Author: VD

Mailvox: Army rot in OCS, part I

An email from a US Army officer who shares his perceptions of an organization in decline after completing Officer Candidate School:

I’ll just say that my experience is very fresh. I think it’s important to give a bit of backstory to how I’ve become so disillusioned, because in military culture disillusionment is automatically regarded as a defense mechanism for underperformers. I come from a military family with a line of high US officers. I used to believe in all the neo-con talking points that my peers endlessly spout. I even tried out for special forces, I believed in the whole US military thing so much….

“Equal” Opportunity: 
I believe you and your fans will already know of the low standards women are held to, so I’ll just share a risible story of the worst example here. The first Friday of the course OCS always has a “Class Up Run,” of 3 miles at about a 9-minute pace. We were sternly warned that falling out of formation would result in a day-one reset, which carries with it the sentence of being a holdover at the Company HQ barracks. This is the worst thing candidates fear being done to them short of dismissal. Well, wouldn’t you know it but four brown females decided to walk the last mile. Nothing happened to them. All of the First Sergeant & Company Commander’s aggressive warnings (and these guys are infantrymen with the latter having the vaunted Ranger tab) were subsequently memory-holed.

Second Generation Modern Warfare Training: 
All the training we’ve received here is precisely in line with what Mr. Lind would call “Second Generation.” It is procedure obsessed and crushes innovation. Oh, they talk constantly about the awesome talent of the Imperial German Army (Stormtrooper tactics) and the later Wehrmacht innovations and pretend that their manuals and whatnot are derived from them, but in practice that’s a lie. If you tried to innovate outside the holy law of the field manuals, you would provoke a mighty REE the likes of which a gamma would give when his perceived ruleset is broken. The training tries to pound you into a box and then stay in that box.

The F-Word and A Culture of Gullible Murderers: 
“Freedom.” That’s all you gotta say to get the otherwise decent men that comprise my peers to want to murder people en masse minding their own business in their own countries. It’s a variant strain of NPC “orange man bad,” except it takes the form of “Taliban/Iranian/Russian/Chinese bad, me kill.” They love talking about killing people without regard to why, who, or the consequences so long as the act is justified by authority figures, whom they – most of them anyway – believe without reservation. This leads me to my next point…

What I Call the “NuBoomer” Sub-Generation: 
Boomer mentality has been successfully transmitted to a subset of millennials who are making up most of the high-spirited white officers. They are boomers except that they were born in the 90’s or very early 2000’s. What is boomer about them? The previously-mentioned automatic, sacrosanct trust in authority. If the media and gubmint tell them Iran blew up the ships, they believe it. Fake belief in the Bible; they will either be ‘cultural’ Christians who read Thomas Jefferson’s heretical tract as a substitute for the real Bible, or blithely ignore the politically incorrect passages of scripture. They furthermore embrace civnattery wholeheartedly, talking about how awesome it is to have fifth columns and grifters representatives from all colors and creeds in the ranks. Not to mention women and LGBT+ (soon to add P). Questioning mainstream narratives is beyond the pale  to them, and they love to consume mainstream ‘culture,’ i.e. movies, Netflix & pay-to-win games. These are the young men that the neo-cons are dependent on keeping sated and nationally/religiously unconscious for it is they who fight the imperial wars with high morale.

Part II to follow on Monday.

Hey, I sent the letter!

Y’all never said nothing about not sending MORE letters! Boris Johnson circumvents the Remainer Parliament’s attempt to force his hand.

Late tonight – just before the midnight deadline stipulated by ‘wrecker’ MPs – a total of three letters were due to be sent from the Government to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council.

The first was the letter demanded by the Benn Act, which asks the EU to delay Brexit beyond the October 31 deadline – but not signed by Boris Johnson – using the exact wording specified in the legislation.

The second was a covering letter, written by Sir Tim Barrow, the UK’s Permanent Representative in Brussels, which made clear that the first letter was from Parliament, not the Government.

And the third was a letter from Mr Johnson, which was also sent to the leaders of the other 27 EU nations, in which he disavowed the first letter by making clear that he does not want any delay to Brexit.

In it, the PM said any further hold-up would be ‘deeply corrosive’, and would ‘damage the interests of the UK and our EU partners’.

The historic batch of correspondence, which were sent by Sir Tim in both hard copy and electronically, represents the Prime Minister’s defiant riposte to the ‘rebel alliance’ who scuppered his attempt to finally secure Commons support for Brexit today.

Mr Johnson is also steeling himself for an instant legal challenge from pro-Remain groups to his three-letter ploy on the grounds that he did not sign the Benn missive.

However, No 10 lawyers have pointed out that the Benn Act only orders the PM to ‘send’ not ‘sign’ a letter.

It’s fascinating to see the Right and the nationalists finally playing the game by the same rules as the Left and the globalists. But playing by the letter of the law rather than what you believe its spirit should ideally be is the only possible way to play if you have any intention of winning.

600% and counting

News of the availability of the 2020 Junior Classics is has observably spread as far as Australia and Hong Kong. If you are similarly interested in acquiring one of the greatest homeschooling assets ever printed, whether in digital, hardcover, or deluxe leather editions, you can do so here.
The campaign owner is aware that the campaign cannot be found by searching for it on Google or the crowdfunding site. That is by design, so there is no need to repeatedly inform us of that fact. If you wish to help spread the news about the , please feel free to post the animated GIF above with a direct link to the campaign attached. And thanks very much to the Classics backer who created the banner.
In other crowdfunding news, we are aware of about 500 AH Vol. I omnibuses that have not yet shipped due to a problem with the order formatting. We are in the process of fixing that with the printer, so if you have not yet received your omnibus, just sit tight, as this is just a minor procedural problem.
UPDATE: The Heirloom perk is intentionally priced higher than the sum of its parts because certain backers have requested a means of providing additional support to the project.
UPDATE: Both the leather and the case-laminated hardcover editions are printed on acid-free paper that meets the ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 standards for archival quality paper.

Science fiction ethics

I’m trying to think of a less useful, more intrinsically irrelevant concept than utilizing science fiction as a lens with which to consider the ethics of war….

Generally, three families of theories about the ethics of war have some credibility or prestige within modern liberal democracies. We can question whether the third is technically an ethical theory, but it plays the same role, and I think it does contain at least a residual ethical element:

  • Pacifist theories, which, with limited exceptions and variations, rule out acts of violence.
  • Just war theories.
  • International relations realist (or simply “realist”) theories of war. These are basically theories of enlightened self-interest.

Before going further, it’s important to note that there are other approaches that now lack credibility among thoughtful people in liberal democracies. These approaches emphasize such things as empire, personal and national glory, spreading religion or ideology, the idea of war as a kind of adventure or grand game, or as character building, and so on. A whole range of such approaches were once popular, but are now commonly viewed with disdain.

Historically, that is a recent development. These approaches to war lost credibility as a result of the horror of trench warfare in World War I, the immense destructiveness of the atomic bombs used in World War II, and the hydrogen bombs developed soon after, and doubtless other historical developments. But at least until World War I, these older ideas had great currency.

Prior to that time, few narratives of future wars included warnings against the horrors of war as such, or against the horrors of a future form of war. Where they expressed warnings, as they often did, it was usually against geopolitical and military vulnerability, as with “The Battle of Dorking”, a novella by G.T. Chesney (1871), and, in the Australian context, The Yellow Wave by Kenneth Mackay (1895). The great exception here is The War in the Air by H.G. Wells (1908), which I’ll return to in more detail.

The article is not entirely uninteresting for anyone who is interested in military history or strategy. But the idea that science fiction offers anything – anything at all – to say on the subject is objectively risible. And this intrinsic irrelevance is underlined by the way that the opinions of “thoughtful people in liberal democracies” are meaningful, let alone definitive.

Repatriations are officially on the table

What the media pretends is unthinkable is already happening:

Mexico has deported over 300 Indian nationals to New Delhi, the National Migration Institute (INM) said late on Wednesday, calling it an unprecedented transatlantic deportation. The move follows a deal Mexico struck with the United States in June, vowing to significantly curb U.S.-bound migration in exchange for averting U.S. tariffs on Mexican exports.

“It is unprecedented in INM’s history – in either form or the number of people – for a transatlantic air transport like the one carried out on this day,” INM said in a statement.

The 310 men and one woman that INM said were in Mexico illegally were sent on a chartered flight, accompanied by federal immigration agents and Mexico’s National Guard. They arrived in New Delhi on Friday.

Isn’t it remarkable what a little standing firm can accomplish? The ease with which China has caused both the NBA and Hollywood to kneel demonstrates that the US government and other US organizations could easily break the mainstream narrative, it only requires a little backbone of the sort that has hitherto been lacking.

YouTube deplatforms Red Ice

This news is hardly surprising:

Yes, today they did it. YouTube deleted our channel without notice. Special thanks goes out to all our members for your incredible support. You ensure that we can continue. No matter how much they limit and stifle our ability to speak, share our perspectives, talk about news, events, history and the future, with your help can we continue to produce content.

It’s great that nationalists are accepting their deplatforming with calm equanimity rather than the shock, horror, and tears of the average conservative, but their responses would be considerably more effective and consequential if the deplatformed would take legal action and make the rubble bounce. As long as no one resists, the deplatformings will continue.

Not being an expert on Swedish law, I can’t analyze their probabilities of success, but as a general rule, European courts are extremely disfavorable to Google and Google-owned companies.

Kneel, Hollywood

And you know the sick freaks of Evilwood will kneel to power, as they always do, which is an indictment on the so-called “conservatives” of America:

In a shocking twist not unlike the ending of a Quentin Tarantino film or two, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’s China box office ambitions appear to be going up in flames.

The critically acclaimed movie, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, had been approved for release in China on Oct. 25, but regulators have abruptly reversed course.

According to multiple sources close to the situation in Beijing, who asked not to be named because they weren’t permitted to speak publicly about the matter, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’s local release has been indefinitely put on hold.

The film would have been Tarantino’s first proper release in China, and the country’s enormous market was expected to help push the title’s worldwide box office total past the $400 million mark (it has earned $366 million to date). The abrupt change-up comes as a blow to both Sony Pictures and the film’s Chinese financier, Beijing-based Bona Film Group.

As The Hollywood Reporter reported exclusively in January, Bona took a sizable equity stake in Once Upon a Time, which gave the company participation in the film’s worldwide box office, as well as distribution rights in Greater China. Bona’s CEO Yu Dong and COO Jeffrey Chan are both prominently credited as executive producers of the film.

As is typical in China, no official explanation for the cancellation has been offered by Beijing regulators. Bona didn’t reply to text messages and emails, and Sony’s China office could not immediately be reached.

But the story swirling through the executive ranks of China’s film industry Friday was that the decision stemmed from Tarantino’s somewhat controversial portrayal of martial arts hero Bruce Lee, the only character of Chinese descent in the movie. Friends and family of the late Lee have blasted the director for the depiction, saying the real-life action star didn’t behave as he’s portrayed in the film.

According to sources close to Bona and China’s Film Bureau, Bruce Lee’s daughter, Shannon Lee, made a direct appeal to China’s National Film Administration, asking that it demand changes to her father’s portrayal.

It’s amusing to see how the combination of Trump, Putin, and Xi is revealing the essential helplessness of the permanent inversives to everyone. The defeat of the West and the conquest of America has been shown to consist of nothing more than word spells cast by evil wizards of rhetoric upon an innocent and somewhat retarded people.

Ever notice how offending Christians is always defended as “artistic integrity” but they’ll cast that integrity aside the moment anyone actually stands firm? Never take a wizard’s spell at face value.

Spying on US conservatives in Ukraine

The Ukraine revelations take an unexpected turn, with reports of the State Department using Ukraine as a base to spy upon conservatives in the United States:

The prominent conservative figures — journalists and persons with ties to President Donald Trump — allegedly unlawfully monitored by the State Department in Ukraine at the request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch include:

  • Jack Posobiec
  • Donald Trump Jr.
  • Laura Ingraham
  • Sean Hannity
  • Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)
  • Dan Bongino
  • Ryan Saavedra
  • Rudy Giuliani
  • Sebastian Gorka
  • John Solomon
  • Lou Dobbs
  • Pamella Geller
  • Sara Carter

Before this impeachment narrative finishes failing and disappears, a LOT of anti-Trump figures are going to be in prison.

China’s grand strategy

An interesting perspective on what David Goldberg, for many years an opinion leader in the outdated “jump-to-China” plan, claims to perceive China’s grand strategy to be.

China’s notion of what it means to be the world’s superpower is different from ours, though, and begs examination.

An Ideological and Economic Competitor

Earlier this month, Dr. Kiron Skinner, head of Policy Planning at the State Department, had this to say: “In China, we have an economic competitor, we have an ideological competitor, one that really does seek a kind of global reach that many of us didn’t expect a couple of decades ago, and I think it’s also striking that it’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”

 As Victor Davis Hanson observed, Japan was, in fact, a great power competitor, and a formidable one, from its crushing defeat of Russia in 1905 to the end of the Second World War.

To put the present situation in context: Japan’s GDP [Gross Domestic Product] in 1940 was one-fifth of America’s and its population only half. China’s GDP is roughly the same as ours (25 percent larger than ours in purchasing power parity, according to the International Monetary Fund, or 30 percent smaller in nominal terms at the present exchange rate). Its population is more than four times [that of the U.S.]. China’s investment in frontier technologies exceeds America’s by a wide margin. It also graduates four times as many STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] Bachelor’s degrees and twice as many doctorates—and the skills gap is widening. One-third of [China’s] new labor market entrants have bachelor’s degrees, and one-third of those are in engineering.

Today, the two economies are of roughly equal size, but China is growing twice as fast. President Trump has said repeatedly that our economy is doing well while China’s economy is doing badly. He is misinformed. The perception that China is weak is widespread in Washington, and evidently contributed to the recent breakdown in trade negotiations. That is a strategic miscalculation that may have baleful consequences. China fears nothing but America’s technological edge, and that edge is eroding at an alarming pace.

National Principles and Imperial Designs

Dr. Skinner is broadly correct: We have never engaged a strategic rival with resources and skills on this scale. Today’s situation is radically different in another respect. In America and China we observe the confrontation of the national and the imperial principle in their purest form. America is history’s most successful nation-state. Its premise is the sanctity of the individual, the heritage of the English Protestants who in the 17th century envisioned a biblical republic. When I last had the privilege of addressing you three years ago, I spoke about our unifying political culture and its ever-present theme of the individual’s pilgrimage toward redemption. Our sense of the sacred in every citizen has proven a stronger and more enduring bond than the ethnocentric nationalisms of the Old World.

China is the oldest and—despite intermittent breakdowns—the most successful empire in history, subjecting the interest of the individual to the imperatives of the state. Unlike America, China never assimilated the scores of ethnicities who comprise its enormous population. Instead, it orders them into an imperial system ruled by a centralized elite and communicates by a system of imperial ideograms rather than a common tongue. It maintains a ruthless meritocracy that filters talent by standardized examinations. It has always viewed its people as raw material for imperial power and, within living memory, has sacrificed frightful numbers of them. The imperial order is perpetually at risk of fracture, and the succession of dynasties is interrupted by episodes of internecine war and unimaginable suffering. But the imperial system perpetually restores itself because the Chinese have had no alternative to warlords and anarchy.

Who is this “we”, (((David)))? What Goldberg, aka Spengler, omits from his analysis is the fact that the West is no longer the West, but rather, a failed and parasitized successor to what used to be the West. There is no us, there is no Judeo-Christian “sense of the sacred in every citizen” in the current Post-West. What Goldberg falsely claims is “a stronger and more enduring bond” than the nationalisms of the genuine West is not only intrinsically weak, it is leading directly to general collapse and a war of many tribes that will greatly serve China’s long terms strategic interests.

Goldberg’s analysis is obvious trash, resting as it does on such observably false assertions. But it is very useful to know it, because it informs us of what the current post-Western elite wants to believe and what the basis of their future actions will be.