Tag: war

Clutter and Clean Cycles

Thanks to all those Americans born everywhere from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, even those who are enamored of diversity are beginning to notice that ethnically heterogeneous societies don’t tend to survive economic crashes very well:

While it is difficult for anybody who knows the Pentagon well to
imagine American generals and admirals getting together to overthrow the
civilian government — that would require obscene amounts of PowerPoint
and might endanger top brass golden parachutes with Beltway Bandits —
the notion of a Civil War 2.0, however terrifying it may be, needs to be
faced squarely, if we wish to avoid that awful fate.

America in the 21st century runs little risk of becoming Honduras Grande,
but if current politico-economic trends continue much longer, we might
well wind up a lot like Yugoslavia. That statement is sure to be
controversial, since few Americans, citizens of the global hegemon and
to many of them a most exceptional country, like to be compared with a
relatively small Balkan federation that collapsed into wars and genocide
a generation ago.

Yet the collapse of Yugoslavia offers several cautionary tales to
Americans today, and if they are wise they will heed them and set the
United States on a correction course before it is too late. As one who
witnessed the dreadful collapse of Yugoslavia and its terrible
aftermaths — including the seemingly permanent impoverishment of
Southeastern Europe, mired in crime, corruption, and extremism — I would
very much like America to discover a far happier fate. However, some of the parallels are eerie and troubling….

Managing this increasingly fissiparous country as economic prospects diminish will challenge the most gifted politicians. Indulging in ethnic resentments as a substitute for solutions to vexing politico-economic problems only makes things go from bad to worse, sometimes rapidly and painfully. With both our parties increasingly beholden to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, average Americans of all backgrounds will not be happy that they are bequeathing a life of less affluence and opportunity to their children. In such a time of troubles, playing ethno-racial political games as a substitute for reform is deeply irresponsible.

It would be nice if Democrats and Republicans played better together, particularly on the budget and borrowing money. It would be especially nice if they seriously addressed issues of rising economic inequality and diminishing opportunities for average Americans.  But it is imperative that they not fan the flames of ethnic and racial resentments if they wish to avoid a terrible outcome for our country.

The nation is already broken and divided. What is now being done to the nations of Europe was already done to the USA back in 1965. There is no longer an Anglo-American nation with a moderate admixture of other European nations, now it is a merely a political entity with dozens of rival ethnic and religious interest groups jockeying for power and a share of the income redistribution.

As with Yugoslavia, the structure will hold so long as it doesn’t come under excessive financial stress. This is why I have long predicted the 2033 timeframe, as I thought that’s about when the US dollar will fail as the global reserve currency. Considering the current state of China, it’s possible that timeframe is too optimistic, but regardless, there is still time to prepare for the Yugoslavication and dissolution of the USA.

Choose your location carefully, and with an eye to the future, as who and what you are is likely to matter with regards to your ability to remain there. I can assure you that the idea of ethnic cleansing and forced relocations on the North American continent is neither a new nor an unthinkable idea. Just ask any American Indian.

Just as there are economic boom and bust cycles, there are longer-term demographic clutter and clean cycles. We are at the peak of the greatest demographic clutter cycle in human history, one that has lasted nearly 200 years. This tends to suggest that we are in for the mother of all clean cycles.

An ominous pattern

Consider the following facts:

  1. Russia has withdrawn elements of its tactical forces in Syria, while leaving most of its anti-aircraft and strategic air strike capabilities in place.
  2. ISIS lost control of Palmyra to Assad and the Syrian army.
  3. For over a month, there have been repeated stories about a joint Saudi-Turkish alliance preparing to invade Syria, ostensibly to fight ISIS, but actually to attack Assad and the legitimate Syrian government.
  4. The US government just withdrew all family members of U.S. troops and diplomats from its installations in Turkey, ostensibly out of fears of terrorist attack.
  5. The NATO treaty requires the USA to defend Turkey if attacked.
  6. Donald Trump has, for the first time in decades, raised serious questions, in public, about US membership in NATO.
  7. ISIS is a creation, at least in part of the USA, and the US military made no serious attempts to defeat ISIS in Syria whereas the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance managed to repeatedly defeat ISIS and drive it back in just 22 weeks of operations.

What does this suggest? I think it indicates that all sides are preparing for a Turko-Syrian war, which may be a proxy for a US-Russian war in the same way that the war in the Crimea was. I’m not certain whether the US is actively on the side of Turkey or if it is washing its hands of what looks like an increasingly unstable pair of proxies in Turkey and the Islamic State. For the sake of global stability, I sincerely hope the latter is the case.

There are some indications that the US has wisely decided to stay out of it. Just over a month ago, the American Free Press reported:

Moscow has made it clear to Washington it will retaliate if the Turks send forces into Syria. Moscow has made it clear to Washington it will retaliate if the Turks send forces into Syria. The Russians are convinced the Saudis are pressing Turkey to so something militarily before Russian airpower eliminates all the extreme Islamic groups the Turks and Saudis have been supporting. The source says NATO leaders in Europe have told Washington that Turkey and the Saudis will have to go it alone if they engage Russia.

Also, the fact that the US refused Turkey’s demands that it cut ties with a Kurdish group fighting in Syria bodes well for avoiding a US-Russian war. The fact that Turkey might also be facing a civil war in its south may be an important factor in its apparent decision to get directly involved in Syria before the government forces wipe out ISIS there.

In any event, the recent withdrawal of Russian and US personnel suggests that things are likely to heat up in Syria soon. It is worth noting, too, that these recent events show how insanely wrong John McCain was to advocate expanding NATO to include Ukraine, as that would have either a) shattered NATO or b) triggered a US-Russian war last year. The fact that the USA appears to be leaving its NATO ally Turkey to go to war on its own tends to indicate the former.

Hope for Holland

Geert Wilders Verified account ‏@geertwilderspvv
If I become Dutch Prime Minister next year I’ll crush Islamic terrorism, close our national borders and De-Islamize The Netherlands.

That sound you heard is the Overton Window moving. And that is the word for 2016 right there: De-Islamification. In the European context, it will be known as Reconquista 2.0. It will be interesting to see if we see Donald Trump begin using it.

UPDATE: two more bombs flash grenades go off in Brussels during police raid:

Armed police shot a terror suspect at a Brussels tram station as they launched fresh raids in the Belgian capital in the wake of the suicide attacks on Tuesday. Two explosion were heard at the start of the operation in the neighbourhood of Schaerbeek, north Brussels, after which local media reported that one man had been ‘neutralised’. Today’s raid in Brussels was linked to the arrest of ‘ISIS recruiter’ Reda Kriket, in a Paris suburb on Thursday. Kriket, a 34-year-old Frenchman, had been in the ‘advances stages’ of planning an attack in France prior to his arrest, and was found with heavy weapons and explosives in his apartment. 

Donald Trump speech to AIPAC

Good evening. I speak to you today as a lifelong supporter and true
friend of Israel. I am a newcomer to politics but not to backing the
Jewish state.

In late 2001, weeks after the attacks on New York City and Washington
– attacks perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists, Mayor Giuliani
visited Israel to show solidarity with terror victims. I sent him in my
plane because I backed the mission 100%.

In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was
the Grand Marshal of the 40th Salute to Israel Parade, the largest
single gathering in support of the Jewish state.

It was a very dangerous time for Israel and frankly for anyone
supporting Israel – many people turned down this honor –I did not, I
took the risk.

I didn’t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That’s what
politicians do: all talk, no action. I came here to speak to you about
where I stand on the future of American relations with our strategic
ally, our unbreakable friendship, and our cultural brother, the only
democracy in the Middle East, the State of Israel.

My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.
I have been in business a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell
you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for Israel, and for the
whole Middle East.

The problem here is fundamental. We have rewarded the world’s leading
state sponsor of terror with $150 billion and we received absolutely
nothing in return.


I’ve studied this issue in greater detail than almost anybody. The
biggest concern with the deal is not necessarily that Iran is going to
violate it, although it already has, the bigger problem is that they can
keep the terms and still get to the bomb by simply running out the
clock, and, of course, they keep the billions.

The deal doesn’t even require Iran to dismantle its military nuclear
capability! Yes, it places limits on its military nuclear program for
only a certain number of years. But when those restrictions expire, Iran
will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go,
and with zero provision for delay no matter how bad Iran’s behavior is.
When I am president, I will adopt a strategy that focuses on three
things when it comes to Iran.

First, we will stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and
dominate the region. Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be,
but if I’m elected President, I know how to deal with trouble. Iran is a
problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in
Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally
every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons,
anti-aircraft weapons, and GPS systems on rockets. Now they’re in Syria
trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of
the Golan Heights.

In Gaza, Iran is supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad – and in the West
Bank they are openly offering Palestinians $7,000 per terror attack and
$30,000 for every Palestinian terrorist’s home that’s been destroyed.

Iran is financing military forces throughout the Middle East and it
is absolutely indefensible that we handed them over $150 billion to
facilitate even more acts of terror.

Secondly, we will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network.
Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five
years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on
five continents. They’ve got terror cells everywhere, including in the
western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is the biggest sponsor of
terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach.

Third, at the very least, we must hold Iran accountable by
restructuring the terms of the previous deal. Iran has already – since
the deal is in place – test-fired ballistic missiles three times. Those
ballistic missiles, with a range of 1,250 miles, were designed to
intimidate not only Israel, which is only 600 miles away but also
intended to frighten Europe, and, someday, the United States.

Do you want to hear something really shocking? As many of the great
people in this room know, painted on those missiles – in both Hebrew and
Farsi – were the words “Israel must be wiped off the face of the
earth.”

What kind of demented minds write that in Hebrew? And here’s another
twisted part – testing these missiles does not even violate the horrible
deal that we made!

The deal is silent on test missiles but those tests DO violate UN
Security Council Resolutions. The problem is, no one has done anything
about it. Which brings me to my next point – the utter weakness and
incompetence of the United Nations.

The United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It’s not a friend to
freedom. It’s not a friend even to the United States of America, where
as all know, it has its home. And it surely isn’t a friend to Israel.

With President Obama in his final year, discussions have been
swirling about an attempt to bring a security council resolution on the
terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and Palestine. Let me be
clear: An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete
disaster. The United States must oppose this resolution and use the
power of our veto. Why? Because that’s not how you make a deal.

Deals are made when parties come to the table and negotiate. Each
side must give up something it values in exchange for something it
requires. A deal that imposes conditions on Israel and the Palestinian
Authority will do nothing to bring peace. It will only further
delegitimize Israel and it would reward Palestinian terrorism, because
every day they are stabbing Israelis – and even Americans.

Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who
served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was murdered in the street by a
knife-wielding Palestinian. You don’t reward that behavior, you confront
it!

It’s not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must
negotiate a resolution themselves. The United States can be useful as a
facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel it
must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that
don’t even really know what’s happening.

When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to
impose its will on the Jewish state. You see, I know about deal-making –
that’s what I do. I wrote The Art of the Deal, one of the all-time
best-selling books about deals and deal making. To make a great deal,
you need two willing participants.

We know Israel is willing to deal. Israel has been trying to sit down
at the negotiating table, without pre-conditions, for years. You had
Camp David in 2000, where Prime Minister Barak made an incredible offer –
maybe even too generous. Arafat rejected it.

In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert made an equally generous offer. The
Palestinian Authority rejected it. Then John Kerry tried to come up with
a framework and Abbas didn’t even respond, not even to the Secretary of
State of the United States of America!

When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a
second-class citizen will end on Day One. I will meet with Prime
Minister Netanyahu immediately. I have known him for many years and we
will be able to work closely together to help bring stability and peace
to Israel and to the entire region.

Meanwhile, every single day, you have rampant incitement and children
being taught to hate Israel and hate the Jews. When you live in a
society where the firefighters are the hero’s little kids want to be
firefighters.

When you live in a society where athletes and movie stars are heroes,
little kids want to be athletes and movie stars. In Palestinian
society, the heroes are those who murder Jews – we can’t let this
continue. You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs.
Glorifying terrorists is a tremendous barrier to peace.

In Palestinian textbooks and mosques, you’ve got a culture of hatred
that has been fermenting there for years, and if we want to achieve
peace, they’ve got to end this indoctrination of hatred. There is no
moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists.
Israel does not pay its children to stab random Palestinians.

You see, what President Obama gets wrong about deal making is that he
constantly applies pressure to our friends and rewards our enemies.
That pattern, practiced by the President and his administration,
including former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has repeated
itself over and over and has done nothing but embolden those who hate
America. We saw that with releasing $150 billion to Iran in the hope
that they would magically join the world community – It’s the same with
Israel and Palestine.

President Obama thinks that applying pressure to Israel will force
the issue, but it’s precisely the opposite. Already, half the population
of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas, and
the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it’s a very
difficult situation but when the United States stands with Israel, the
chances of peace actually rise. That’s what will happen when I’m
president.

We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the
Jewish people, Jerusalem – and we will send a clear signal that there is
no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of
Israel.

The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between
the United States and Israel is unbreakable. They must come to the
table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily
basis against Israel and they must come to the table willing to accept
that Israel is a Jewish State and it will forever exist as a Jewish
State.

Thank you very much, its been a great honor to be with you.

——————–

My comment: This is better than I would have expected, not as good as I would have hoped. It is not a ritual genuflection, but a practical acknowledgement of the current realities. The deal with Iran is ridiculous. Attacking the UN is the right thing to do and may be a harbinger of more positive developments on that front. Moving the embassy is irrelevant, but a nice gesture.

At no point is there any indication that he is inclined to wage Israel’s wars for them as the previous two presidents have done, and that is the main thing.

Bombs in Brussels

Brussels Zaventem airport explosions: At least 11 dead as third bomb ‘found on runway’. Third bomb found on runway, reports of more explosions at three metro stations, including one close to EU buildings.

BREAKING NEWS: At least 11 13 23 28 34 people dead and 50 150 187 wounded after two explosions rock Brussels Airport in ‘suicide bombing’ – as SECOND ‘terror attack’ hits Metro station near EU headquarters SECOND ‘terror attack’ hits Metro station in city centre.

  • Shouts ‘in Arabic’ heard before two explosions went off near the American Airlines check-in desk at 8am (7am GMT)
  • Terrified passengers covered in blood ran for their lives after explosion sent ‘shockwaves’ through terminal building
  • Reports of another explosion at a Metro station near the EU headquarters in the Maelbeek area of central Brussels
  • Evacuated passengers are being ferried onto buses and are being driven to a ‘crisis centre’ away from the airport
  • Comes a day after Belgium minister warned of revenge attacks after arrest of Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam 
 Immigrants are why you can’t have nice things.

    One would think this will tend to speed up Reconquesta 2.0 in Europe, but we’ll see. Regardless, don’t get too complacent. This sort of attack is coming the USA soon thanks to the millions of Islamic immigrants who have been permitted to enter the country. I would not be at all surprised if it started in Minnesota, most likely at the Megamall.

    It belatedly occurs to me that there is an important Republican primary today. These immigrant attacks mean that Donald Trump will win Arizona handily, which means that he is virtually guaranteed the delegates he needs.

    UPDATE: “Brussels Fire rep. tells NBC that there have been at least 4 explosions at different metro stations.” 

    Migration, war, and the military historian

    Those who doubt my observations on the subject, and fail to credit Martin van Creveld’s similar warnings, would do well to heed popular military historian Max Hasting’s similar warnings on the subject of war and the mass migration crisis:

    Could this lead to WAR in Europe?

    Last week in Washington, I met an old friend who is one of the smartest strategy wonks I know. His business is crystal ball-gazing. During our conversation, he offered some speculations about what could happen to our world over the next decade or two which made my hair stand on end.

    He predicts that the seismic turbulence in the Middle East will continue, and indeed worsen, unless or until the West is willing to commit stabilisation forces to the region. He calculates that an army of the order of magnitude of 450,000 men would be necessary, to have any chance of success.

    In the absence of such an effort — for which he admits the political will does not exist on either side of the Atlantic, and is unlikely to do so in the future — he believes that the tidal wave of migration to Europe from the Middle East and Africa will continue, with consequences much greater and graver than any national leader has yet acknowledged.

    He suggested that war within our continent is not impossible before the middle of the century, as southern European nations are swamped by incomers, and Greece stands first in line to become a failed state.

    We can defer for a moment the question of whether my friend’s most frightening scenarios are likely to be fulfilled.

    What was sobering about our conversation is that here was an uncommonly well-informed man who believes that the earthquakes shaking the Middle East, together with the scale of economic migration from Africa, could undo all our comfortable assumptions about the stability of the society in which we live, including our confidence that Europe has turned its back on war for ever.

    The most obvious lesson of history is that events and threats always take us by surprise.

    We already know the West will not stabilize the Middle East, for the obvious reason that it is the West, specifically, the USA, that has intentionally destabilized it.

    This means there will be war in Europe, sooner or later, although the question is still out if it will be between the ultranationalists and the EU elite or between the nationalists and the immigrants. In either case, the European nationalists will win easily because they vastly outnumber their opponents and the European militaries are insignificant. At the present, the prospect of the EU collapsing, the nationalists taking power in the various nations, and mass repatriations taking place is preventing the public from turning to the more extreme ultras.

    The more serious problem, as I have been pointing out for decades now, is in the USA itself, where US attempts to destabilize the Middle East, combined with the 1965 Immigration Act, have resulted in the destabilization of the USA. At the present, the optimism that surrounds the Trumpening is tending to relieve the pressures created by the largest invasion in human history, but the jury is very far from out whether Trump will win the White House and if he will actually fulfill his supporters’ hopes and expectations should he take office.

    It is telling, is it not, that while conventional historians have virtually nothing to say on the subject, the military historians all know what is coming as a result of the mass immigration into the West.

    The past as prediction

    For those of you who are disappointed by Ben Shapiro’s recent behavior vis-a-vis Breitbart and Donald Trump, don’t be. That’s always who he has been. Notice the date on this WND column, published on August 29, 2005.

    The Chickenhawk Clucks

    It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good
    reason for not serving his country in its moment of need. For all I
    know, he may have a weak heart, a wooden leg, a predilection for San
    Francisco bathhouse sex, or some other condition that prevents him from
    joining the military. But devoting two columns to criticizing a single word strikes me as a lady protesting a bit too much.

    Mr. Shapiro’s first argument against the appellation is that it
    is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is
    partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete.
    It is not leftists, but the military, who have long despised the civilians
    who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen.
    William Sherman said: “It is only those who have neither fired a shot
    nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood,
    more vengeance, more desolation.”

    His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest
    and “explicitly rejects the Constitution.” But there is nothing
    dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does
    not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a
    stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a
    hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is
    spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law
    barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr.
    Shapiro’s first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

    His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is
    somehow “un-American,” reveals a similar failure to understand the First
    Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution
    prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their
    right to do so and American political history is littered with an
    abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush
    daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove
    you’re not a coward.

    His fifth and final argument – that use of the term “chickenhawk”
    is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved. I
    have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle,
    have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite
    willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum
    of their preference. Yet I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and
    veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive
    – am in accord with the notion that “chickenhawk” is an appropriate
    label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make
    sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

    Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made
    … But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that
    we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.

    – Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005

    I would be remiss if I did not note that many of these military men
    and women favored a different 11-letter word that also begins with
    “chicken.”

    The genuine flaw in the use of the “chickenhawk” label is that in
    most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and
    inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations.
    However, due to Mr. Shapiro’s precocious position in the national media,
    this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper
    bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging
    them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire
    from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

    Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But
    toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future
    ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The
    same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt,
    Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.
    No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for
    Americans and for the world.

    – Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

    The America Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers,
    America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the
    other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I
    am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe
    that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004.
    “Now’s the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up.”

    Queens at war

    A historical study of European queens produces some unexpected results:

    After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it’s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. “People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.

    Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.” Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”

    The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write,
    “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as
    attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with
    13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared
    to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was
    seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.

    Ironically, as Nate pointed out, this means that female leaders are more strongly correlated with warfare than religion. And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war.

    Another opportunity for Trump

    If Donald Trump wants to finish off his Republican rivals, the Pentagon just handed him a brilliant opportunity:

    The Pentagon has deployed drones to spy over U.S. territory for non-military missions over the past decade, but the flights have been rare and lawful, according to a new report.

    The report by a Pentagon inspector general, made public under a Freedom of Information Act request, said spy drones on non-military missions have occurred fewer than 20 times between 2006 and 2015 and always in compliance with existing law.

    The report, which did not provide details on any of the domestic spying missions,  said the Pentagon takes the issue of military drones used on American soil “very seriously.”

    Leaving the borders wide open while spying on Americans with drones? Americans would be better off cutting the military budget to zero. What exactly good is it for besides making things worse in the Middle East, especially when the Russians have demonstrated that their military could do in Syria what the US military couldn’t.

    And this news probably isn’t going to hurt his prospects with the common man either:

    Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute’s annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.

    The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

    Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he “cannot support Donald Trump.”

    Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.).

    Philip Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed. 

    If the globalist elite is so desperate to stop him, clearly the man has something positive to offer the American people they have been financially raping for decades.

    “Five generations deep”

    If only he’d been fortunate enough to be born American in Portugal, he’d have assimilated five generations ago.

    Speaking outside a Donald Trump rally in Fort Worth, Texas on Friday, a Hispanic demonstrator warned the GOP candidate’s white supporters that there would be consequences if Trump manages to make it all the way to the White House.

    “If these people get what they want, Trump in there, I guarantee you — you think the Mexicans are going to lay down that easily? We don’t ever say nothing,” Ronald Gonzales, of Dallas, said.

    After explaining that he isn’t an advocate for open borders, he argued that many of the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. “already got families and kids that are here” — and they wouldn’t allow a Trump administration to break up their families.

    “It ain’t gonna happen,” Gonzales said. “You really want the Mexicans to really, really stir, really get mad? Y’all don’t understand — we aren’t the minority anymore. We own Texas. Texas is Mexican-made. I’m five generations deep right here.”

    And that, right there, is why Jerry Pournelle correctly predicted that “There Will Be War”. And by war, I mean war on the North American continent of the sort that hasn’t been seen in 150 years.

    Once the flow of government money stops, and once there is nowhere else to run for the white people that every Mexican, South American, African, Asian, Arab, and Jew is chasing in order to improve his life, the ethnic wars will begin. Who, then, will be the real American?

    Presumably the survivors. Homogeneous nations are born from heterogeneous countries.

    It occurs to me that the American Indians are about the only people in American history who don’t insist on living in white neighborhoods. Every other race and ethnic group vociferously protests how those racist whites discriminate against them and want to keep them at a distance and out of their country clubs, while we fought to keep them off our lands and out of our reservations.