Britain’s global role: stepping up

Fallon

Some of you were surprised, I suspect, that I was (and am) quite taken by Theresa May as Britain’s Prime Minister. It’s true enough that I likely share more beliefs with Andrea Leedsom. But politics is the art of the possible, and in Mrs. May I saw a chance for Britain to resume its confident way, and more than anything for the Conservative Party to reunify. I don’t have many Britons horror of Nigel Farage and the UKIP. In fact, I like them, and think them very good for Britian, but that horror is there.

But one of the things we all expect from Britain is confidence in defense (or should that be defence) matters. And it looks to me that in Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defense, Mrs. May chose well. I’d like to see Americans once again speak as clearly.

FROM THE MoD…

Speech by Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defence.

This year marks 70 years on from Winston Churchill’s famous speech “The Sinews of Peace” delivered in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946 in which he talked about the “special relationship.”

While that phrase is well known, it is perhaps less well known that Churchill was in the United States to receive an honorary degree from Westminster College.

An apt name as Westminster was the place he received a large part of his political education.
And Churchill more than anyone seemed to embody the will of the British people.

To the extent that both sides in the recent Referendum campaign sought to claim that he would have backed their particular position.

We can’t ever be sure how Churchill would have voted.

We do know that whatever the outcome he would have accepted the result, rolled up his sleeves and got on and delivered using all the considerable powers at his command to help us forge a new path.

Now I’m very much aware that vote has raised questions about the implications for Britain’s role in the world.

I’m here to assure you that we have a new Prime Minister

…technically a new government

…who wants Britain to continue to play a global role

…a government that is determined to make Brexit a success

…but a government that will put security front and centre of its efforts.

Today I’d like to set out the UK’s government’s approach.

It is based around 3 things.

1. Defence of our values

First, on the defence of our values of democracy, of the rule of law, and of freedom.

Back in that speech of 1946, Churchill memorably imagined an “Iron Curtain” spreading from east to west across Europe.

Today the Cold War is over but new threats continue… that spread an equally serious shadow.

In recent weeks we’ve seen the horrific truck attack on innocent men, women and children from France enjoying a summer’s evening on Bastille Day.

That attack and the others we’ve seen over the last year in places as far apart as Orlando, Brussels, Paris, Ankara, and Baghdad are similar r manifestations of extremism.

This isn’t the only danger we’re facing.

We’re seeing a resurgent Russia and a more assertive China.

We’re seeing North Korea continuing to rattle the nuclear sabre.

We’re seeing cyber attacks on states as well as companies and hybrid warfare.

Dangers which, taken together, seek to undermine our rules based international order on which the security and prosperity of ourselves and the next generation depend.

Like Churchill, we believe Britain, like the US, has a responsibility not just to defend its own security but the global system itself.

And we do have have the will and intent to respond to those threats whenever, or wherever, they come from.

Thanks to the Strategic Defence and Security Review we published before the end of last year, we are going to match that will with greater capacity.

Our SDSR gives us stronger defence with more than $200 billion to spend over the next 10 years on a more agile Joint Force with more ships, more planes, more troops at readiness, better equipment for Special Forces, and increased spend on cyber.

Let me tell you about those forces.

Last year our forces were active all round the world.

Some 80,000 soldiers deployed on more than 383 commitments during the year.

More than 30,000 sailors deployed, on over 700 ship visits, from Africa to Asia, Europe to Latin America.

More than 10,000 Royal Air Force personnel deployed in over 60 countries on operations, training exercises and defence engagement.

And we will have a similar level of effort this year.

2. Stronger NATO, stronger defence

My second point is that to defend our values we will rely on a stronger more united NATO.

And we ill continue helping that alliance to adapt.

Two years ago our Prime Minister, David Cameron then stood with your President at the Wales Summit and challenged other nations to step up, to spend more on defence and new capabilities.

Since then we have led by example.

And having honoured our pledge to meet the 2% target we’re now seeing other nations follow suit.

Twenty allies have now increased their spending since Wales and the overall decline in alliance defence spending has been halted.

As well as increasing spending, NATO has now agreed its Readiness Action Plan to ensure that the allies can respond swiftly and strongly.

Once more the UK is at the forefront of these efforts.

Our Typhoons are today conducting Baltic air-policing missions from a base in Estonia.

Our ships are making a significant contribution to NATO’s naval forces.

And we will lead NATO’s Very High Readiness Taskforce next year, with 3,000 UK troops ready to deploy within days.

And at last month’s Warsaw Summit we again helped to lead the way as NATO adapted its deterrence posture to challenges from east and south.

In the east, we are helping to reinforce the Wales’ commitment to act against aggression by delivering an enhanced forward presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

The UK is one of four nations to lead a framework battalion, including the United States.

These battalions will be defensive in nature, but fully combat capable. Our force will be located in Estonia with 2 UK companies, a headquarters element and equipment including armoured vehicles, Javelin anti-tank guided missiles and mortars.

That contribution will be underpinned by our network of allies, including our partnerships with the French and the Danes… “multi-national by design”, reflecting the “international by design” approach in our SDSR.

In addition, to positing a formed Battalion to Estonia we will also deploy a company group of troops to Poland.

We also continue to train the Ukrainian Armed Forces with a further 4,000 troops due to be trained by this year.

All this is NATO’s response to Russian aggression.

A response rooted in balancing strong defence and dialogue.

Dialogue where it is right and in our interests to deliver hard messages to promote transparency and build the understanding necessary to avoid the risk of miscalculation.

As well as its efforts in the east, the alliance is also enhancing its role in the south.

We are increasingly seeing unstable, or fragile states threaten our collective security.

Putting a greater onus on NATO’s role in tackling potential conflict at source.

And following the Wales Summit NATO now has a defence capacity building initiative, to provide more tailored support to project stability.

And we will conduct more training and capacity building under a NATO auspices inside Iraq.

NATO’s biggest operation is its Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. That mission has helped local forces take on the responsibility for providing security across their country.

As a leading member of NATO, it is right that we stand by our allies and the Afghan people as they seek to build a safer Afghanistan because that also helps to keep our streets safe.

So next year, we will be increasing our t troop contribution by 10% to help build the capacity of the Afghan security institutions. And let me welcome the United States’ on going commitment to that particular mission.

Finally, we have promoted and supported initiatives that respond to the longer-term demands of 21st century warfare with initiatives on cyber and hybrid warfare among others agreed at Warsaw.

Nuclear deterrent

But if our defence and deterrence are to retain their credibility, they must respond to both conventional and nuclear dangers.

NATO remains a nuclear alliance, and our independent nuclear deterrent in Britain makes a key contribution to the overall security of the alliance.

That’s contribution recognised by the Warsaw Communiqué, and I quote:

“The independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France have a deterrent role of their own and contribute to the overall security of the alliance. These allies’ separate centres of decision making contribute to deterrence by complicating the calculations of potential adversaries.”

And what’s clear to us, as the world becomes more dangerous and unpredictable, is that the nuclear threat has not gone away. If anything, it is increasing.

We can’t today second guess the sorts of extreme threats to our very existence that we might face in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s.

So our deterrent gives us that priceless advantage so that our adversaries know that the cost of an attack on the UK or our allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain.

So our Defence Review committed to building 4 new Successor submarines to replace the Vanguard class which start going out of service in the early 2030s.

On Monday this week the Prime Minister made it her first duty in Parliament to lead the debate on renewing that nuclear deterrent.

And the House of Commons voted by an overwhelming majority of 355, over 100 more than when it was last debated in 2007, to maintain our deterrent to protect our way of life and that of our allies.

3. US-UK partnership

A powerful NATO is vital to our future.

So too are our key bilateral relationships.

And leaving the EU means will be we will be working harder to commit to NATO and our key allies.

We are now focused on reshaping our relationship with Europe, restoring sovereignty to the British Parliament but making sure our security, and trading relationship remain strong, while we forge new relationships right across the globe

70 years on from Churchill’s speech, the UK still has no stronger ally than the US.

We’re proud that together we continue to lead the world on security.

Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in our operations against Daesh.

At the end of last year, the UK erased the stain of its previous Syria vote in Parliament in 2013 with the new Parliament voting overwhelmingly to extend our airstrikes from Iraq to Syria.

Since then we’ve upped the intensity of our efforts.

Our aircrews have conducted more airstrikes in Iraq and Syria than any other country other than the United States.

Our aircraft are co-ordinating Coalition aircraft and providing a significant amount of the Coalition’s overall ISR.

And those collective efforts are paying off. Daesh has lost 40% of the territory it once held. Major progress has been made in the key cities of Ramadi, Hit and Fallujah.

But we’re going this year to go further.

At the Counter Daesh ministerial. which I have just come from, we have focused on reviewing our campaign plan and building on the progress we’ve already seen in the Euphrates River Valley and Tigris River Valley.

And we are responding to calls for the Coalition to accelerate its efforts by increasing our presence in Iraq.

We will be sending additional trainers to Al Asad Airbase in Western Iraq to instruct more Iraqi Troops in how they counter improvised explosive devices, improve infantry skills and provide combat first aid.

Those extra trainers will be working closely with US and Danish forces, providing training to the Iraqi Army 7th Division to their Border Guards and Federal Police.

We’re providing more people to assist in guarding the airbase, personnel to form an HQ to command the mission, and an engineering squadron to build the necessary infrastructure.

Those efforts as part of the Counter-Daesh coalition are just a small illustration of our co-operation with the US.

A collaboration as broad as it is deep.

And that joint-working is only set to intensify.

On exercises we’ve recently agreed to integrate a UK division more effectively into a US corps.

And on equipment there’s on going collaboration on F-35 and a week ago we saw this fifth generation fighter soaring over our new Queen Elizabeth carrier from whose decks they will fly in years to come.

And I look forward to the day when not only do our planes fly from your carriers but your planes too fly from ours.

And our carriers will be protected by another of our new equipment collaborations.

Our 9 new P-8 maritime patrol aircraft whose multi-billion dollar purchase I announced last week…alongside a further decision to buy 50 Apache attack helicopters.

But besides thinking of today’s technologies, we’re looking together with the US to tomorrow’s.

Last year, on his visit to London, Ash Carter and I challenged our 2 teams to develop together new technologies, new disruptive capabilities and new concepts of operation.

And we’re now seizing on the exciting opportunities. Last week, we announced the first project to develop autonomous robotic technologies…driverless technology that can ferry equipment over that last, most dangerous mile up to the frontline

That’s the kind of collaboration that will help us maintain the West’s technological edge.

And it’s that fraternal association between Britain and the US that Churchill was speaking about 70 years ago when he said:

“If all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high roads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come”

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me reassure you, Britain is not stepping back. On the contrary, we’re stepping up.

Standing up for our values.

Strengthening NATO.

Backing our nuclear deterrent.

And seeking a stronger alliance than ever with you in the US.

There’s been much speculation in recent weeks about our defence and security policy.

Let me reassure you.

The UK is leaving the EU.

But we’ve not forgotten that deterrence and defence are underpinned by cohesion and solidarity.

We’re still committed to those vital sinews of peace.

And we remain committed to European security and we are not turning our back on Europe or the world.

from Ministry of Defence – Activity on GOV.UK http://ift.tt/2adSNZ6

 

via Speech: Britain’s global role: stepping up – Think Defence

Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

An interesting follow-on from the GOP convention, and many bad things happening in the world.

Gay rights activists have not traditionally found a political home on the right. Yet gay activist and alternative-right icon Milo Yiannopoulus wants to change that, arguing that while the Republican party may not love homosexuality, Islam wants gays dead, and therefore gay people should support Trump (who Milo calls “Daddy”).

This was the theme of “WAKE UP,” billed as “the most fab party at the RNC,” which brought Milo together with controversial activist Pamela Geller who has gained notoriety for her “Draw Mohammed”cartoon competition as well as billboards in New York which read: “In the war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The event was panned by media outlets such as Salon in a piece which shrugged off the event as a “virulently anti-Islam party at the RNC” and The Nation, which slammed it as “Islamophobes, White Supremacists, and Gays for Trump—the Alt-Right Arrives at the RNC.”

Teen Vogue said the event “perpetuates Islamophobia.” The Nation’s piece revealed the alarmingly open presence of white nationalists at the event and the seemingly small numbers of gay people who showed up.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who spoke at the event, referred to Europe as “Eurabia” and said, “Islam is the problem.”

If they would have looked to France, they would have seen that gay support for the far right has already happened there. In 2015 a national scandal occurred when it emerged that the winner of France’s largest gay magazine’s beauty contest was an outspoken supporter of France’s right wing Front Nationale.

As early as 2012, 26% of the gay community in Paris supported the Front Nationale, as opposed to 16% of straight people.

The rationale is startlingly simple. Milo’s cult status as an online provocateur has been generated by making controversial statements and pushing the accepted boundaries of discussion. He has been able to tap into the large and growing alt-right movement — a disparate collection of mostly young white males who support socially liberal policies but who hold the left in contempt for their perceived abandonment of liberal values when it comes to human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam.

Because of this, Milo and others make the argument that only the right will stand up to defend gay people against Islamist extremism.

The movement also partially consists of white nationalists and racists, who are able to maintain their foothold because they have consistently spoken out against radical Islam (and indeed Islam in general.)

Put simply, people would rather be racist than dead.

That’s very true, of course, even very socially conservatives don’t want to kill gays. They may want to ‘cure’ them or ‘convert’ them or something of that nature, but they universally realize that conversion at the muzzle of a gun is likely to be insincere, and invalid.

Personally, I would be more pleased if the gay activists would realize that many of us, on the right, simply don’t care, in civil manners about any groups, our quest is for individual rights for each and every one. What Martin Luther King referred to as the content of the character, rather than the color of the skin (and we could easily add sexual preference to that). That underpins all of our belief structure, including the free market.

However the ideology in question is not Islam, as Geert Wilders would argue, but is Islamism, the theocratic political project which seeks to impose the religion of Islam over everyone in the world and implementsharia governance, complete with hudud punishments. This ideology does threaten the freedoms of all Americans.

Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is not only morally wrong, but also facilitates the very thinking propagated by the Islamic State and other Islamist groups –- by dividing the world into two camps, Muslims and non-Muslims.

However, the refusal of the elites around the world — with a few notable exceptions such as the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron — to correctly name and challenge the issue has created a vacuum.

People know there is a problem and know that it needs to be tackled.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) object to billboards calling on Muslims to talk to the FBI if they become suspicious of terrorism, when President Obama and Hillary Clinton point blank refuse to name the ideology at fault, people will start to draw their own conclusions about who is to blame and take action accordingly.

via Critics of “Gays for Trump” Party Miss the Point |

And so our elites themselves have prepared the battleground for the battle between the west, and not our real enemy radical Islam, but Islam itself, and quite possibly our own elites, as well. But we should forestall that, for defeating the wrong army is not victory. We need discernment in our leaders as much as we need courage enough to see and identify the enemy. And yes, there is one, and no it is not Islam. It is radical Islam, and when we fight this battle, we will do enough inadvertent damage to Islam, without confusing Islam itself with it in our minds.

This is the mistake that our political leadership (all across the west) makes. The west will be defended in the end, but there should be enough leadership to show that proper targeting will save many, many lives, on both sides.

I see little reason to fear radical Islam once proper defense measures are put in place, ones that do not overly infringe on our desiderata: individual freedom. But we have leadership that appears to be using radical Islam as a means to control their own populations, rather than defend our civilization. That is unlikely to end well for them, for us, or for Islam.

Brexit: a Month On

w10564Well, we are a month on from the Brexit vote, and it still echoes around Europe and indeed the west. Perhaps it would be a good time to review.

Everything is connected: Brexit, Trump, le Pen, Isis – even Ghostbusters. They’re all part of the same story.

It’s been nearly a month since the Brexit vote and Remainers are still in a daze. Most struggle to articulate why it’s so emotional, why we feel so bereft and angry. Surely this isn’t all for the EU itself, an institution no-one showed any real love for in the years leading up to the referendum, or even now as we hope to get back in. […]

It’s because this was never about the EU. This was the culture war. It is the single greatest question of our lifetime, the one which defines this moment for the West: do we accept globalisation? Do we share goods and people and culture across the world, or do we retreat into our closed identities? Nativism versus globalism.[…]

This correlates to the chaotic changes we’ve seen in the two main Westminster parties. Labour is in a state of absolute disarray, but the clash of personalities just reflects a deeper ideological malaise. Immigration is a wound at the heart of the party, preventing it from bringing together traditional support in its northern working class heartlands with middle class liberalism in London and the cities.

The Tories would be in precisely the same state right now if it weren’t for one little rule, a very sensible rule which has saved them as a functioning party: the three month window between membership and voting for the leader.[…]

Look overseas and see our own problems mirrored a thousand times over. Donald Trump is a walking Brexit. Where the phrase ‘take back control’ dominated the referendum, he promises a wall against Mexico and a ban on Muslims entering the US. But it’s not just the policy – the emotions are identical too. Take Trump’s promise to make Mexico pay for the wall. That’s the real kicker in the policy. Crowds at his rallies love the way it implies strength, total dominance, superiority. It is identical to the swaggering ignorance of Brexiters talking about how the EU will accept whatever trade deal we give it, or how Brussels doesn’t get to call the shots anymore. It’s the emotional frustration of those who feel powerless, disguised with bravado.

via A new politics forms in the furnace of Brexit

In a way, it’s funny: I (and many conservatives) am at heart a free trader. Like many of us, I recognize that the best chance for our poor to have upward mobility includes free trade, not least because protectionism mostly hurts the poor. If you doubt that a visit to WalMart will disabuse you. Free trade provides many, many things at a low cost that without other countries would be very expensive indeed, if even available. Like your Chinese made iPhone. But, we almost all, at least American ones, supported Brexit. Why, because from our vantage point, we could see that the EU had become the problem, not part of the solution. A protectionist continent, that was doing undue harm on its inhabitants. I wanted to say citizens in that sentence, but Europeans had long lost control of the bureaucracy of the EU. We, or at least me, don’t see the Brexiteers as little Englanders so much as we see the Remainers as little Europeans; and the Brexiteers as a free trade possibility for us.

What Mr. Dunt says above about the referendum as part of a larger story that includes Trump and le Pen is, I think, true, although I think ISIS is a point too far. ISIS is, I think, merely reacting to weakness in the west, and an inability to effectively defend ourselves. Yes, part of it is related to our mishandling of the middle east going back at least to Sykes-Picot, but that’s not really that novel anymore is it.

Chalcedon makes the point this morning that the founders of the EU were profoundly influenced by their Catholic heritage. I think him correct, as usual. He decries that England specifically lacks that heritage. Also true, but perhaps that is why England above all had the vision to see that the EU had become unfit for purpose, and should be scrapped, as it scrapped the hierarchy of the Catholic church during the English Reformation.

Theodore Dalrymple also wrote on this recently, his thoughts are also interesting.

[…]Certainly, many young people selectively interviewed by the media said that they felt that their future had been stolen from them by those who voted for Brexit. (The fact that the youth unemployment rate in Belgium and France was 25 percent, in Portugal 30 percent, in Italy 39 percent, in Spain 45 percent and Greece 49 percent did not seem to worry them. They were not of the youth-unemployment class.) And it was the old, who predominantly voted to leave, who had snatched their glorious future from them.

Actually, this is not the whole truth. The proportion of the electorate who voted in the referendum increased sharply with age, those over 80 being more than twice as likely to vote as the young, despite it requiring much more of a physical effort for them to do so. It seems, then, that the elderly care more about the future of their country, or have a greater sense of civic responsibility, than the young.[…]

The statistical correlation between both age and relatively low levels of education, on the one hand, and a vote to leave on the other, was much remarked upon, not only in Britain but throughout Europe and the rest of the world.[…] And only the young and educated know what the right way is.

While age is certainly not a guarantee of political wisdom, the ever-increasing experience of life might be expected to conduce to it.[…]

The relation between political wisdom and levels of education is far from straightforward. It was educated people who initiated and carried out the Terror in the French Revolution. The Russian Revolution, and all the great joy that it brought to the Russian people, was the denouement of decades of propaganda and agitation by the educated elite. There was no shortage of educated people among the Nazi leadership. And the leaders of the Khmer Rouge were also relatively highly-educated, as it happens in France. The founder of Sendero Luminoso, who might have been the Pol Pot of Peru, was a professor of philosophy who wrote his doctoral thesis on Kant.

via: Who Understands the European Project?

And so, in some sense, you pays your money and makes your choice, but I think it very important that we don’t make the mistake of considering these things in their own little vacuum bags, what happens in Europe affects America, and vice-versa. If we don’t defend the least (pick whatever measure you prefer) of our citizens, we defend none of them, and that is where ISIS enters the equation. But we also owe them the duty not to arbitrarily make their lives worse, and that is exactly what protectionism will do. It was no coincidence that because FDR continued and strengthened Hoovers anti-trade policies, the Great Depression continued and worsened until World War Two ended it. That is not a good model to follow. We should learn from history, not strive to repeat it.

American Society on the Brink

Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote an article in National Review which makes a good follow-on for yesterday’s article here. Overall, VDH isn’t as optimistic as Brandon Smith. He sees the racial divide (and the racialism) in America as approaching (or perhaps past) the tipping point, that will divide the country for a long time to come. I think his point is valid and shows us what may well be in store.

We watched the other week as Britain nearly tore itself asunder, as the Remainers acted badly as a result of losing the referendum, and I probably don’t need to remind many Americans that the Republican Convention is next week, in Cleveland. There are many threats flying about the internet, and while many are just big talk, it won’t take many to make even more of a mess of it than the party has done on its own. Here’s some of VDH.

“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact with police).

**************************

Multicultural societies — from 19th-century Austria–Hungary to contemporary Iraq, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda — have a poor record of keeping the peace between competing tribes. They usually end up mired in nihilistic and endemic violence.

The only hope for history’s rare multiracial, multiethnic, and multireligious nations is to adopt a common culture, one that artificially suppresses the natural instinct of humans to identify first with their particular tribe. America, in the logical spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was exceptional among modern societies in slowly evolving from its original, largely European immigrant population to a 21st-century assimilated, integrated, and intermarried multiracial society, in which religious and racial affiliations were incidental, not essential, to one’s public character and identity.

But such a bold experiment was always tenuous and against the cruel grain of history, in which the hard work of centuries could be easily torn apart by the brief demagoguery of the moment. Unfortunately, President Obama, ever since he first appeared on the national political scene in 2008, has systematically adopted a rhetoric and an agenda that is predicated on dividing up the country according to tribal grievances, in hopes of recalibrating various factions into a majority grievance culture. In large part, he has succeeded politically. But in doing so he has nearly torn the country apart. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that no other recent president has offered such a level of polarizing and divisive racial bombast.

Most recently, without citing any facts about the circumstances of the police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana, Barack Obama castigated the police and the citizenry on their culpability for racial disparity and prejudicial violence. “[T]hese fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal-justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.” Obama did not yet know the race of the policemen involved (as in the case of Baltimore, the Minnesota shooting involved non-white officers), the circumstances that led to the shootings, or the backgrounds of either the officers or their victims.

Shortly afterwards, twelve Dallas law-enforcement officers were shot, and five of them killed, by a black assassin who declared solidarity with Black Lives Matter and proclaimed his hatred for white law enforcement. That outbreak prompted Obama to take to the podium again to recalibrate his earlier message. This time he amplified his gun-control message, and somewhat delusionally added that the upswing in racial polarization did not imperil national unity — in much the same way that, in years past, he had announced that al-Qaeda was on the run, we were leaving behind a stable Iraq, and ISIS was a jayvee organization. Note the Obama editorial method in the case of police incidents, from Skip Gates to Louisiana and Minnesota: He typically speaks before he has the facts, and when subsequent information calls into question his talking points and theorizing, he never goes back and makes the corrections. Nor does he address facts — from Ferguson to Dallas — that do not fit his political agenda. Finally, a police shooting of an African-American suspect is never an “isolated event,” while the shooting of an officer by a black assassin is isolated and never really thematic of any larger racial pathology.

via American Society on the Brink | National Review

And still, it needs to be said that the police shoot, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of those they come in contact with, more white males than any other group. But of course, facts don’t matter, especially if it conflicts with the narrative. By the way, I suspect we are all aware that that the homicide rate in the US is lower than it has been since 1973 or so, even with the war zones we call Chicago, Detroit, and others.

So, we are simply being fed a line, by our administration, and by the news media (redundancy alert, of course), even after the administration said flat out that they are a bunch of semi-useful idiots.

It comes down to this: Whoever or whatever team Obama is playing for, it’s not the team that wants to promote racial harmony and self-sufficiency in America. And you can safely bet that the unfriendly part of the world is watching, and laughing at us as America tears itself, and western civilization apart.

The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose

quiblepenglobalismThis is quite interesting. I’m not sure if I completely follow his reasoning (I think I do in the main). His supposition comes down to the old one that there is something innate in human beings to seek after liberty, which is I think, beyond rational debate. So, read carefully, it is a bit dense at places; and enjoy. I surely did.

Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists.  It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However,everyone can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that probably does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood.”

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when facing rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “populism”

via The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose – Personal Liberty®

One thing I would caution the globalists amongst us about is this. Almost everybody harboring these type of dreams, sees themselves as in control, they won’t be, in probably 99% of the cases, the will simply be given enough power to do what they are told to do, without any authority at all to think. Strikes me as a very sterile existence.

The US government was expressly designed to guard against this type of thing, and that is why ‘Job 1’ for these types is to subvert “Rule through and under the law”, always remember that, you don’t have to believe the conspiracy (I too think it is mostly ephemeral, not explicit) to see the dangerous results.

And a word of caution, not everyone who makes noises like they belong to what the author calls ‘the Liberty Movement’ does, many are simply mouthing the words for their own gain. You (and I) need to make our own choices about who really wants freedom. Many are simply contesting who is in charge. And be assured, the media is most assuredly not on the side of freedom.

Chilcot

2563 (1)If you missed it, yesterday morning the British published a report on the Iraq War. It’s two and a half million words, took thirteen years to prepare, and it says very little we didn’t know thirteen years ago. Chalcedon of at Jess’ site has written about it, better than I can. And yes, I believe it applies almost word for word to the United States, as well.

So, we know now what most of us thought we knew, which is that the Iraq war was undertaken because America wanted it and because Tony Blair wanted to stay in with America; not much to surprise us there. Victory has many fathers, and had things gone well, then many would have been claiming the credit; given that it did not, defeat, or at least this level of failure, ensured the opposite – that no one would claim paternity.

I began my academic career by studying the very first Anglo-American occupation – Operation ‘Torch’, the invasion of French North Africa in November 1942. I came to the conclusion that it was ineptly planned in terms of the follow through because no one on either side had bothered to think about the politics of the aftermath of a successful invasion. So, when it transpired that one of the Vichy leaders, Admiral Darlan, was in Algiers, the Americans cut a deal with him and then wondered why the press in America and Britain, and the Soviets, all complained that they were dealing with a Nazi collaborator. The same thing was true of planning for the 1944 D day invasion, when, again, the Allies planned to govern France and found that the French wanted to govern themselves-  and went ahead and did so. Much the same failures marked the Iraq invasion. Over-sanguine assumptions about how an invasion would be received, and over-optimistic calculations about how the invaded territories would be governed. So, whatever Chilcot implies, there is nothing new about the failures of Bush and Blair here. Churchill and Roosevelt were very fortunate no one conducted an 8 year inquiry into their conduct of those operations; none would have escaped whipping.

Blair did nothing that most post-war Prime Ministers have not done – he decided that at all costs Britain must keep step with America; Churchill started that line, Macmillan restored it after Eden broke it at Suez, and Thatcher and Blair perfected it. Those who think Britain should have an independent foreign policy, but who also distrust the EU, have a duty to explain just how such a foreign policy could be run in the absence of cooperation with the USA.

via Failure is always an orphan: reflections on Chilcot (1)

And I’ll add just a smidgen from today’s

The parallels between the reaction to Chilcot and Brexit ought to worry us. In spite of 2.6 million words which show that Blair believed the intelligence he was given, those who had already decided he was lying maintain it is so. Evidence? Experts? They don’t need those things, they have feelings, they are that most coveted of modern phenomena – ‘victims’. Chilcot thinks Blair should have challenged the Intelligence reports, but omits to specify on what grounds? Imagine for a moment that, as the Intelligence said, Saddam still had WMDs (he had had them, he had lied about having them, and he had used them in the past) and Blair had refused to believe it – and Saddam used them. Can you imagine what Blair’s critics would have said about his hubris in ignoring what every expert had warned him about? So, the experts were wrong? That happens sometimes, experts are just that, people with experience using their best judgment; they are not the Pope pronouncing on matters of faith and morals.

via The politics of emotion: Chilcot (2)

That happens sometimes (far too often actually), the experts were wrong. In fact, they’ve been wrong so often, that experts are in disrepute. Yes, to an extent with me as well. But the real problem with Iraq, was just as Chalcedon states above, like Torch, we had no realistic plan for victory, we started bringing troops home, and left a vacuum, and terrorism loves a vacuum. Eventually, Bush listened to some experts on the ground, and went with the surge, and we had it won, pretty much. All we really had to do at that point is stay on the ground, and keep watch, it was safer than being a cop in Chicago.

Then we bugged out because Obama didn’t have the stomach to continue the skeer. Now we have a horrendous mess, that has killed more Iraqis than Saddam and the US together. That’s why you must finish the mission. It’s also a testament to the futility of nation building, not to mention mission creep. Napoleon once said you can do anything with bayonets, except sit on them. He should have taken his own advice, he might not have ended up on St. Helena.

But he didn’t, and neither did the British, nor did we, and so now, as it has been for most of history, the Middle East is a dog’s breakfast, and the chaos is spreading into our homes as well. Quite a legacy.

%d bloggers like this: