National Security

Time to End This Nonsense

Mark Noonan6 Comments

Of course it was a Muslim migrant let in without vetting under Biden who ended up overstaying his visa. That was the intent – the American (and global) Left wanted this to happen. And all over the West. We can see what its doing in Europe…the more people killed by Muslim migrants, the more restrictions are placed on the native European population. There’s a proposal in Britain right now to do away with jury trials for a host of offenses…to allow a single judge to decide. Because that makes it easier for the court to rule against the native Brit in conflicts with the migrants. It works a bit different here in the USA because of our Constitution and the fact that the people are armed…but make no mistake about it, the project remains the same: use migrant violence to intimidate the native population into submission (the migrants get the payoff in the form of massive welfare fraud that the Left allows to happen). If we had a Democrat trifecta right now, the whole thing about be about new laws against “racism” and gun ownership.

How can I say this with such certainty? Simple: Morocco.

Here’s a picture of the capital city, Rabat:

Not bad looking, huh? In fact, pretty darned nice. Like maybe even a place you, personally, would like to visit. Of course you might – it is a well-known tourist destination for Europeans. Not so much for us because it is pretty far away but, still. Also, of course, an overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

So why don’t the Muslim migrants go there? Or to Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia? You know, the Muslim nations in the world which aren’t basket cases? Why?

Because those nations would kill you if you tried to go Islamist. They aren’t stupid. They know what these people are – barbarians heavily influenced by the species of Islam which likes to blow things up. If you’ve got any sense at all you never allow such people into your country…even if you share the same religion and culture. It would be like Americans looking high and low around the world and trying to find Klansmen to import. Why the heck would you do that?

And, guys, don’t get hung up on the Islam thing. I know that some are saying that we need a total ban on Islam in the USA. No. Just no. The fact that Morocco exists shows that Muslims are not inherently flawed. They’re perfectly fine in Morocco and non-Muslims visiting are treated very well, everyone has a good time and on Sunday you can openly go to Mass…and if you’re Jewish, head on over to Temple Beth-el in Casablanca for Shabbat. Not saying things are perfect in Morocco – they ain’t. Of course it is against the law to try to convert Muslims there. Of course it is against the law to agitate against the monarchy. To an American, these are outrageously oppressive laws. But, hey, it ain’t our country. And as a tourist, what do you care? If it really bugs you, don’t visit. The main thing is that Muslims are perfectly capable of maintaining a reasonable, civilized society which the outsider can visit, live in and do business with. So, the problem isn’t Islam, as such. The problem is a certain species of Islam.

And this is pretty easy to identify. That species of Islam runs every sh*t hole in the Muslim world. It is excellent short hand: if the place is a dump, don’t let the residents into your country. Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria – definitely not the place to get your immigrants from. Big flashing red light!

We need to deport everyone from the bad areas – I’m not interested any longer in vetting. I want all Somalis, all Sudanese, all Libyans, all Afghans, etc to be deported. And if they’re naturalized anytime in the last twenty five years, I want their documents fully reviewed and an investigation done to determine if they’ve actually lived up to their oath of citizenship…slightest problem, denaturalize and out you go. This is mere self defense. It has nothing to do with race or religion. I can’t trust the population…that fat slob who stabbed our Guardsmen yesterday was escorted into the USA in 2021. He has been lavished with aid from our country…and his response was to shoot our troops. No. Heck with that. Can’t do it. If that is what even one Afghan is like, then its time for us to not have Afghans around us. So, too, with Somalis…we rescue you from starvation and oppression and your response in the USA is to steal welfare funds and call us racists? Get the **** out of my country. If any person of Afghan or Somali background is reading this and getting all angry and outraged…they get off the stick and prove to us that I’m wrong. Show us that you’re loyal to the USA and not some 9th century savagery.

You do this, by the way, by turning in the welfare cheats, the oath breakers and guys muttering in the back of the room about how he wants to murder infidels. You cease being loyal to tribe, you start being loyal to America. You don’t get to sit back, watch it all happen and them make an insincere statement of dismay when someone gets murdered.

And, now, back to our fellow Americans – our fellow Westerners. Our Left, that is, which has poured these people into the USA and the West…ignored their welfare fraud, turned a blind eye to their crimes and now calls us racists for not liking the whole shoot us in the back thing. Oh, no, we haven’t forgotten about you. In fact, we’re more angry with you – honestly, given a choice between deporting a Afghan jihadist and an upper class liberal white woman, I know where 90% of us would come down. The jihadist might be open to reason at some point.

We need to really go after these people – it’s not like you can wander in from Somalia or Syria and instantly know how to work the American system to drain welfare funds. Someone has to show you how…and I have my suspicion about who the instructors are. And it goes from start to finish…from the bringing in to the settling to the setting up a fake home health care company…and each step of the way, I guarantee an American liberal is involved…and American liberals, you now have blood on your hands. You brought these people in so you could rake off from their theft and keep your cities voting Blue, and now it is time for you to pay.

We can’t just let this pass. As I said, this was intentional. The Left wanted all of this. And their recent rhetoric about the Guard being deployed helped stoke the flames of hatred. It is time we stopped pretending the Left isn’t malicious. We won’t treat them like they treat us – that is, we won’t punish them for disagreeing. But all of them are neck deep in crime…and it is time for people to go to jail.

How Do We Get Evil People to Stop?

Mark Noonan15 Comments

This initially started as a very long post on X but I ended up deleting it shortly after posting because I wanted to think about it some more. You’ll understand why as you read: it is a difficult thing to write about and no human being – if they have any wisdom at all – wants to presume too much. I worked into Book X of the Mirrors series (coming out later this year but it might slip to early next year) a bit where Fred is asking for a direct answer to what is going on from someone he’s certain knows: she gives an equivocal answer but rather than getting angry, Fred quotes Job 38:4, Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. And Fred, like Job, is comforted by this answer to all true Mysteries, continuing on with part of 2 Corinthians 12:10, for when I am weak, then I am strong. It is important, always, to be humble. To not be too sure and to ultimately rely on God, who’s judgements are true and righteous altogether. That said, I think this is important to say.

I was reading a post from a Catholic priest – a good priest, let it be noted – who was upset over the story that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting Gazans coming for food aid. I noted that the story is almost certainly a lie – that its primary source is the Gazan health ministry, a known purveyor of fabrications. In jumped a Hamas-nik to deflect away from that indisputable fact to chime in with claims that the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Went back and forth a little bit there until it was certain the man was entirely wooden headed and would never think for a moment. But the whole interaction got me thinking about the concepts of justice and mercy. What, in fact, does love require we do here?

War is, of course, a nasty business. All we can learn of Our Lord tells against going to war. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we war upon him? On the other hand, the greatest – St John the Baptist – when asked by soldiers what they must do to enter the Kingdom merely replied – in essence – that they should be good soldiers. He didn’t say desert the army. This is pretty crucial if you ask me. That being in the military and carrying out your duties is pleasing to God. This indicates to me that Fallen Man is not going to stop being Fallen – and, of course, he isn’t. He still needs, every day, a Savior. Once we enter the Kingdom that is different – but until we do, we are prey to all the troubles of the world and war is one of those troubles.

That being said, it all comes down to why and how a person fights if war occurs. Naturally, no Christian may deliberately start a war. We are always to seek a peaceful resolution of differences and only engage in fighting if attacked or if an attack is so obviously pending that prudence dictates we strike the first blow. The only defensible war is a war of defense. Once a war starts, we are to act like Christians. We are not to be needlessly cruel to the enemy. We are to apply the necessary force to bring the conflict to its swiftest resolution, but no more than that. Nothing gratuitous. And these requirements are not just required of Christians – nobody wants as a result of war their own people to be massacred and despoiled. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu what have you, nobody wants that to happen to their side. And as they know they don’t want it to happen to them, so they know they must not do it to others. All human beings are morally obligated to be as decent as possible at all times, even the most difficult. So, in essence, there should be no war as nobody should attack unjustly and there should be no war crimes because everyone who engages in warfare should be as merciful as possible.

But what do we do in the face of the unjust attack? And, furthermore, what do we do in the face of an unjust attack accompanied by monstrous cruelty?

Naturally when attacked unjustly we are permitted to fight back in self defense. And the response must be proportional to the needs. In other words, if peace may be obtained by ten bombs then you shouldn’t drop ten thousand. But now we need to think a little bit. To consider just what we’re dealing with – and what response is proportional to it.

World War One morphed from a fracas in the Balkans into a World War for one reason and one reason, alone: the Germans unjustly attacked Luxembourg, Belgium and France. There was no reason for this German attack. Not the slightest justification can be made for it. The Germans did it because they thought they would win quickly and gain total mastery of Europe in six weeks. And the Germans, when they did it, knew they were doing wrong – because they wouldn’t want another power to invade Germany out of the blue in a bid for European mastery. They would have considered such an attack upon themselves as an outrage against all decency. And yet they went ahead and attacked France. They were in the wrong, totally.

By immense exertions and loss of lives, this German attack was defeated. The German army was forced to withdraw and enter into an Armistice before the German army was totally destroyed in the field. Germany then had a peace treaty imposed upon her designed to prevent a recurrence of the just-defeated attack. Germany’s army was limited in size and her economy was burdened with reparations payments designed to not only repay the offended parties, but to cripple Germany’s economic ability to wage war. This was an entirely just peace treaty given what had happened.

But it turned out that it didn’t punish the Germans enough. It left them intact enough to very swiftly rebuild their military might and try again – which they did a mere twenty five years after the first try. And this time their attack was accompanied by the most monstrous cruelty ever done by the hand of Man. People murdered by the millions. Rapes all over German occupied Europe. Massive looting not just of food and tools, but the very artwork of the conquered peoples. Meanwhile, over on the other side of the world, Japan had launched a totally unjustified war in 1937 – attacking China quite ruthlessly with the Rape of Nanking being a horror that would have made Attila the Hun sick to his stomach…an orgy of rape, murder and looting. And then, later, Japan just continued this in all the lands they occupied as World War Two became global.

War and cruelty go together. After all, even under the most honorable of circumstances, you are still seeking to end the lives of the other side. Who can say what lies and threats got that enemy soldier into uniform? Yet the soldier must kill – swiftly and without remorse. And in the heat of combat – with fear and hatred rising – at times even the most honorable of soldiers can commit acts which, in the cold light of reason, can only be described as barbaric. Of course, when such acts occur decent military organizations do seek redress. If for no other reason than to ensure good order and discipline in the ranks. But, often, because it is just the right thing to do. We understand why our boys might go too far at times and we want to be merciful to the man who may have been pushed too far…but right is right and sometimes we have to punish our own. But what the Germans and Japanese did in World War Two went far beyond this.

It is one thing for a soldier, or a few soldiers, or even a whole company of soldiers to go off their heads. At the Siege of Badajoz in 1812, Wellington’s army had to carry out an exceptionally difficult assault against an alert and entrenched enemy and the fighting was quite ferocious with no quarter asked or given. Those men were brave and disciplined British soldiers…but the cost of the assault seems to have set those men off their heads…once they had won they disregarded their officers from Wellington on down and went on a rampage of looting, rape and murder in the town. It was totally unjustified. A horrific blot on the honor of the British army. It took days for Wellington and his officers to regain control and turn their mob back into an army. It was horrible but not ordered by the command, nor sanctioned by the government, nor justified in any way by any British patriot. What the Germans and Japanese did was different from this.

What was done at Nanking and Babi Yar was the considered policy of the respective governments. The soldiers were ordered to carry it out. And they carried it out. As time went on and the monstrous cruelties increased in scope whole support systems were put into place so that Germans and Japanese could kill ever more people…and with ever more attendant cruelty, including torture and looting. Japanese soldiers didn’t go berserk at Nanking. No more than German soldiers went berserk at Oradour-sur-Glane. They carried out orders. And orders they knew were wrong as they carried them out because not one German or Japanese soldier wanted those events to happen in their home towns to their own people. Basic human decency required them to refuse to obey…but they obeyed. It doesn’t, in the end, matter why. Cowardice or cruelty or any combination of human failings – they were still responsible adults who knew better. And the sheer scale of the atrocities of Germany and Japan required that the whole populations of each country become intimately involved in them. After all, the guy who drove the train full of Jews to Auschwitz couldn’t pretend he didn’t know what he carried…nor that he never carried people away from the place. He knew. And so did his wife and children. Did they approve? It doesn’t matter: they went along with it when they knew they shouldn’t have.

You can excuse it and try to explain it away but the bottom line is that death is preferable to participation in such crimes…even the death of you and all you love. It just isn’t worth it if life requires you to participate, even second hand, in massacres. You think about the endless number of German families who just quietly went along – and then the Ulma family of Poland which harbored eight Jews and, when caught, was massacred down to Mrs. Ulma’s unborn child. The Ulma’s knew the risks – and think of Mr. Ulma, dedicated to the safety and happiness of his family. He could easily have said, “I hate the Nazis and I want to help the Jews, but I have my wife and children to think of” and done nothing. But he truly thought of his wife and children – and did what had to be done. It is when things are worst that we are supposed to do our best. The Germans and Japanese, in the whole, did not do this (and all honor to the few in each country who did do the right thing).

Now on to the really difficult thing to consider and I pray to God I don’t get this wrong – I do not wish to lead myself or anyone else astray!

As the children of Poland, China, Philippines, France, Norway, Burma, Russia, Greece and so many other nations were martyred by German and Japanese cruelty, did not their cries for justice rise up to heaven? They spoke in a multitude of languages and they had often very different ideas about God, but all of them were human beings and all of them were caught in a welter of cruel slaughter they in no way deserved. Surely out of their mouths and hearts went up the cry: my God, save me!

Of course it did. And I can’t imagine God not listening. Not seeing their tears. And while God gives us the free will to do as we wish God is also just and merciful and His will is always accomplished. The fact that the Germans and Japanese were utterly defeated is an obvious example of God’s justice operating in the world. That people so depraved were not able to win is just and merciful. And how were they not able to win? By being subjected to such ferocious punishment that total destruction resulted.

Much is said these days about the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. From right after the end of the war, it has been derided as a failure. The advocates of strategic bombing swore up and down that it, alone, would destroy the enemy and compel peace. Clearly, it did not and so it must have failed. This, I think, was based upon a faulty understanding of just what happened in the strategic bombing campaigns.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the Germans and Japanese were forced to expend enormous resources fighting against the bombings. Every plane, every soldier, every bullet and shell shot up into the sky at Allied bombers was that much less they had on the battlefield against Allied armies. Each bomb that dropped in some manner hampered both nations in the conduct of the war…even the fact that craters had to be filled in to get the roads open took time and manpower and so there was less power to apply on the battlefields. In short, without the bombings the fighting on the ground would have been far more intense, lengthy and bloody. Maybe so much so that the Germans and Japanese could have prevented the total defeat of their nations.

In addition to that, Allied bombing power was still growing in 1945. It was only in 1944 that the Allied air forces could really be certain that a bombing raid would seriously degrade the selected target. It was all a matter of getting sufficient planes, sufficiently skilled crews and learning the difficult task of hitting a relatively small target from a great height. By 1944 the Allied air forces were nailing this down – and the destruction went from bad to absolutely horrific. We’ve all seen the pictures of the ruined cities taken post-War but they don’t really capture what it was like – meaning for the Germans and Japanese on the ground. To be absolutely helpless as a thousand enemy planes leisurely pass overhead dropping tons of bombs was likely one of the worst sensation any human being has endured. Small wonder that very often downed Allied pilots in both Germany and Japan were lynched on the spot by outraged people. Had the Germans and Japanese been able to keep us away – prevent Allied invasions of their own territory – then the bombings would just have gotten worse. Even absent the atomic bomb! Just worse and worse and worse. By 1945 Allied planes were ranging at will over Germany and Japan and Allied factories were turning out planes, bombs and aircrews at an increasing pace…suppose, for instance, that the Battle of the Bulge pushed us back to Paris and that the Germans had defeated the Russians January, 1945 offensive in Poland…so much the worse for Germany as the number of bombs dropping would have simply increased – perhaps to the point where it was simply impossible for the Germans to live (seriously: by 1945 even ox carts were being strafed).

And here’s the interesting thing I want to say: is it at all possible that Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay were instruments of God’s justice? That with all the cries to heaven for justice, it was those two men – and their intrepid air crews – who delivered the redress? I don’t know. But I can suspect. And I can definitely say that given what the Germans and Japanese were doing – as peoples – the bombings weren’t unjust even if not an expression of God’s justice.

What can we say? For the Germans this was round two. They had started a totally unjust war in 1914 and were totally defeated…but didn’t accept their defeat and so tried again in 1939 and this time were unbelievably cruel. So, too, the Japanese all over Asia and the Pacific…just simply mean and cruel…killing, raping, looting…both people lording it over the conquered even in the smallest ways. Simple military defeat in the manner of 1918 didn’t work…and so there was absolute crushing defeat on every level in 1945. And that did work. Nobody fears that the Germans or Japanese will ever try it again. So, just maybe the result of 1945 was totally just? Could be. This doesn’t excuse anything the Allies did which was actually wrong (like the behavior of Russian soldiers regarding German women), but the basic operation was just – it burned out of the Japanese and German populations any desire to carry on with their imperial and racist ambitions. And then we have God’s mercy working even for the Germans and Japanese: because of this massive application of power against them, the war ended before they were all killed and everything was totally destroyed. They, too, cried out to God for an end to it…and their prayer was granted.

And now lets go forward to today – the aftermath of 10/7. First and foremost, nothing can justify 10/7. Suppose Israel is guilty of every crime charged to her, there is no way to justify what was done on 10/7. First off, it was an unjust attack – there was no attack happening or pending on the people of Gaza. That they didn’t like the political and economic situation they were in doesn’t constitute a justification for war. To justify war you must be attacked or an attack is so imminent that you must attack to thwart it. Nothing like that was going on in Gaza on 10/7.

And then what the Gazans did: they didn’t enter Israel for a stand-up fight with the IDF: they came to rape and murder. Their primary method of warfare was to attack the helpless and treat them with inhuman cruelty. Even if someone did that to your people, you are not justified in doing it to theirs. Once again, as you do not want it to happen to you so you must not do it to others. And, of course, Israel has never sent in IDF units to rape and murder the helpless. What the Gazans did was a monstrous crime – something which hadn’t happened since the Germans and Japanese were doing it in WWII. And when the rapist/murderers returned to Gaza – often dragging their victims (living and dead) in their wake – the overwhelming mass of the people of Gaza cheered.

Cheered.

They cheered rapists and murderers bringing home the victims of their crimes.

They knew precisely what those men had done and they were happy about it.

Now, did every last person in Gaza approve? Almost certainly not. But the number disapproving is very small. It took years to develop the rape/murder squads. To get people to think that it is good to do these things is not something you just whistle up in a weekend. You have to mentally condition people to do it and approve of it. The Germans were all “oh, Hitler went mad in 1943!”…as if it wasn’t insane to deny Jewish humanity with the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Sure, a basic Gazan on the street might not have known ten years ago that it was specifically leading to 10/7, but that Gazan knew – knows and always has known – that propaganda denying the basic humanity of Jews is wrong. They know it because they would be aghast at propaganda which held that Muslims aren’t human. Bottom line, given what Hamas was doing in Gaza from the get-go, nobody could have the slightest illusion that very bad things were going to happen. The Gazans just hoped they’d only happen to Jews.

So, what is the best thing to do here? A ceasefire? You mean a pause until the next round? How is that good? What does that accomplish? Indeed, wouldn’t a ceasefire seem in the minds of the Gazans a victory? That they stood up to the IDF and forced them to quit? And what of the mindset of the Gazans – the mindset that approves the rape and murder of helpless people? Which, by the way, doesn’t just happen in Israel…you can see it happening all over Syria right now, as well as in Sudan and other places in the Muslim world where violence is becoming endemic. There is a mindset at work here – a belief system – which sustains such cruelty. Ceasefire with it? To what purpose? Negotiate a peace? What’s the half way point between rape and no rape? What’s the compromise position? A little murder?

Or is it time to emulate Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay? That is, apply such ferocious force on these people that they fully understand what they’ve done is wrong and they’ll never do it again.

Honestly, I am not certain. But I can’t see the use of going on like we have. As if, perhaps, we are the bad guys – that there is some justification for what the enemy is doing, or maybe we should feel guilty about Dresden and so we’d better hold back going forward. All I know is that the only bad thing here is a continuation – letting this go on and on and on. It is time to end this – and unless we want to end this via our surrender, we’re going to have to get very stern in action. And true justice might require us to act sternly. After all, what would we say of the cop who let a murderer go, only to have that man kill again? We’d be pretty furious – and justly so. If we go soft on Hamas and Hezbollah and the other fanatic groups of killers, then all we’re ultimately doing is ensuring that some poor innocent at a later date gets killed. And innocents on both sides, it should be noted; some poor kid in Gaza who is killed by a bomb or a stray bullet didn’t deserve to die…and I’d prevent that if I can.

To get back to the genesis of this post, suppose the story of IDF soldiers taking pot shots at Gazans lining up for food is true. Well, I have some bad news for you: the only way to ensure it doesn’t happen is the total defeat of the Gazan people. If you take the position that the way to stop it is to punish the IDF soldiers and impose a ceasefire, then all you’re doing is making sure other innocent people are killed later. And I mean its as definite as Euclidean geometry: you are definitely, consciously deciding that some poor sap will die next week, next month or next year…and you’re doing it because you just want people to think you’re the good guy, today. The problem isn’t the IDF soldier taking the shot – the problem is that the IDF soldier is there in response to the 10/7 massacre. Had 10/7 not happened then no need for Gazans to line up for aid and thus no possibility of an IDF soldier going off his head and taking a shot at the Gazans. Get to the crux of the matter, people. The problem is an anti-human ideology which holds that Jews aren’t people and may be raped and murdered at will.

If we want an end to this then what must end is the ideology which generates the actions. An ideology of peace and brotherhood is very unlikely to start a war. An ideology domination is highly likely to start a war. Hamas’ ideology – like similar ideologies – is one of domination. Rule. Masters and slaves. It has to go. If you can think of a way to talk them out of it, I’m all ears. But I believe that its going to be necessary to burn it out of them. To let them know they’re just plain and simple wrong. That God has not decreed they be Masters.

We are Betrayed

Mark Noonan50 Comments

The savages on the loose in DC yesterday completely outraged me. I didn’t see any US flags; maybe there was one or two, but they clearly weren’t prominent. The participants in that riot – with its desecration of American icons – are not my compatriots. I don’t care what their citizenship status is, they are not Americans. They are not part of me. They are alien invaders.

It wasn’t just here, of course, in many Western cities these packs of lunatic foreigners were causing trouble…in London with the Brit cops telling British veterans not to wave their Union Jacks as that might incite the Islamist hordes to violence. And you think about that and then it hits you: DC since January 6th has been an armed camp in case MAGA shows back up! But last night they were climbing the White House fence and nobody was trying to push them back. If you and I did that we’d be sitting in jail right now, if not in a morgue. This means that the barbarians are considered a protected class by the Rulers of the West.

No surprise; they’ve been abetting their arrival in our countries for decades now. As a mutual on X put it: 20 years after 9/11 the Taliban rules in Afghanistan and Islamists riot in our streets. We lost. And the loss was built in. Thinking about the actual response to 9/11 one can’t escape the feeling that all we were doing was making it look like we were doing something. Thousands of American lives expended in battle, trillions of dollars down the toilet, God knows how many foreigners killed…and all for nothing. Well, nothing for us: what the Ruling Class got was apparently what it wanted: all of us simply tired of fighting uselessly while they imported a huge contingent of our enemies to make sure we couldn’t fight effectively in the future. Oh, and lots and lots of Islamist oil money! Don’t think our guys didn’t get paid!

And that is why they are so desperate to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire; Israel must lose this fight. You see, if Israel does crush Hamas and secure its own safety via a military campaign then it completely exposes our Ruling Class. It lets everyone know that the only reason we didn’t crush the Islamists is because our Rulers chose not to…and that’s when the money will become acutely embarrassing. Where it will be obvious that in return for Islamo-Bucks are Ruling Class crafted a Narrative that as Islam is the Religion of Peace we can’t press too hard and must come to an accommodation with them…or the Muslims will get mad at us. Well, last night showed they are mad at us – and its not over any thing we’ve done. Or Israel has done. Its just us they hate; and like all people consumed with hatred, they simply lie to justify it. They’re claiming Israeli war crimes (naturally) but they’re also claiming that Hamas didn’t do anything (they are seriously saying that most of the Israeli dead on 10/7 were killed by the IDF). It doesn’t matter: they hate and so they lie. They lie in the face of obvious facts.

So, you ask, if they don’t really hate us for anything we’ve done, then why do they hate us? That is simple: Islam holds itself to be a Master Race. Not based on genetics as the Nazis had it, but based on adherence to Islam. But the basic thrust is still the same: a Race chosen (in this case by God rather than Nature) to rule over the entire world. To lord it over the untermenschen. They are the source of all that is good; they have a right to rule.

So, why don’t they? Because of the Jews. And the Americans, who are controlled by the Jews. There is a reason The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are perennial bestsellers in the Muslim world: it answers their question. Namely, after God gave overlordship to the Muslims and they went on a glorious run of conquest giving them wealth undreamed…they are in the modern era impoverished and backwards. How could this have happened? Hitler provided the answer: the Jews! They undermined Islam from within! Corrupted Muslim youth! They conspire daily to break the Muslim world…they are, therefor, the enemies of God! And just add “American” in there, too; we are pretty much indistinguishable in Muslim eyes from the Jews.

This is how they justify celebrating the rape and murder of Israeli teens at a concert: it was their right to rape and murder those girls. The girls weren’t Muslim; they weren’t performing their proper role as slaves and as they were out in public unescorted by their father or brother, they were whores asking to be raped. To them, this was just the Master punishing the disobedient servant. And make no mistake about it, in Arabic they do explicitly celebrate it. For the West, in English, they downplay or deny it…but amongst themselves it is a feather in the cap! And they can do this because they know that the MSM – which also gets lots of Islamist oil bucks – simply will not translate the Arabic into English for a Western audience. The western MSM is already engaged in telling the West that “from the river to the sea” is merely an aspiration for freedom and is not a call to massacre every Jew in Israel. But if you check directly with the Muslims, in Arabic, they say that is what it means.

What does this mean for us? It means we have to win. We haven’t been engaged in a clash of civilizations, but they have. They always have. Ever since the first ragged groups of Muslim raiders emerged from Arabia in the 7th century the Islamic world has been engaged in a clash of civilizations. The difference was that we, once upon a time, recognized it as such. Now we pretend it isn’t happening…mostly because our Ruling Class despises our civilization; they are, in the end, sure they can remain the same rich, amoral pigs under Islam as they are under our civilization. And they aren’t wrong to think that: they, after all, meet the leading lights of the Muslim world in the guarded resorts where poor boys and girls are abused. The Duke of Blunderwood won’t bat an eye at becoming the Pasha of Al-Blunderwood. Nor will any multibillionaire make much of a fuss at changing his name to a Muslim one. To the rich, a simple religion which makes no real demands on them is best, after all.

But as you and I don’t want that future, we’re going to have to win this war. To do this, our first step is to clear the rot out of our own system. That is, get rid of the Ruling Class which is abetting the enemy. Once they’re gone, we can make clear to Islam that we do have the courage to defend what is ours. We can even become, if not friends, then enemies who deeply respect each other. As Chesterton pointed out, it was very possible for the most ardent Crusader to respect his Muslim opponent, and vice versa, then it is for the modern Ruling Class to respect anyone or anything. Do keep that in mind: I don’t hate Islam. I oppose it. My model for our relationship is Richard the Lionheart vs Saladin. Fight if we must, and vigorously, but always with a respect. But we can’t get to that until we fix ourselves.

9/11 Twenty Two Years On

Mark Noonan66 Comments

What went wrong? Why did that horrific event cause so many other horrific events, resulting in a lost war and a panicked flight from Kabul?

Did you know the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on that fateful day retired to various sinecures in the education and corporate world? He also endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008; in an astonishing bit of absurdity calling her someone who understood what being in the military is like.

The Director of the CIA? Was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom when he retired in 2004. He also retired to various sinecures in the education and corporate worlds. Got a book deal, too. Oh, and later on offered biting criticism of W. Bush who awarded him that medal.

The FBI Director? That was Bob Mueller. You guessed it: after he retired he was the beneficiary of multiple education and corporate sinecures. And of course dredged up to lend a patina of credibility to the ridiculous Trump-Russia fraud.

So, to review: the people in charge of our military, foreign intelligence and domestic federal law enforcement on 9/11 – the people on who’s watch 3,000 Americans were massacred – all retired to cushy positions of power and influence. That is what went wrong. These three men should have been shot; and if we were feeling merciful after THREE THOUSAND of us were murdered due to their negligence, sent to jail for life. But, they not only didn’t suffer, they were rewarded for their abject failure.

You get what you pay for; we pay (through the nose) for incompetence and corruption…and so we’re awash in incompetence and corruption.

Bet you haven’t heard of Frank Wuterich all that much. You see, when he was a 25 year old Marine in 2005 his unit was hit by an IED in Anbar province and then a lot of shooting happened – as one might expect when an armed unit suddenly has a bomb explode among them – which resulted in civilian deaths. The initial report indicated that the dead civilians were caught in a crossfire but then people started claiming that the Marines – our Marines; soldiers of our United States Marine Corps; not Nazi Einsatzgruppen, but our Marines – deliberately targeted civilians. You know; because fresh-faced American kids who volunteer to fight for America are just the same as bloodthirsty Nazi savages. Given the nature of the beast at that time, the military opened an investigation and brought war crimes charges against 8 Marines. After a lot of years most of the charges against the defendants were dropped with Wuterich getting convicted of dereliction of duty. Because, you know, our Marines don’t go around massacring civilians. Because they’re American Marines. The good guys.

So, think about it: while those responsible for the criminal failure to stop 9/11 were awash in money and fame, the poor bastards we sent out to clean up their mess were being charged with war crimes…not because crimes happened, but because the political Left in the USA and around the world said war crimes were happening and our government went along with this. Who was the Marine’s CO in Iraq at the time? James Mattis; you know, the guy we thought was a rough, tough non-nonsense Marine when Trump appointed him Secretary of Defense. We should have checked a bit – but even in 2017 we were still rather starry eyed about our military officers. But the fact that Mattis agreed to court martial troops who – at worst – fired perhaps in a bit of panic when under fire should have told us just what sort of man he really was long before he resigned in protest against Trump’s effort to end our involvement in the Syrian Civil War. After his resignation, you guessed it, he landed a corporate sinecure. Mattis put his own Marines through hell because some Commie somewhere shouted “war crime!” even though Mattis must have known his Marines were not criminals. And then, apparently lacking any conscience at all, went off to a well paid retirement.

So, what went wrong? What happened to an event which united us all in righteousness? It was taken over by the corrupt, the cruel and incompetent. And when we at last had enough and voted in a man to change the system, that system broke the law to get him out of office. That is what went wrong.

The Balloon Seems Small

Mark Noonan36 Comments

Nothing is ever really a surprise. There are always signs, though often even the most perceptive miss them. What is blazingly obvious in hindsight was actually there for all the world to see…it just wasn’t noticed.

Charles DeGaulle was asked shortly after Hitler came to power what France would do if Germany were to attack one of her neighbors. His response was along the lines of, “we shall have a limited or full call up depending on the circumstances and then, peering out from our fortifications, we shall witness the enslavement of Europe.” And that was just so very close because DeGaulle was, indeed, a very perceptive man. But even he missed the obvious – and what should have been obvious to a graduate of Saint-Cyr: there is no such thing as a defensive war. There is victory or there is defeat…and the side which stays in its fortifications loses. DeGaulle’s answer should have been, there will be a German victory parade in Paris.

This is not to condemn DeGaulle – after all, what patriot wishes to envision the destruction of his nation? To admit even to himself that his people are so weak and divided that they will throw up the sponge? He simply couldn’t imagine it – even after the great German breakthrough DeGaulle (and a very few others) were urging that several hundred thousand French troops be evacuated to France’s North African territory (along with as much military equipment as possible) to continue the struggle. To get there, get American aid (which would have been forthcoming) and just keep up the fight until German’s internal weaknesses gave the Allies the upper hand. It could easily have been done – but hardly anyone wanted to do it. They just wanted to surrender as quickly as possible and get back to their corrupt, little lives (the supposed fighting Premier of France was already feathering his nest and looking for a new post as he fled Paris).

But he still should have seen it. 1936 was the year – Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland with 3,000 troops. While the Krauts were working ’round the block to build up a military force, the bottom line was that in 1936 the German military was in no ways prepared for war (it wasn’t really in 1939, either; but it was a least vastly better prepared than 3 years previously). The French leadership called in the Generals and said, “expel the Germans”. And the Generals came back and said “we need full mobilization”, which would have taken weeks and cost huge sums of money – when all they needed to do was literally send in what they had at the border and it all would have been over in a couple days. Lots of excuses are made for why the Generals said that but mostly it is explaining it away – they didn’t want to fight. And neither did the civil leadership. So they essentially made a pact of cowardice and did nothing; even though they knew full well that allowing the German army back into the Rhineland posed a mortal threat to France. The reason it had been de-militarized was because there was no way France could match Germany in total military power…a demilitarized Rhineland was France’s shield. And they gave it up. Because they were all corrupt cowards, as would be most starkly shown 4 years later. Anyone really paying attention at that time (and Hitler was) knew that for all intents and purposes, France was removed from the European equation. And the French people were ok with it – because, by and large, they were as corrupt and cowardly as their leaders.

The balloon seems small. So did the Rhineland – most French and Brits were “they were only marching into their own backyard” about it. It was passed off as nothing and can we please just get back to our lives? The balloon seems small. But it was an enemy aircraft which was allowed unfettered access to American airspace and only shot down after its usefulness to the enemy was over. And it does flash into the mind: the Chinese told us not to shoot it down until it was in the Atlantic. How else to explain why it wasn’t shot down when detected over Alaska? And why weren’t we told about it until it was already 650 miles inside US territory? The balloon seems small – but what it foretells might be very large.

Nuclear Nightmare

Mark Noonan60 Comments

I’ve talked a bit about the lies of our times (translation: yammered on endlessly about it), but something jumped out at me today.

There has been some chatter about the supposed threat of Putin using nuclear weapons in his war in Ukraine. Whether or not there’s anything to it, I don’t know. Could be just fear-mongering by our leaders to keep us on board with spending endless billions of never-to-be-audited dollars there. But it occurred to me that if, say, Putin were to use a nuke to destroy a Ukrainian division, just what could anyone do about it?

Ukraine gave up its nukes: so, no threat of retaliation from there. If there was to be a proportionate response, it would have to come from the USA, UK or France – the three nuclear-armed NATO powers. Which nation will risk a nuclear exchange with Russia over that? Nuke Smolensk and risk Nancy, Birmingham or Boston being wiped out in response? Not gonna happen – not in any conceivable universe of possibilities.

So, in the end, if Putin decided he has to use nukes, he’s got a free-fire zone. And that also got me thinking: just why haven’t nuclear weapons been used since 1945?

They kill lots of people?

Ok. They sure do. But so does conventional bombing: the conventional bombing raid on Tokyo March 10th, 1945 killed an estimated 100,000: about as many as were killed at Hiroshima. Dead is dead – whether in a nuclear flash or a firestorm. And nobody has been shy about killing since WWII – just between Korea and Vietnam about 6 million people were killed. And think of all the fighting all through the past 75 years! War after war after war and nothing is resolved and then some more war and killing because it wasn’t resolved and so on and etc. This is better than a nuclear bomb?

So, killing really isn’t the reason nobody uses them. But what about the long-term effects of nuclear war? Nuclear Winter! Land and water poisoned for thousands of years! Well…if you look into Nuclear Winter, if it is something which can happen (and there are doubts), then it is predicated upon thousands of nuclear weapons going off nearly at the same time. This is something which is very unlikely to happen. And as for poisoned land and water – well, as I’ve pointed out before, people never stopped living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even around Chernobyl they’re doing nature documentaries to chronicle how plants and animals are thriving in the absence of human activity. Think about that – the most deadly and poisonous nuclear accident in history…and they’re doing documentaries about how plants and animals are thriving. People live there now, too; some people have apparently lived there all along, and nobody is growing a third arm or having any other unusual physical actions.

So, just maybe the dangers of nuclear radiation are a bit overblown?

Now you have to think back a bit – and be over the age of, say, 45. People younger than that simply won’t have a memory of how we were positioned in the last part of the Cold War. At our peak, we had more than 31,000 nuclear warheads. And we didn’t just have the nukes – with rockets, bombers and subs, we had the ability to deliver these weapons with pinpoint accuracy in literal minutes from the word “go”. Old time veterans like me can remember SIOP: Single Integrated Operation Plan. That was military shorthand for how to wipe out the entirety of the Soviet Union in about thirty minutes.

But here’s the real kicker – and is once again something we know but we don’t know. Any of us of the right age who looked into weapons and capabilities of the USA and USSR knew at a glance that any nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union was only going to have one outcome: a wiped out USSR. Sure, the Russkies would try to respond but given their technological and organizational level (which was low – see Invasion of Ukraine for an example of Russian combat effectiveness), they’d have been lucky to get one or two shots off at us before they were utterly destroyed. Dirty little secret of the Cold War was that most Russian ICBM’s were not launch-capable at a moment’s notice. It is actually tricky to keep a liquid fueled rocket ready to go and the Russians just didn’t have the skill to do that. Their liquid-fueled rockets were usually standing empty and it would have taken hours or days to get them ready…and we would have seen that with our satellites giving us plenty of time to attack before they could even launch. This is why the Soviets invested so much money in mobile nuclear launchers…they needed to keep something they hoped we would miss (we wouldn’t have – any rocket which can go between continents is large and noticeable from the sky). Their bomber force was obsolescent before it took to the air – and they never mastered the American ability to build a genuine penetration bomber which would have a solid shot of making it to the target. The Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by the Russian desire to have at least some missiles with a decent shot of hitting the United States before we could destroy them on the ground.

But we never thought of it that way, did we? Even after sizing up capabilities, we were still frozen in the concept that a nuclear exchange meant mutual destruction. Nobody wins. Everyone is dead. Civilization is wiped out – and the few survivors are living in a Mad Max dystopia. Just can’t do it! And we got to that mental attitude early on – about the time MacArthur was suggesting that the best way to deal with a million ChiCom soldiers massing in Manchuria would be to drop an atomic bomb on them. You can’t! It would be mass murder! The Russians would nuke us in response and we’d all die!

Well, can’t see as sparing those ChiComs nuclear destruction was all that helpful – not to them or to us. Nobody knows how many Chinese soldiers died in Korea: Chinese government assertions on it are quite useless and while we made estimates, we never really counted. But, rely on it, they were enormous. Again and again the Chinese leadership sent masses of their soldiers straight into American firepower. Their deaths must have been in the hundreds of thousands. And then there’s the deaths they inflicted – ours, South Korean, other UN allies. Over a three year slugging match in horrible conditions for both sides. So, a nuke in Manchuria is the morally inferior choice? Even if it brings with it the possibility that the mere threat of nuking might have got the ChiComs to climb down? Or, if it didn’t, bring the war to the same, swift end it brought to WWII? With a lot fewer of ours dead? And does anyone really think that if we nuked the People’s Volunteer Army in Manchuria that Stalin would risk Moscow for the chance of nuking New York City?

Where’s the downside here?

But we were told that to even contemplate it was immoral. And who said so? Well, the usual suspects when we discuss any historical restraint placed on the application of American power – the American left and Establishment was against it. But why were they? It isn’t like we’ve found these people over time to be opposed to death. Oh, sure, they don’t want to die themselves, but again and again they have sent people they don’t know into the shambles of war…had them fight and die for no purpose and then awarded themselves medals and commendations for doing it. So, I can’t see that morality is what got them to advocate against nukes. And, in fact, the only thing a refusal to use nukes helped was…the enemies of the United States. Here you have this Super Power with overwhelming force which can make all your bravery quite useless…and that Super Power pledges not to use it against you. You can do whatever you want: start wars, murder people, loot and imprison…kill as many Americans as you can! And rely on it, no matter what you do, that Super Power will never take the easy way out of his problem by simply exterminating you with a few bombs well placed.

I just have to believe that the campaign to make nuclear weapons unthinkable emerged from the USSR. Had to: it only helped them. It allowed them to feel safe from destruction while also make it seem like they were a power equal to the United States.

But now it is 2022. Things are different. And serious people with actual knowledge of how nuclear weapons work are in power and to them it is a mere calculation: a cost-benefit analysis. We might find out soon that plenty of players around the world are willing to use nukes against the nuke-free – because the target can’t hit back and none of the nuke-armed powers are going to risk themselves by retaliating in the name of the victim. What I’m saying here is that after quite a long while of living a pipe dream about nuclear weapons, we might have to live in the real world of them.

And that makes me wonder: it has been a long time since we built or tested a nuke. Just how effective is our arsenal? Because if it isn’t up to snuff – and our enemies have fully penetrated our government and probably know to the last detail the condition of our nuclear force – then we might find a nuclear sabre rattled at us.

We might be in for a very difficult time – and all because, ultimately, we allowed ourselves to be conned on this and so many other issues.

9/11 at 21

Mark Noonan6 Comments

I’ve been puzzled about what to write regarding 9/11. It has been a long while and a lot has happened.

The horror of it all still lives in the mind, but we must keep in mind that unless you’re over 30, you don’t have any real memory of it. A very large portion of the American population already views 9/11 as, say, I viewed Pearl Harbor…only through the eyes of older people.

However one views the event of 9/11, the basic result for the United States has been unmitigated disaster. We are weaker and far more divided than we were on that September morning.

First off, many of us complain about the Deep State and our complaints started to surface as Trump took office in 2017 – but now, with hindsight, we realize the Deep State has been screwing things up for a long while. We can’t escape the fact that the hijackers were let in by the Deep State. Allowed to train by the Deep State. Allowed to board the planes by the Deep State. All our military, intelligence and law enforcement, combined, couldn’t stop a few idiots with box cutters from killing 3,000 of us. And then not a single person in the Deep State paid for it.

In an honest, healthy society a lot of people would have been shot or imprisoned for that failure…as it is, I don’t recall anyone getting so much as a reprimand. We all had to come together, right? And we did – and we let them skate. Because we thought their failure was just bad luck. It wasn’t. No, I’m not saying they deliberately allowed it to happen – but I am saying they made the conscious choice to not see what was coming. Seeing what was coming meant having to take action to stop it…and it was much easier to just look the other way. And, so, they did.

Secondly, we went to war – and we expended thousands of lives and trillions of dollars…and killed untold numbers of foreigners. And, for what? For the Taliban being back in Kabul and the Mullahs in Iran now about to get massively rewarded by us for…for I really can’t tell why we’re rewarding them. But, mark it, we’re about to give the store away to them allegedly to stop a nuclear program but we all now it won’t…but the store will still be given even though, on balance, it would be better for us to just give them nothing and let them build their nuke because they won’t use it…not against us or Israel because in either case the retaliation will be far worse for them than any damage they do to us, if they can even successfully launch a nuke at Israel with her Iron Dome.

And now the Patriot Act created supposedly to fight the enemy is being turned on us – as our own government tells us that we’re worse than the perpetrators of 9/11 and that some white, Christian guy is worse than a child-trafficking Taliban terrorist.

So, what am I supposed to think? Am I supposed to get misty eyed. Raise high the flag?

I just don’t know – there’s a sickness in our nation and I’m coming around to thinking that curing it is more important than anything else.

War

Mark Noonan34 Comments

With Ukraine in the news I’ve been pondering a lot about our general view of the world. One thing that has been striking a jarring note for me is the assumption that we bear some sort of responsibility for Ukraine. That Ukraine as an independent nation is something that we must secure.

Why?

To be sure, some say that in Ukraine’s deal to give up nuclear weapons, we pledged ourselves to Ukraine’s defense. But, we really didn’t: we pledged to rush right off to the UN if Ukraine was attacked – a UN which, of course, has a Russian veto and so the whole thing was quite toothless from the get-go. But even supposing we had an agreement to come to Ukraine’s defense, does this then relieve Ukraine from the obligation to defend herself?

Seems to me that if I were a Ukrainian patriot with a neighbor like Russia, I’d put a high priority on national defense. I realize that Ukraine is poor, but the Israelis were dirt poor in the 1950’s and their first priority was a military second to none because they had hostile neighbors who could attack at any moment. A Ukraine filled with people committed to the Ukrainian national ideal would have a very powerful army, thickly layered defenses and a reserve force made up of the entire adult population in arms. You know – be so well armed that even a successful foreign invasion would drown in blood. Do that, and the chances of that foreign attack diminish remarkably.

Ukraine’s active military is a little more than 200,000. Reserves about 250,000. To defend 230,000 square miles and 41 million people. That’s not a lot. That’s not nearly what you need. It isn’t nearly what you’d have if the Ukranian people really gave a damn. To give you a comparison, when Israel was attacked in 1973, out of an Israeli population of about 3 million, the Israelis mobilized about 400,000. That’s 13 percent. That can’t be sustained for long (your civil economy starts to collapse), but when your life is on the line, you do it. You’d think that 41 million Ukrainians could have 4 million ready to mobilize in a life-and-death emergency. And they would, if Ukrainians really cared – because Russia is right next door and the President of Russia believes that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia.

And if the Ukrainians won’t do it – won’t even show willing to do it – why in heck does anyone else have to care? Because wars of aggression are wrong? Well, yes they are – nobody ever has a moral case for starting a war, or setting things up so that the only way out is for someone to start shooting. But lots of things are wrong – the way some Arab countries treat women is wrong. What China is doing o the Uyghurs is wrong. The slave trade in Africa is wrong. The drug lords running rampant in Mexico and Central America are wrong. Lots of things are wrong which war, successfully prosecuted by good guys, could set right. But do you want to?

Who wants kids from Ohio and Alabama to head off to the Donbas to keep the Russians out of lands largely populated by ethnic Russians? Or send them off to Xinjiang to liberate the Uyghurs from China? Or even clear out the drug lords from Ciudad Juarez? If anything, I’d rather help the Mexicans dispose of the cartels – but before I hazard American blood on anything, I’d like to know for certain why we’re doing it and what we get out of it.

The first thing to keep in mind about the world is that it isn’t neat and tidy. There isn’t a completely right answer in purely human affairs. Often, there’s just a least-bad answer. The unification of Italy and Germany into nation-States was an utter disaster for the world and, most especially, Italy and Germany. The freeing of the peoples of the Austrian Empire was a disaster for the peoples of the Austrian Empire. I mean, I dig that Poles didn’t like officious Austrian overlords (who would?) but the officious Austrians kept a cavalry barracks at Oświęcim, not a death camp at Auschwitz. I guess what I’m saying here is think carefully about what you want before you act.

What I want, first and foremost, is a free and independent United States. If I’ve got that, then I am very satisfied with the world. Naturally, I understand that the United States cannot live in isolation from the world. People and trade flow around and ambitious people with wicked minds are here, there and everywhere. I do have to keep an eye on things. I will, at times, be forced to fight. But when I fight and how I fight must refer back to my first principle: a free and independent United States.

Now, as I consider Ukraine I note that it was firmly under Russian rule from 1776 until 1917 and then, again, from 1921 until 1991. At no time during those periods was Russian rule in Ukraine a threat to American freedom and independence. It just wasn’t. Sure, from a geopolitical standpoint it would have been advantageous to the US to have an independent Ukraine all through the Cold War…but it wasn’t a necessity as proved by the fact that all through the Cold War we didn’t have an independent Ukraine. If Russian rule is reimposed in Ukraine, what ill effect will this have on American freedom and independence? I can’t see any.

“But Russia might go on and attack more!”

They might. Baltic States, Poland. On and On. I note that Poland was under Russian rule from 1791 to 1918 with no ill effect on American freedom and independence. I’m very sympathetic to the Poles as they have put up with a lot. But does my sympathy for Poland extend to sending American kids to die there? Make your case, if you’ve got one. I can’t. I could not look an American kid in the eye and tell him that his death along the Bug River will keep America free and independent. I couldn’t say it because it wouldn’t be true.

Don’t get me wrong, there can be existential, global threats. Communism was such, as was Nazism. They both proposed the whole world as their jurisdiction. Fantastic as it sounds, the USSR considered the American Communist Party as the legitimate American government and Hitler had named Goebbles to be Gauleiter of America. Fighting such things anywhere is what you have to do because if they win anywhere, they are step closer to overthrowing American independence and freedom. But Putin is no Hitler or Stalin. He does not represent a global ideology at permanent war with all dissenters. He may be a bastard twenty different ways, but he’s not an existential threat.

I agree there are non-existential threats which still must be confronted. Radical Islam. Chinese imperialism. And even a bit of Russia’s aggression are causes of concern, sometimes grave concern, which could make fighting them necessary. While I don’t think Ukraine rises to such a level, I do hold that Russian meddling in the United States is a problem. But far more than Russian meddling I find the threat in Chinese and Islamist meddling to be a huge threat – especially given how much money Islamists and Chinese have to bribe Americans to betray their own.

In wanting to contend with such threats, I can agree to enter into mutual defense pacts with other nations. I can agree to military action and even full scale war. I do believe that if China attacked Taiwan, that is worth us going to war over – because of China’s meddling in the United States such a conflict, successfully concluded by China, would simply put us in a worse position vis a vis China and so allow them to interfere in our internal affairs even more.

It would, naturally, be to Taiwan’s advantage to accept our aid against China. If we win, they win. But even in such a clear cut case of fighting for American interests, I still want a clear goal and a clear payoff for our expenditure of treasure and blood. We can’t go out to bleed and die just to help – we have to be compensated for our efforts.

Suppose we had to go to war with China. Fine. It would be a years long and very expensive war in blood and treasure. I believe that even as ruined as we are right now, we would prevail in the war (China isn’t nearly as powerful as advertised). And that would be good. But we can’t do it like we did after WWII. That was a horrendous mistake: we helped our defeated enemies return to the world of competition with us. No. No, no, NO!. They had to pay. Heck, that war cost so much they should still be paying. We go to war with China and win, then for a century China should be paying us.

I’m deadly seriously here – after a war with China, I’d want every bit of gold and silver and art turned over to us and a 10% tax on China’s GDP for a century paid to us. Maybe even take some land from them: move the Chinese out and Americans in. The main thing is that they pay us for putting us through the trouble. We do not want to own the world. We do not want the world to do what we say. Yeah, maybe from mid-century on we’ve had some jerks who dreamed of such, but that wasn’t the American people. We just wanted to be left alone to hold our own. My view is that if you do things to us which force us to go fight you, then you’re going to pay. You’re not just going to lose the war, you’re going to be humiliated and then forced to work very hard to send money to us for a very long time.

It is time we got out of the dream world. All this UN, NATO, treaties and arms limitation garbage since WWII has been the answer provided by dimwits who never understood the world. The world is a real place. People do things in it. Good and bad. We can’t cure all bad and we don’t have the right to, anyway. Our primary duty is to look after ourselves – to make only temporary alliances at need, to make sure they are reciprocal (our blood to defend them, their blood to defend us) and when we defeat an enemy we don’t occupy and rebuild them…but we do make them pay. Through the nose. With usury. In blood and treasure.

The End of American Faith

Mark Noonan42 Comments

I believed, my friends. When I joined the Navy in 1983, my faith in America was boundless. And it stayed! I believed that the generals and admirals were good. I believed that most people in law enforcement and intel were good people. I swallowed the whole thing hook, line and sinker.

But I don’t believe any longer.

Back in 2011, I wrote this article arguing that if the Afghan government wouldn’t get on the side of civilization, it was time to abandon it. I was right! But, not nearly as right as I should have been.

We’re all rather stunned at the speed of the Taliban victory. We’ve seen the videos of Taliban with captured America equipment. But less remarked on is that the Taliban was able to mount this offensive this quickly…and then you see the Taliban clean, well fed…not like they’ve been hiding for 20 years in caves under intense pressure from a powerful enemy ready to strike hard at a moments notice. And then you ask: just what the heck were we doing there? Did we even fight them? Those videos we’ve seen of bombing attacks and claims of high value targets being killed…was any of that true? I just don’t know – and I can’t ask the government or MSM because they are all known liars.

And then you take a further step back from it…and place yourself in the boots of a battalion commander who wants to get his combat duty ticket punched but who also doesn’t want to wind up charged with a war crime it things get dicey out there and the troops kill the wrong guy, or even kill the right guy but on video which looks like (or can be made to look like) the shooting wasn’t justified. Given this, perhaps you just go through the motions? If an easy and clear targets serves itself up for you, fine: but getting down and dirty in it which might lead to a career ending mistake? Give it a pass.

And the senior officers probably won’t look too closely at it – they know the game, too. They played it years before and got through it with a star on their shoulder and now look forward to a post-military career as a lobbyist or TV talking head. Maybe even get a book deal out of it…with their picture on the cover in a uniform with more decorations on it than Patton and MacArthur combined had. Hold the pose: that stern look of command (the photographer will get the lighting right for that), eyes off into the distance. The viewer mentally hearing the Star Spangled Banner. Life is good! Don’t think about those guys who got nearly burned to death by an IED…

After really pondering it, I’ve come to the conclusion that it has all been utter sh**. Pardon the language but sometimes an old swabbie has to say it like it is. They never fought to win. Not the officers. Not the civilian leadership. None of them. They just wanted to be seen to be doing something which could be put up in public as brave…as they merely worked the system for advancement. The only person who cared about the troops, as such, was Trump…and you’ll notice that the senior officers, violating their oath (and they will stand before God one day to answer for that: mark my words), undermined him at every turn. He risked the game: the game of never win, get advancement, get rich.

I looked at the pictures of my father and grandfather yesterday – grandpa in his WWI Army uniform and dad in his WWII Marine uniform and I wondered what they would think about it? And then further wondered what they would do about it? Have we all become such cowards? I do think that dad and grandpa would have started shooting by now. People are dead. Thousands of them. Ours and theirs. And for what? So that defense contractors can make money and four star cowards can get rich? Admiral Byng was shot pour encourager les autres simply because he wasn’t aggressive enough against the enemy. What should be done with generals who weren’t aggressive at all? And the politicians who set it up that way?

How did we get to this? How cowardly did we have to be to allow this to happen? Was the bribe of a big screen TV and a Super Bowl enough? Sadly, it was. Using fake money the Ruling Class allowed us to purchase amazing luxuries to keep us distracted while they sold us out. Look in the mirror, folks, to find who is responsible for this.

But, now we know. We can’t go back: the lies have been exposed. We know. We can’t be fooled anymore. Now it turns about and becomes the responsibility of very specific people who are trying to keep this con going. And we, in our turn, must hold them accountable. They must be punished for what they have done. We have been betrayed by the very people we placed our faith in. Time will tell if these traitors get their proper wages.

Brennan and the Collapse of America

Mark Noonan73 Comments

John Brennan Tweeted out an announcement of his forthcoming book. My response to that was to Tweet:

John, you are precisely the sort of person who has f***ed everything up for the past 75 years.

Leaving aside his clear role in trying to destroy President Trump, the fact remains that Brennan spent 25 years at CIA, often in the top reaches with access to the President (he was Clinton’s daily briefer). He was there, possessing the data and offering the advice for decades, winding up as Obama’s CIA director. So, when people like President Clinton, President Bush and President Obama said they were relying on “advice”, Brennan was that “advice.” The President gets to make the final call, of course, but only between options provided by the guys giving the advice. In reality, permanent bureaucrats like Brennan are the people who behind the scenes run our country.

How’s that been working out?

It is a rare leader who can get the bureaucracy to do anything it doesn’t want to do. Now, to be sure, most people who rise to the top in politics are part of the team: there really isn’t much friction between a President or Prime Minister and the permanent staff. Most of the time, they are on the same page…but in those rare instances where the boss wants something that the bureaucracy doesn’t, the bureaucracy comes out on top. This is usually be delay: back-burner it until the boss losses interest. To force a bureaucracy to move, you must pester it.

Churchill was like that: he was forever simply calling up the bureaucrats or sending them notes demanding to know the status of the order he gave. Eventually, just to get him off their back, they’d do as ordered. As for President Trump, he is only just now getting a measure of control over the bureaucracy. Even more so than Churchill, Trump is the outsider and he’s got a whole bunch of plans the bureaucracy opposes. Even absent the partisan angle, they’d be fighting him tooth and nail. That the bureaucracy is largely made up of hyper-partisan Democrats just makes the battle more intense.

And Trump’s fight here is crucial to the future of the United States: we must excise the Brennans. They simply have to go. Not because they’re partisan Democrats. Not even because they are corrupt. They have to go because they are no good. They suck. They are lousy at their jobs. They don’t really understand anything. Brennan has a degree in Political Science and a Masters in Government. There is, of course, no science in politics and what the heck is a Master of Government? What, exactly, have you learned? I don’t know: but the output of people with such degrees is pretty bad. Our government and military is littered with people with degrees in political science and government and what we get are the Department of Education and military plans which send guys to fight terrorists and then charge them with war crimes when they kill terrorists.

This doesn’t seem to be an ideal situation.

Right now, as we’ve all seen, just about every poll shows Biden in a walkover. Even Rasmussen has Biden up big (though, unlike the rest of the pollsters, Rasmussen is quick to point out that at this exact time in 2016 they had Hillary up big). I’m still getting voter registration data and VBM return data which indicates great strength for Trump out there. Add to that the spontaneous demonstrations in favor of Trump and we look at the polls and then file them away. But win or lose, the key thing for us is to get after and get rid of the Brennans in our government. If we have to fire everyone and start over, we can’t refuse the duty. We can’t persist as a free nation if our bureaucracy is both incompetent and corrupt.

These people took a United States in 1945 from the pinnacle of power to a debtor nation which is dependent upon Chinese tyrants for its manufactured goods. Not only that, but because we have become economically dependent upon foreign tyrants, these tyrants are more and more calling the tune in the United States. For fear of losing money in China, corporation after corporation toes the Chinese line…and because the tyrants have money, ever more Americans are willing to tailor their public actions to suit Chinese desires. Either these people go, or the United States goes.

I expect Trump to win on November 3rd. That will be great – but even four more years of Trump won’t do what we need. We need twenty or thirty years of power to reform this nation from top to bottom, and our problem is to figure out how to get that.