designed to take the fight to Germany? The fact that it doesn’t seem to occur to anyone in the British government that such an analogy is spot on speaks volumes about the level of prejudice against Israel.

Via  UK Arms and the War on the Jews

And yes, it looks exactly the same to me.

I’m one of the last hold-outs that the British are still a member of the group of people who believe in freedom; that wrote the book on human rights. Because that book was written by the United Kingdom and the United States. By the time we willingly spent 600,000 lives of our citizens to end slavery here, Britain had spent several hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling as prize money to the Royal Navy to capture slave ships. This was how human rights became enshrined, Britain and America forced the issue.

If Britain can no longer tell the difference between freedom loving people and terrorists, then they have become more useless than the French, who are at least willing to give shelter to the Iraqi Christians and Yezidis.

America’s friends, as opposed to her interests, have always been friends of freedom, that’s why Great Britain has been foremost amongst them. It seems that has changed, and the British are no more than an European colony anymore. That’s OK, I suppose, we can always hang out with Israel, where they know the cost of freedom, because they learned it in the same way as we did, with blood.

And in case no one told you, the casualty figures that the UN pushes are straight from Hamas’ hindquarters and any resemblance to reality is accidental.

Rue, Britannia! Britannia, now the knaves!
Britons ever, ever, ever shall be slaves.

The Rhymes of History: OODA Edition

156635-ISIS-largeThis is pretty interesting, and we would be well to file it in the “Rhymes of history” file. Whatever happens-it has before, probably often. Here’s Thomas Fleming bringing advice from George Washington to our present problems.

Another way to phrase this, that I use, it was developed by an Air force officer, is the OODA Loop. It’s a good guide to gaining and maintaining the initiative. I wrote some about it here. The problem here is mostly with the ‘Observe’ part. our NCA seems to be totally oblivious to anything except fundraising, and when he does do something it is too little-too late, and often the wrong thing anyway.

Channeling George: Regaining the Initiative

“By the spring of 1972, President Nixon’s decision to ‘Vietnamize’ the war was in full swing. He had withdrawn almost all our combat troops. Only a few hundred advisors remained behind, working with various South Vietnamese divisions. The overconfident North Vietnamese launched an offensive aimed at ending the war. It was a disaster for them. They were defeated everywhere. Their worst humiliation came in the town of An Loc, where a South Viet force, outnumbered five to one, held out while American airpower pulverized the attackers. Suddenly we saw a way to seize and keep the initiative without recommitting large numbers of American infantry.”[...]

“Like President Truman in Korea, President George W. Bush found a commander who knew how to deal with the situation. General David Petraeus saw that the real problem was our inability to retain control of towns and cities where we had defeated the enemy. As we moved on to other embattled sites, the enemy, in standard guerilla fashion, infiltrated men and weapons into the supposedly pacified territory, and resumed their destructive tactics, with the help of the intimidated local population. Petraeus’s answer to this was “The Surge.” With forty thousand reinforcements, he was able to keep the places we pacified under our control, and the peace-hungry majority soon turned pro-American. That is how we regained the initiative in Iraq and won the war.”

“But it hasn’t stayed won, alas.”

“That’s because President Obama, pressured by the left wing of the Democratic Party, withdrew too many troops too soon, and there were enough guerrillas still in the game to take advantage of it. When a President listens to domestic politicians instead of to his generals, we have a veritable formula for losing the initiative.

- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/156635#sthash.cTIYFW28.dpuf

via History News Network | Channeling George: Regaining the Initiative.

He’s indisputably right, of course. What he doesn’t talk about is the parallels with Carter as well. Especially the utter inability to see that not everybody in the world is like them, some are far more ruthless, and likely motivated by things that we do not even start to understand.

To me, our biggest problem here, though is that we have utterly lost the initiative to a bunch of rabid barbarians, and the Iraqi minorities are paying a horrendous price for out cluelessness. Obama can blame the intelligence agencies all he desires, it’s an utterly transparent lie. It has been obvious for months, if not years, even in the middle of the country. The only reason for not seeing it, is an unwillingness to face reality.

Unless, and until, we regain the initiative, it is going to get worse, maybe much worse. This is not the mostly rational Soviet Union we are (sort-of) fighting here.

Cavafy comes to mind again.

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.

Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.

Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city’s main gate
on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
replete with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don’t our distinguished orators come forward as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.

Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people’s faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.

And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution

%d bloggers like this: