Tag: war

Is Syria the USA’s Syracuse?

Why the USA is now actively aiding ISIS in Syria:

To grasp what’s really going on behind the endless recriminations, we need to understand that the Obama administration has abandoned its original plan to oust Syrian President Bashar al Assad, and moved on to Plan B; partitioning the country in a way that establishes a separate Sunni state where US troops will be based and where vital pipelines will be built to transfer natural gas from Qatar to the EU.

This ambitious plan is more than a redrawing of the Middle East and a pivot to Asia. It is a critical lifeline to a country whose economic prospects are progressively dimming, whose credit card is maxed out, and who is counting on a Hail Mary pass in Syria to save itself from cataclysmic economic collapse and ruination. Washington must succeed in Syria because, well, because it must, because the red ink has finally penetrated the pinewood hull and is fast filling the galley. A defeat in the Middle East could be the straw that broke the camel’s back, the tipping point in the agonizingly-protracted unipolar-new-world-order experiment. In other words, it’s Syria or bust.

There is a long tradition of democratic empires failing as a result of unnecessary military adventures, dating back to the Athenian disaster in Syracuse. It’s much too soon to tell, but the continuing US failure in Syria does tend to smack of a potential turning point with regards to the imperial USA.

Note for the historical ignorati: before you start arguing that the USA cannot be an empire  despite its military occupation of more than 70 countries around the world because democracy, I suggest you read about the Athenian empire.

The desperation of a failing superpower

Flailing would also be an appropriate adjective. Regardless, it should be increasingly apparent to any student of history that the USA is no longer a unitary superpower and that the Obama administration is no longer deemed credible by allies and enemies alike. The Saker describes the latest series of debacles:

After days and days of intensive negotiations, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov finally reached a deal on a cease-fire in Syria which had the potential to at least “freeze” the situation on the ground until the Presidential election in the USA and a change in administration (this is now the single most important event in the near future, therefore no plans of any kind can extend beyond that date).

Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front. The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the “moderate terrorists” which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces. Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead. The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

Next came the pathetic and absolutely unprofessional scene of US Ambassador Samantha Powers simply walking out of a UNSC meeting when the Russian representative was speaking. Again, the Russians were simply blown away, not by the infantile attempt at offending, but at the total lack of diplomatic professionalism shown the Powers. From a Russian point of view, for one superpower to simply walk out at the very moment the other superpower is making a crucial statement is simply irresponsible and, again, the sign that their American counterparts have totally “lost it”.

Finally, there came the crowning moment: the attack of the humanitarian convey in Syria which the USA blamed, of course, on Russia. The Russians, again, could barely believe their own eyes. First, this was such a blatant and, frankly, Kindergarten-level attempt to show that “the Russians make mistakes too” and that “the Russians killed the cease-fire”. Second, there was this amazing statement of the Americans who said there are only two air forces which could have done that – either the Russians or the Syrians (how the Americans hoped to get away with this in an airspace thoroughly controlled by Russian radars is beyond me!). Somehow, the Americans “forgot” to mention that their own air force was also present in the region, along with the air forces of many US allies. Most importantly, they forgot to mention that that night armed US Predator drones were flying right over that convoy.

What happened in Syria is painfully obvious: the Pentagon sabotaged the deal made between Kerry and Lavrov and when the Pentagon was accused of being responsible, it mounted a rather crude false flag attack and tried to blame it on the Russians.

You didn’t need to see the radar to know that the bombing of the humanitarian convoy was a false flag. The moment the news about it broke, I said to Spacebunny, “there is no way that isn’t fake.” At this point, it almost appears that the US government appears to spend more time staging false flags than attempting to stop enemy action.

And it’s not just the Russians and common sense that suggest the USA used Predators to fire Hellfire missiles at the convoy.

Thermobaric Hellfire air-blasts don’t leave craters, and they typically start fires. No craters are visible in footage of the burned convoy.

The Russians have thermobaric bombs, too, according to PavewayIV, but they use different particles and their blast patterns are different: either no “sparkles” or long-duration “sparkles”, not the fast-duration flash as seen in the video of the Aleppo blast.

As we reported yesterday, the Russians detected a Predator drone which took off from Incirlik airbase in Syria, flew to the precise location of the convoy, arrived before the strike, stayed for a while, then left after the damage was done.

Surviving the mob

Peter Grant, formerly a soldier in South Africa, knows whereof he speaks. I suggest it would behoove most Americans to heed his advice these days.

There are some important lessons to be learned.  Firstly, a vehicle isn’t going to help when the streets are clogged.  You can’t drive over dozens of protestors.  If nothing else, their bodies will immobilize your vehicle, just as surely as if it became high-centered over a bump.  What’s more, as soon as you’re forced to slow down or stop, you’re going to get dragged from your vehicle by angry rioters.  That may not be survivable.  Much rather use your vehicle to avoid getting into that mess in the first place . . . but you may not have a choice.  You may turn a corner in a city center to find the mob coming to meet you, with no time or space to avoid them.  If you’re on an interstate highway, the on- and off-ramps may be blocked by rioters and/or vehicles with nowhere to go, leaving you stranded with a mob coming towards you, looting every vehicle they pass.  This is what I-85 looked like in Charlotte on Tuesday evening.

Rioters looted stalled trucks of their cargoes, taking what they wanted and torching the rest.  Hundreds of vehicles backed up behind the scene of the crime.  If yours was among them, what would you do?  Many of those present abandoned their vehicles and fled on foot.  That’s all well and good, if they had the space and time to do so . . . but what if they didn’t?  What if the rioters swarmed their vehicle before they could get out?  What if they, or a member of their party, had limited mobility and couldn’t escape and evade fast enough?

In such a situation, resistance may be your only option.  Make sure you have a firearm handy, plus enough ammunition to defend yourself and your loved ones.  That may be difficult.  It’s an unpalatable, raw, brutal fact that you may not be able to offer enough resistance to save yourself in such a situation.  If there are a couple of dozen rioters within feet of you, you probably can’t shoot fast enough to get them all.  Distance is your friend.  Even if you use a firearm successfully to defend yourself, whilst that may solve Problem One (immediate survival), it’s likely to land you neck-deep in Problem Two.  The aftermath of such a riot is likely to see political and social leaders screaming for a scapegoat.  If you shoot a few rioters, guess what?  You’re probably it.

You’re just about certain to be arrested and charged with all sorts of crimes, even if all you were doing is trying to save your life and the lives of your loved ones.  You may find it very difficult to defeat the charges in court, particularly if witnesses are scarce (or intimidated), and video footage of your activities (from nearby security cameras, hovering helicopters, etc.) is deliberately edited to portray your actions in the worst possible light.  Think that won’t happen?  You’re naive.

You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control.  Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they’ll be magnets for looters).  Don’t wait until it’s too late.  Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn’t materialize, rather than wait until you’re sure there’s trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.

That’s likely to be difficult once riots become established.  A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading.  Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control.  That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties) . . . but it won’t help you if you’re trapped inside that perimeter.  The rioters will be all around you, and you won’t be able to avoid them.  That’s not a good place to be.  Get to the perimeter if at all possible, and seek police protection.  If you can’t, you’ll have no alternative but to hunker down in place and ride out the storm.

If you suspect you may find yourself in that situation, your location should be prepared in advance to resist that sort of problem.  Make sure rioters can’t easily break in and get at you.  Use obstructions (plants, flower boxes, whatever) to make it difficult to approach windows;  put stout burglar bars on windows and security gates on doors, and fortify them if possible with whatever’s available;  have weapons handy, and make sure that all adults and older children know how to use them.  Keep rioters outside, if possible at a distance, so they can’t get their hands on you or your weapons.  If they do, your resistance is over, right there – and I don’t have to tell you what your loved ones are likely to go through under such circumstances.

That’s why the best possible solution is to get clear of the trouble and stay away from it until it’s died down.

Or to put it more briefly, John Derbyshire was right.

Peter is right about how easy it is to be taken by surprise, though. We were in Rome walking through the streets in a nearly empty quarter one day when we heard a dull roar. It was hard to tell what it was, or exactly from what direction it was coming. I was curious, since it could have been anything from immigrants to ultras, so my friend and I had the women and children stay back while we went to see what was going on. It kept getting louder, but there was nothing to see until we turned a corner to encounter a large mass of several hundred dark-skinned people who looked like Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. They were loudly demonstrating against deportations or the lack of work permits or something,, and while it wasn’t even remotely dangerous, I won’t forget the shock of suddenly encountering such a loud and overpowering mass of humanity without much in the way of warning besides that dull roar.

And I can attest that having a handgun wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. Frankly, a belt-fed .50 caliber might not have been enough without a minefield. If I heard that sound these days, I’d do my best to figure out where it was coming from, then move quickly the opposite way. And if I couldn’t tell, I’d start backtracking. Fast.

Regardless, the key to successfully surviving everything from a one-on-one fight to a mob scene is lateral movement. You not only don’t want to be where they are, you don’t want to be where they are going.

Moggies at the Mall

It’s only a matter of time before the Somalis stage a much bigger, much more lethal attack at the Megamall. But seriously, St. Cloud? Aside from the Vikings at training camp, there wasn’t a single black, Arab, or Asian to be seen in St. Cloud when I was young.

At least eight people were taken to a hospital with injuries after a stabbing attack at a Minnesota shopping mall that ended with the suspected attacker, who reportedly made references to Allah, shot dead by an off-duty police officer, authorities said.

The attack took place at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud.

St. Cloud Police Chief Blair Anderson said during a news conference shortly after midnight that eight people were taken to St. Cloud Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries following the attack first reported about 8.15pm Saturday.

One person was admitted. No further details were released. During the news conference, Anderson said the attacker who was armed with a knife made references to Allah during the attack and asked at least one person whether they were Muslim.

And let’s not forget the bombing yesterday in New York City. At this point, it’s clear that Americans will be better off fighting an ethnic war sooner rather than later. Stabbings here, bombings there, shootings everywhere; that is the new US reality. There is not going to be any peace until the USA is 90 percent American again.

You cannot live in a civilized manner among barbarians, and tens of millions of barbarians are now inside the gates. Mass immigration is war.

Interesting times are upon us because the previous two generations were stupid. Better carry. You never know when you’ll need it.

FFS

If this is true, and not a mistake, Obama has decided to come out openly in support of Islamic State:

Syria’s army general command said warplanes from the U.S.-led coalition bombed a Syrian army position at Jebel Tharda near Deir al-Zor airport on Saturday, paving the way for Islamic State fighters to overun it.

The air strike killed Syrian soldiers and was “conclusive evidence” that the U.S. and its allies support the jihadist group, the Syrian army said in a statement, noting that the strike was “dangerous and blatant aggression”.

Syria’s army controls Deir al-Zor airport and parts of the city which are otherwise entirely surrounded by territory held by Islamic State.

This would also appear to be in violation of the recent US-Russian ceasefire agreement.

UPDATE: The US admitted responsibility for the bombing.

The Obama administration officially expressed it’s “regret” for an airstrike that killed Syrian forces with a senior White House official saying “The United States has relayed our regret through the Russian Federation for the unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces.”

Clustastrophe

There is clearly some brilliant stategery taking place in the Pentagon these days. These gentlemen are clearly read to fight WWIII against a Sino-Russian alliance:

Video footage appears to show US commandos fleeing a Syrian town under a barrage of abuse and insults hurled at them by fighters from the American-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebel group.

The video appears to be the first evidence of US special forces cooperating with Turkish troops in their battle against Islamic State….

The fighters scream anti-American chants as a column of pick-up trucks carrying US commandos drives away from them.

“Christians and Americans have no place among us,” shouts one man in the video. “They want to wage a crusader war to occupy Syria.”

Another man calls out: “The collaborators of America are dogs and pigs. They wage a crusader war against Syria and Islam.”

There is nothing quite like running away from the ragtag militia you’ve supplied with weapons to strike fear into your foes. We’ve got top men running this war. Top men.

Whites are the new Indians

Lawrence Murray chronicles the invasion and conquest of white America:

It is clear that the coastal and border regions of the United States, home to our largest cities and power centers, seem destined to become solidly non-white, leaving a large but relatively sparse—and therefore colonially vulnerable—interior region as the only place with a large White majority. The United States is reverting to a colonial society, one of foreign cities and a disconnected indigenous countryside. We’ve become the Indians.

This is a problem. Cities are the focal points of social and financial mobility in the United States, centers of political power, and where high status is conferred upon people, something normies crave. That we are becoming physically and culturally excluded from this world I think is a net negative, despite much of the alt-right’s hostility to urban life. Indeed, how much of that hostility is an indictment of the demographics of cities and their derived politics rather than of the physical spaces of the cities themselves? Our situation is a perverse one, one in which our cities are foreign to us even though urbanization is an integral part of modernity.

The idea that we can abandon our own cities for farther and farther away suburbs, a phenomenon which has been going on for decades, is one whose time is going to be cut short sooner or later by the simple reality that ordinary people cannot afford to move away from jobs. Not to mention that we will run out of land eventually. At this point it is a game of chicken with (((international financial capitalism))) to see whose rotten undergirding falls out first—do the cities collapse under their own dead weight as a result of our flight and replacement with net tax-consuming vibrants, or do we become impoverished in the long-run as a result of unplugging ourselves from “where the money is”?

For the foreseeable future, we will continue to have a  racially-driven reverse movement of people out of cities into the hinterland. Traditionally, cities were grown from the countryside as people migrated to them in search of opportunity and employment. Our ongoing revolt against the flow of history does not stop urbanization, however. Instead of our own countryside fueling the growth of our cities, it is migration from the global south, which exacerbates White flight further. Is there really any good reason why unemployed or underemployed native English speakers from say, the Rust Belt, couldn’t be encouraged to move to our cities for work? Why instead import what are largely foreign functional illiterates?

The so-called global city is really just a third world colony in the White world. Colonization is not just a metaphor for the current state of affairs, it is the reality of them. How did European colonists live outside of Europe during our high tide? They lived in and built fortified cities and ports in foreign lands where they were a minority. Today it has been reversed; we are the ones living beyond the Pale, watching ivory towers filled with ebony rise in our conquered capitals.

The loss of our own cities is unique problem of the White world, the sort of thing Stoddard warned us would happen if we yielded the outer dikes without shoring up the inner dikes. A Japanese city is Japanese. A Mexican city is Mexican. An Indian city is Indian. A Chinese city is Chinese. It is only in Europe and the Anglo satellites where you have this phenomenon of cities being not just slightly divergent from the general population but foreign to it. New York, for example, is not an Anglo-American city, but an Israeli-Puerto Rican-Chinese-Pakistani-Ecuadorian-Mexican-Filipino-Dominican-African-Korean city. Paris is not a French city, but an Algerian-Moroccan-Portuguese-Senegalese-Vietnamese-Malian city. London is not a British city, but an Indian-Pakistani-Jamaican-Polish-Bengali-Arab-Chinese-Nigerian city. It will pose a geopolitical problem in the future, that metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties in the same country are different races from one another. Indeed, there can be no harmony in a country where the centers of power and economic life are radically different from the wider society—the ancient tension between urban and rural will only be exacerbated further.

Of course, the situation can, and most likely will, be reversed in time. The tragic thing is that it will not be reversed easily, or most likely, peacefully. This is why the great military historian Martin van Creveld, when asked if migration caused war or war caused migration, answered: “there is no difference, migration is war.”

And the United States of America has been losing that war since 1965.

A good reason to vote for Trump

Fred Reed, no die-hard Alt-Righter, explains:

A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that.  Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk.

Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

Every now and then, one starts to conclude that Fred has lost his fastball in his old age. After all, this is the man who used to write articles like this one, about his adventures with tankers at Fort Hood. But the old man still indubitably has it.

Of course, there is another straightforward reason to vote for Trump beyond avoiding a suicidally stupid war, and that is the fact that he can engage in high-risk activities such as drinking water without running a high risk of keeling over before Christmas.

The Russians aren’t coming

The Saker explains that Russia wouldn’t take Ukraine even if it could do so without firing a shot:

Russia is much weaker than what most people think. Her landmass is immense and her military arguably the best on the planet, but population is relatively small, and her economy a struggling one. Yes, the future does look bright for Russia, but presently she simply does not have the means to single handedly rescue (resurrect, really) the Ukraine. Not even close.

The reality is that even Crimea has presented Russia with major challenges. After 25 years of total neglect, Crimea basically needs to completely rebuilt most of its infrastructure. The Kremlin has poured billions of Rubles into numerous and large modernization programs, including an immensely expensive but vitally needed bridge over the Kerch strait, and she will continue to rebuilt Crimea in spite of the immense costs involved. Down the road, of course, Crimea will end up being very wealthy, courtesy of an immense tourist potential, the presence of a much expanded Black Sea fleet and because of its strategic location. But for the foreseeable future, Crimea will remain a major burden which Russia will struggle to deal with.

The situation in the Donbass is even bleaker. If Crimean was neglected, the Donbass has been almost totally destroyed. Right now the Russians are paying the pensions of the local population because the Ukronazis have stolen them, in direct violation of the Minsk Agreements. Russia is also alone in supporting the Novorussian republics with humanitarian, medical, technical, administrative and military programs. And while the Novorussians have done an amazing job rebuilding much of Donetsk and a few other cities, most of what lies within artillery range of the Ukronazi forces still lies in ruins and the economy is more or less at a standstill. This will not change until peace truly returns to the region.

What is already quite evident that regardless of who will be in the Kremlin and regardless of how much good will and self-sacrifice the Russians will have, Russia simply does not have the means to salvage the Ukraine. It just ain’t happening. Furthermore, polls show that most Russians are categorically opposed to a full reintegration of the entire Ukraine into Russia. Who could blame them? They are not only acutely aware that the Ukraine has turned into one bloody hell of a mess, but that an entire generation of Ukrainians has now been terminally brainwashed with russophobic hatred. And, frankly, Russia has no use for Nazis of any kind, even if they are fellow Slavs or even if they are basically the very same nation as the Russian one.

So even if tomorrow Petro Poroshenko and his gang decided to invite the Russians to come in an fix this bloody mess, the Russians would decline (so much for the warnings about a Russian invasion!). Oh sure, there are a lot of Ukrainians who kid themselves and think that “the Russians will come and fix this”, but this is a pipe-dream: the Russians ain’t coming. At most, Russia will let the DNR/LNR get back the territories which belonged to their regions and Mariupol might be liberated. But that’s about it. And even if by some miracle the Novorussian tanks end up in Kiev, I don’t see them staying there for very long because the Kremlin fully understands that if they grab it, they own it and they have to fix it. Eventually Russia will, of course, simply be forced absorb the Donbass and make it a part of Russia, mostly because there is no way the Donbass will ever go back to the Ukraine again, but even this process will take time.

So, why is the Obama administration beating the drum about a Russian invasion of a) Ukraine, b) the Baltic States, and c) Western Europe? Because the USA is doing what it has often done before, attempting to cover its own aggressive actions by portraying them as necessary defensive ones.

However, the fact that it is US troops that occupy dozens of other countries, and that it was the US that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government makes it very clear that while the Russians are not the good guys, the US, and to a lesser extent the EU, are the bad guys of the scenario.

And believe me, none of this has escaped the attention of the people of both Eastern and Western Europe. Putin and the Russians may not be on their side, but unlike the USA and the EU, they are not actively encouraging and enabling the one-million-strong invasion of Europe by warriors of Islam.

Preach, preacher

“Today it is written in the book of fate, that hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old, and national. They will blend cultures, religions, and populations, until our many-faceted and proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile. If we resign ourselves to this outcome, our fate will be sealed and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe. 


We must therefore drag the ancient virtue of courage out from under the silt of oblivion.


First of all, we must put steel in our spines, and we must answer clearly, with a voice loud enough to be heard far and wide, the single most important question determining out fate. The question upon Europe stands of falls is this:


Shall we be slaves – or men set free?” 

– Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary