Tag: war

Martin van Creveld ponders the strange case of the infamous Treaty of Versailles that is widely believed to have all but guaranteed WWII as it ended WWI.

The Treaty of Versailles, the hundredth anniversary of which will be remembered in June of this year, has attracted more than its share of historical debate. What has not been said and written about it? That it did not go far enough, given that Germany lost only a relatively small part of its territory and population and was allowed to continue to exist as a unified state under a single government (French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau). That it went much too far, thus helping lay the foundations of World War II. That it imposed a “Carthaginian Peace” (the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1919 best-seller, The Economic Consequences of the Peace). That it was “made in order to bring twenty million Germans to their deaths, and to ruin the German nation” (according to a speech delivered in Munich on 13 April 1923 by a thirty-four year old demagogue named Adolf Hitler). All these views, and quite some others, started being thrown about almost as soon as the ink on the Treaty had dried. In one way or another, all of them are still being discussed in the literature right down to the present day.

But what was there about the Treaty that was so special? Was it really as original, as unique, as has so often been maintained? Was the brouhaha it gave rise to justified?

Read the whole thing there. It is, as you can imagine, both interesting and educational. I particularly liked the bit about the disarming of war elephants.

Now China has sent troops to Venezuela as well:

A group of Chinese soldiers arrived in Venezuela on Sunday as part of a cooperation program between Beijing and Caracas. According to reports, more than 120 soldiers from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army arrived at Venezuela’s Margarita Island to deliver humanitarian aid and military supplies to the government forces.

The arrival of the People’s Liberation Army in Venezuela comes just days after the Russian armed forces deployed to the country to install a military helicopter training facility.

However, this move by the Russian military has not come without heavy criticism from the Trump administration and several U.S. congressmen.

“Maduro calls for hands off #Venezuela while he invites security forces from Cuba and Russia, so he and his cronies can keep plundering Venezuela. It is time for Venezuelan institutions to stand for their sovereignty. Russia and Cuba, #HandsOffVenezuela,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted on March 28th.

These moves by the Russian and Chinese armed forces appear to be a powerplay against the U.S. administration, who is actively pushing to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power.

As I observed last year, Syria was a major turning point and will likely mark the end of the global US empire. The fall of Libya and the near-expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia forced the Russians and the Chinese to realize that the time for resistance had finally arrived, and their strategists recognized that the US military is too weak and overextended to be capable of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

Since the US is almost certain to back down on Venezuela, where its chosen puppet has absolutely no popular support, it is safe to expect US retreats on other fronts as China and Russia start putting on the pressure elsewhere in South and Central America. Remember, China already controls the Panama Canal and has considerable influence on the west coast of Canada.

I suspect this is why Israel is being so aggressive with regards to the Golan Heights and Gaza, as they must recognize that their ability to act underneath the aegis of US protection is rapidly running out of time.

Remember, historically speaking, the more people move, the more people war:

The United States is home to nearly 20 percent of the globe’s migrant population, a new study finds. The Pew Research Center reveals in a new study that the U.S. has admitted more foreign nationals than any other country in the world. Roughly 18 percent of the world’s migrant population lives in the U.S., the study found.

About 44.5 million foreign-born residents now live in the U.S., far surpassing Germany’s 12.2 million foreign-born population and Russia’s nearly 12 million foreign-born population.

In total, the U.S. is home to more foreign-born residents than Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France combined. The 44.5 million foreign-born population living in the country marks a nearly 108-year record high of immigration to the U.S.

That 44.5 million includes roughly 22 million naturalized citizens, 11 million other residents — including more than 1.5 million foreign temporary visa-workers — plus about 11 million illegal aliens.

Add in the second- and third-generation migrants, and you’re looking at around 85 million foreigners in a population of 310 million. That’s why I said, on a recent Darkstream, that the level of violence that can be reasonably anticipated in a US-breakdown scenario is Cultural Revolution-magnitude, which would indicate fatalities in the 50M to 100M range.

It’s a little startling to see a neocon like Michael “Faster Please” Ledeen opining that the Mueller investigation had its roots in the Swamp’s fear of General Flynn:

What, then, was it all about? I think I know. It was all about General Flynn. I think it began on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, when Flynn changed the way we did intelligence against the likes of Zarqawi, bin Laden, the Taliban, and their allies.

General Flynn saw that our battlefield intelligence was too slow. We collected information from the Middle East and sent it back to Washington, where men with stars on their shoulders and others at the civilian intel agencies chewed it over, decided what to do, and sent instructions back to the war zone. By the time all that happened, the battlefield had changed. Flynn short-circuited this cumbersome bureaucratic procedure and moved the whole enterprise to the war itself. The new methods were light years faster. Intel went to local analysts, new actions were ordered from men on the battlefield (Flynn famously didn’t care about rank or status) and the war shifted in our favor.

This earned him a following among some who worked for or with him, but it also gained him the enmity of those who had been cut out of “the chain of command.” By the time he was made head of DIA, Flynn had a real problem with the intelligence community, first because he had marginalized them, and for another reason: Flynn was determined to do a full-scale analysis of the (many) secret missions that had not been carried out over the years, and he wanted an accounting of the considerable funds allocated for them.

On the other hand, this could be an example of misdirection, because the neocons are more than a little entwined with the Swamp themselves.

The Macronistas are failing the 4GW test in France:

The French government is to deploy its military anti-terror force as reinforcement during Act 19 of Saturday Yellow Vest protests. The decision by President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday, came after violence marred last weekend’s protests, spiking to levels not seen since December.

Many targets by the movement in Paris and other cities included known landmarks and stores or places seen as elitist, such as the Parisian restaurant Le Fouquet’s on the Champs Elysées…. After the weekend, the French government sacked the top police official in Paris, 66-year-old Michel Delpuech, for failure to keep the protests in the capital from spiralling out of control.

It’s only a matter of time before the French praetorians rebel and side with the nation against the globalist government.

Either Kurt Schlichter has been perusing this blog or he’s simply observing the same things I am:

Nations famously tend to always try to fight the last war, and what America is preparing to do today with the newly assertive China is no exception. The problem is our last war was against primitive religious fanatics in the Middle East and China is an emerging superpower with approaching-peer level conventional capabilities and an actual strategy for contesting the United States in all the potential battlespaces – land, sea, air, space and cyber. America is simply not ready for the Pacific war to come. We’re likely to lose.

In Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein was dumb enough to choose to face a U.S. military that was ready to fight its last war. That last war was the Cold War, where the Americans were prepared to fight a Soviet-equipped conscript army using Soviet tactics. And Saddam, genius that he was, decided to face America and its allies with a Soviet-equipped conscript army using Soviet tactics, except fractionally as effective as the Russians. It went poorly. I know – I was there at the VII Corps main command post as his entire army was annihilated in 100 hours.

Chances are that the Chinese will not choose to fight our strengths. In fact, those chances total approximately 100{8378aafe0df5a8211310d3c8e9d482552a62e5d1e3375b859a1f05ab4de12dda}.

It’s called “asymmetrical warfare” in English. What it’s called in Chinese I have no idea, but Sun Tzu wrote about it. Don’t fight the enemy’s strength; fight his weakness. Strike where he is not. Spread confusion about your intentions; force him to lash out. It’s all there in The Art of War; it’s just not clear anyone forming our current American military strategy has read it. Maybe they would if we labeled it “Third World” literature and said checking it out would check a diversity box for promotion.

We seem intent on fighting not the enemy we face but the enemy we want to face. This is a rookie mistake. And we’ve built our strategy around that error.

The point about the way we have switched to the German strategy in favoring quality over quantity is a very good point too. The roles have changed; China is now in the place of the USA in terms of manufacturing capability that the US was vis-a-vis Germany and Japan in WWII.

Martin van Creveld has taught you this. I’ve repeated the warning over and over again. Now genetic science is making it indubitably clear that mass migration is not only war and replacement, but genetic genocide.

Since the beginning of human migration, the Iberian Peninsula—home of modern-day Spain and Portugal—has been a place where the cultures of Africa, Europe, and the Mediterranean have mingled.

In a new paper in the journal Science, a group of 111 population geneticists and archaeologists charted 8,000 years of genetics in the region. They paint a picture that shows plenty of genetic complexity, but that also hints at a single mysterious migration about 4,500 years ago that completely shook up ancient Iberians’ DNA.

The team searched DNA evidence for clues to how and when various populations became part of the Iberian Peninsula’s gene pool. They sequenced the genomes of 271 ancient Iberians, then combined that information with previously published data about 132 other ancient peninsula dwellers.

Beginning in the Bronze Age, the genetic makeup of the area changed dramatically. Starting in about 2,500 B.C., genes associated with people from the steppes near the Black and Caspian seas, in what is now Russia, can be detected in the Iberin gene pool. And from about 2,500 B.C. much of the population’s DNA was replaced with that of steppe people…. Though 60 percent of the region’s total DNA remained the same, the Y chromosomes of the inhabitants were almost entirely replaced by 2,000 B.C. That suggests a massive influx of men from the steppes, since Y chromosomes are carried only by men.

“It looks like the influence was very male dominated,” says Miguel Vilar, a genetic anthropologist who serves as senior program officer for the National Geographic Society.

Who were these men—and did they come in peace?

They obviously didn’t come in peace. They invaded the land, slaughtered the men, and raped the women. That’s what mass migration inevitably entails, and why it the large-scale movement of peoples is actually considerably WORSE than simple international war between nation-states.

Just ask the American Indian.

The senator is absolutely correct, which is why his observations on the New Zealand shootings have sparked such outrage among the reality-challenged:

A controversial federal MP has sparked outrage for blaming Islamic immigration for the Christchurch mosque shooting which has killed 49 people.

Independent Queensland senator Fraser Anning said while any form of violence could never be justified, the growing fear of the ‘increasing Muslim presence’ was behind the massacre.

‘The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place,’ he tweeted shortly after the Friday afternoon shootings.

Every mass movement of peoples has always ended in bloodshed, sooner or later. Why would anyone expect the current migration cycle to end any differently?

And this prediction is particularly apt: As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense.

UPDATE: The shootings in New Zealand were almost certainly the first of the false flags everyone who has been paying attention has been anticipating. The paid shills are out HARD on this one trying to put out the fires being set by everyone who notices the highly cheesy nature of the so-called manifesto or the unlikely prospect of a very fit young Aussie who looks a lot like an SAS officer being inspired by a Norwegian to attack a mosque in New Zealand in order to defend gun rights in the United States.

Martin van Creveld warned you. I warned you. The history of the Islamic invasions of Europe and the reconquest of Spain warned you. The entire recorded history of the movement of peoples warned you. Of course, the inevitability of the historical trends is not going to even slow down the feigned media “shock and outrage” narrative that will greet the events in New Zealand that may be the beginning of Reconquista 2.0, the next phase in the conquest of the West, or simply a clumsy false flag designed to do anything from a) trigger war with Iran, b) justify the further suppression of inalienable rights, or c) derail the growing popularity of the nationalist right.

Two gunmen opened fire at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, at 1.40pm local time on Friday. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said 49 were killed. 41 were killed at Masjid Al Noor Mosque, seven at Linwood Masjid Mosque and one died at hospital.

48 people were rushed to hospital with gunshot wounds and 20 are in critical condition. One of the gunmen live-streamed the deadly attack on Facebook using a GoPro in footage too distressing to show. It was posted on a Facebook page belonging to Brenton Tarrant. It is understood the killer is an Australian-Brit who published a chilling 74-page manifesto before the rampage

Cops have arrested three men and a woman – with one found wearing a suicide vest. New Zealand Police commissioner Mike Bush said a man in his late twenties has been charged with murder and will appear in court tomorrow.

As I have written before, and will no doubt have to write again and again, the blood of the victims on both sides is on the hands of the evil politicians and activists who opened the borders of the nation-states of the West to foreign invaders. There is a reason Muslims refer to the lands outside the House of Submission as the Dar al-Harb, the House of War.

Dar al-Harab is a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis. It is unclean by definition, and will not become clean until annexed to the House of Peace. Its denizens are either to be converted, killed or, if people of the book, tolerated as long as they pay the jizya.

So, don’t bother pretending to be shocked or upset. The bloodshed in Christchurch is what has always happened when rival civilizations clash as a result of one group of people moving into the territory of another group of people. The media never even pretends to shed any tears when dozens of Christians are regularly murdered in their churches in Pakistan, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East. And if the brave men and women of the armed forces had simply defended their nations from Islamic invasion instead of massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children everywhere from Afghanistan to Somalia, ordinary men and women would feel no need to become resistance fighters in their own lands.

If, that is, anyone has actually done so, as there are more than a few distinctly false notes throughout the entire manifesto, which makes me very reluctant to accept the scenario at face value. The entire document felt very cut-and-pasted, and as if it had multiple authors, at least one of whom was trolling the reader.

UPDATE: Apparently option (c) was the correct answer.

The pathology of identity politics on the extreme right….
– Dr. Jordan B Peterson

Or much better yet, not at all. Bill Lind considers the latest neocon push for war with Iran:

Last week’s most important news event received remarkably little press.  According to the February 14 New York Times, shortly after landing in Poland for a major international conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed truth.

No sooner had he landed that the prime minister’s Twitter account announced “an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.”

In case anyone doubts that this was a case of committing truth, the Times reported that “An hour later, the Twitter posting was changed to ‘advance the common interest of combating Iran.’”

So Israel wants war with Iran, and so do several Arab states with loud voices in Washington, especially Saudi Arabia.  From an American perspective, the problem is that both the Israelis and the Saudis will want the United States to fight the war for them.

This promises to be the Iraq war all over again.  American neocons were major players then in devising a new strategy for the destruction of every Arab country that could be a threat to the Jewish state.  Iraq was first on the list.  But then, as now, America was supposed to do the fighting, take the casualties and pay the bill.  The neocons worked on a president who had little understanding of foreign policy (though Trump is a great deal brighter than W.) to do their bidding, and he fell for it.  The result was a disaster for America and the region (and, ironically, Israel).  We lost more than 5000 young Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars wasted, and the Iraqi state destroyed, to the benefit of Fourth Generation, non-state entities such as Al Qaeda and ISIS that are real threats to the U.S. and Israel, which Saddam’s Iraq was not.  We also destroyed the main regional power that was blocking Iran’s quest for regional dominance.

Now, we are supposed to make up for that blunder by going to war with Iran.  The result would likely be even worse.

When defeat is disastrous and victory arguably even worse, the wise move is to not go to war at all.