“War” in Europe!!!

How reasonable is it, I wonder, to embark on deliberate course of action which could well result in war, which, from ALL reasonable analysis, your forces are out matched and thus, would be overrun, which would then, inevitably, lead to the ‘need’ to utilize nuclear munitions to halt the advance of the provoked power’s military on your crumbling forces, which would lead to devastating nuclear exchanges on European and American ‘targets’ resulting in a mass casualty event unknown since the era of the dinosaurs?  According to former NATO Deputy Commander Sir Alexander Shirreff that’s just what’s coming in May of 2017.  

As a defense contractor for some thirty or so years, I ponder this as I note the Pentagon and NATO relentlessly parading around Europe with their tanks, their Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Strykers, their troop maneuvers and lately, deploying the Aegis Ashore missile systems right up to the Russian border.  The western media and other idiots making statements about these ‘deployments’ are alleging that these are responses to “Russian aggression” but, try as I may, I can’t see a single instance of Russian  military forces operating in any kind of hostile fashion against any western country, anywhere on the planet.


Imagine for a moment some crazed lunatic pulling up in front of a local police station, exiting his car, drawing a very sharp sword and marching back and forth in front of the station, waving the sword around while yelling he was going to defend the neighborhood from the evil, aggressive police therein.  I’m guessing the cops might look out their windows and, for a while, laugh and wonder “what the hell is that bat-shit crazy lunatic doing”, but eventually they might just decide something needs to be done before the boob doing the saber rattling actually attacks some of their people.

So think about the balloon going up (for whatever reason) on the Russian border between NATO and the Russians.  (American and NATO tanks are currently deployed and playing war games 450 miles from Moscow while our propaganda outlets bleat about “Russian aggression”.  Imagine how we Americans might feel with a Battalion of Russian tanks deployed that close -Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line- to Washington DC.)  Does anyone ‘reasonably’ think it will be a prime time event like CNN covering the bombing of Baghdad that will have no effect on Berlin or Boston?  In spite of the fact I hate mathematics let’s ponder a few numbers after which you can decide how confident you feel for yourself or your children in the propaganda of NATO, the US and their media nitwits prepping the west on the idea that some cold/hot war with the Russians is an acceptable, possibly even ‘neat’ idea.

In any European war, as was seen in the last one, mobile tank warfare plays a major role.  The Germans called it Blitzkrieg or “lightning war” back then and my father was there, in Patton’s 5th Armored Division.  The plains of Europe were what tanks were designed for.  So, lets look at numbers of tanks.

These people, who are itching to bring on a new cold/hot war with Russia, some of whom are actually hinting that a nuclear exchange is “winnable”, love to try to convince us that NATO and the US are the greatest military power on the planet.  Question them about a European ground war and they’ll start by telling you the the US has some 5,900 M1 Abrams tanks which sounds awe inspiring.  The problem is that essentially all of them are stateside.  Indeed, the U.S. Army’s main battle tanks were withdrawn from Europe in April 2013.  Now that the cold war is coming back into vogue, the Pentagon claims that by February of 2017 it will have 250 covering the eastern border of NATO but, in the interim you can count on some 150 Abrams tanks being available.

The other players in NATO have their own complement of armored forces but then anyone who’s watched the synching of “coalitions” in combat will immediately recognize that national forces working under joint commands can be problematic at best.  That said, Austria owns 56 M1A1 Abrams tanks.  Britain has 227 Challenger 2 tanks, almost all of which are in the UK.  The Czechs have 30 T-72 tanks with 93 T-72s in reserve.  France has about 400 Leclerc tanks but they’re French and, if history is any judge, they’ll abandon them for the local bistro before going head to head in any set piece battle against Russians. Hungary has 30 T-72s in active service.  Poland claims 584 operational T-72 and another 230 PT-91s and 247 Leopards but how many are ready to go?  Romania claims 250 WW2 era T-55 as well as some locally manufactured tanks.  Germany has 225 Leopard tanks.  So that totals 2,372 tanks (sort-of) ‘available’ to NATO.  Reality however is quite different than any paper accounting.

A report just released in February of 2016 by six senior NATO experts says that member states aren’t meeting their obligations either in financial obligations, equipment acquisition or even (remotely) “readiness”.  Indeed, they pointed at Germany as an example showing they had 10 usable Tiger helicopters out of its fleet of 31, and just 280 of its 406 Marder armored infantry vehicles in full working order, so, how ‘ready’ is Germany and its Leopards to join in a fray against Russia?

Were a dust up to begin in eastern Europe, thanks to the Neo-cons, Britain’s 200+ tanks sitting in the UK wouldn’t count for much.  The French… are the French and the rest of NATO combined might field a total (with the US) of 950 ‘operational’ tanks spread around Europe.  Now that might be a good number of tanks were you to want to overrun, say, Iraq which actually required 1,500 tanks during Iraqi Freedom but, to dance on the Russian frontier?  Not so much.

So, what’s on the other side that might repel NATO and, if inclined, drive to the English Channel?  There are currently 1,200 of Russia’s most modern T-90 tanks in operational service as well as 30 T-14 Armatas.  Awesome machines without peers.


There are 1,200 active duty T-72s ready for deployment. 


There are 100 active duty T-64s ready for deployment. 


There are 100 active duty T-62s ready for deployment. 


There are 100 active duty T-55s ready for deployment. 


That’s 2,730 main battle tanks fueled, primed and ready to go when the balloon goes up.  Three times the number of tanks NATO can even hope to deploy on a good day.

That said, with the West’s non-stop  media conditioning of its public to the “Russian threat” (where none really exists) this whole cold war 2.0 hasn’t been lost on the Russians.  They clearly see that not since WW2 has such an array of forces been brought up the the Russian border, so don’t think they’re not preparing for what the West itself is saying is inevitable.  I can assure you that their armored reserves are being prepped for active service while the NATO parades around Europe.  As such NATO needs to also think about Russia’s 4,500 T-80s, their 9,000+ T-72s, their 4,000 T-64s, their 1,500 T-62s and their 1,100 T-55s equating to another twenty THOUSAND tanks (in reserve) that might not be collecting dust much longer if NATO commanders get their way.

Were that not bad enough one might consider that the Russians would not likely be standing alone.  At the very least you would see Belarus (White Russia) attacked (through Poland, Lithuania and possibly Latvia and Ukraine) and thus, likely taking coordinated action against any NATO target that presents itself.  For the record, Belarus has some 250+ T-72B main battle tanks in regular service along with another 1,215 in reserve needing a few days to bring them on-line.   They also have over 90 T-80’s of their own which would pose no small problem to any advancing (or retreating) forces.


They even have a few (30) WW2 era T-54s which are, frankly, nothing to sneeze at and could well ruin your day were you in a Bradley or similar armored fighting vehicle.  So, given some warning (which they’re getting right now with the West’s blustering) even Belarus could deploy over 1,500 main battle tanks against the lesser (entire) NATO force advancing on their country.

So the bottom line is Nato would face a four to one ratio against their tanks and, in short order a follow-on 20,000 more tanks coming out of Russia’s reserves that would finish what the top-of-the-line, active service tanks left behind.  By any sane person’s standards, those odds suck.

Optimists (idiots) might say that the US could reenforce Europe in a very short period of time but does anyone really think the Russians would sit still for that?  The reality is that unless they were going to land on highways there isn’t an airport in Europe that would be taking any flights to “reenforce” NATO.  Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Charles de Gaulle, Paris-Orly, Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich, Cologne, Oslo, Brussels, Vienna and Budapest as well as every other European airport, seaport, military installation or staging area would be immediately hit by cruise missile attack were NATO to attack Russia.  The surrounding urban/suburban areas would be laid waste as collateral damage resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. 

Of course, this isn’t about “Russian aggression”, any more than the gulf war was about Saddam having nuclear weapons.  Russia hasn’t attacked a soul, indeed they supply a third of Europe’s energy supplies and have no reason or desire to rock-that-boat.  Rather, it’s about some band of nitwits in DC, London and New York thinking war is the only way to protect their international banking interests as the dollar and other fiat currencies become less stable.  This time, war in Europe won’t take years as it did in the nineteen forties.  This time, the dust-up won’t even last five days.  Hell, the Rand Corporation (a.k.a. CIA) in their 2015 evaluation gave NATO an “unambiguous” conclusion after a series of war games that Russia would overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours – if not less.   So, 60 hours before the nitwits would need nukes to stop a Russian counteroffensive.  These ‘facts’ tend to lend a great deal of credence to a quip or maxim I read somewhere in journal:   

A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia.


So, if I get this right, the West bankrupts their financial system, runs around the planet overturning other governments and stealing their natural resources and when a country or two says they won’t play the game, the West invents this make-believe “aggression” and starts threatening these countries with war even though if war breaks out, the other country will have them for lunch.  This is all okay, right?  

That’s about as ‘rational’ as Canada amassing their entire military’s 100 Leopard tanks on the United States border, rattling their sabers while claiming American “aggression” because they annexed Texas, knowing full well that when they cross the Rainbow Bridge into New York they’ll face five thousand US tanks on the other side .  In this goofy scenario someone would promise to “reenforce” Canada’s stupid idea by sending ships and planes with troops and tanks but where would they land when every seaport and every airport in Canada would be leveled though non-stop American missile attacks and airstrikes?  Clearly, those folks proposing these ideas are batshit crazy.

Now in case you’ve concluded I’m some limp wristed , hippy peacenik, I can assure you I’m not.  As mentioned, I’ve been a defense contractor for over thirty five years and I mention these numerical realities and inconvenient truths because I don’t particularly want to look at the horizon one morning from New Hampshire and see a mushroom cloud rising over Boston, turning it into green glass.  While it may be acceptable that global war might finally relieve us of the Kardashians, the absence of Oreo cookies due to supply chain disruptions would be unconscionable.  So, the real question is, why the hell do we tolerate such fools pontificating on such utter nonsense when they should be locked up in some asylum?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dartmouth College – black lives matter

So, a bunch of  “black lives matter” Dartmouth College kids made a point of demonstrating their true colors at the college’s library.  In the wake of it, I ponder these “black lives matter” proponents and if their cause, such that it is, has validity.

Silly me, but my opinion has always been that ALL lives matter, at least on a sliding scale based upon accepted behavior.  Now, what does that mean, you ask?  Well, it means that in a perfect world, it doesn’t matter (to me) what group you’re in, what color you are, what religion you practice or what country you were born in; folks should be “valued” equally and treated accordingly.  There is, on the other hand, that “accepted behavior” clause.

That “accepted behavior” clause had best be taken into account because (in the real world) if some boobs believe that a jingoistic movement touting “black lives matter” is going to excuse or entitle some who feel it their right to intimidate, perpetrate violence, favor racist intimidation or make excuses for gun-slinging murderers, then they’re mistaken.  That sliding scale of accepted behavior is moving downward pretty frigging quick and will certainly effect just who “matters”. 

In my world, folks are judged (yes “judged”) by their character, by their responsibly and by their demonstrated behavior.  No amount of funding from George Soros and his Open Society Foundations will make ANYONE “matter” more than anyone else while disregarding character, responsibility and behavior and, for the record, anyone who thinks Soros and his ilk, who are funding and egging on “black lives matter’, gives a hoot-in-hell about the disproportionate number of blacks who get gunned down in any given year, then you’re, quite simply, an idiot.

When “black lives matter” protesters unleash their insults, shouting “Fuck you, you filthy white bitch!“ at some crying girl in the Dartmouth library, assault and denigrate people who didn’t bow down to their ethnocentric agenda ranting: “Stand the fuck up! You filthy racist white piece of shit!  Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” “Fuck you and your comfort!” “Fuck you, you racist shit!” they matter about as much to mainstream America as Huey Newton’s extremist black panther party.  Who, exactly, is the “racist” here?

So, when confronted by this counterintuitive movement as exhibited at Dartmouth, is our reaction going to be agreement that “black lives matter” or something else?

I submit that based on the “accepted behavior” scale they “matter” no more than a pack of wolves would matter to a bio-diversity advocate when a wolfpack is snarling at the advocate and his/her child, during a walk in the woods.  Visceral fear is the result and with this justifiable fear comes an ingrained understanding for what’s coming next from the ‘pack’.  Demonstrably, wolves are not Cocker Spaniels and blacks screaming “Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” are not Amish people.  Both warrant a response and it’s not likely understanding; the more likely response is a Safety being moved into the horizontal firing position.  Like it or not, you dumb asses have perpetuated the very responses you’re trying to change in society.  Rather than the ‘issue’ being law enforcement’s growing tendency to shoot first and make up a story later (a very worthy cause), these activists make it something completely different and more akin to Warren Zevon’s sardonic song ‘Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me’.

The actions of the Dartmouth ‘activists’, these social barbarians at the gates, denigrating others while promoting their ethnicity and entitlement mind-set just set back their own ‘movement’ in most ‘thinking peoples’ minds.  I would posit that if people can’t act responsibly and play nice then they “matter” a whole lot less than folks who do and they won’t find me tripping over political correctness to give their real or imagined systemic racism (as portrayed by this organization) another thought.  Were I paying Dartmouth $65,000. per year to educate my kid and Dartmouth took no action against these racist half-wits, I highly doubt my daughter would be attending next year.

For the record, people hurling racial epitaphs at others have, under New Hampshire’s the Hate Crime statutes, been put in prison for five years.  That said, the “black lives matter” racists at Dartmouth/Hanover openly practicing such intimidation won’t see any legal followup here.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Deutschland or Germanistan – maybe it’s not too late…


It’s sad to say that the current crisis in Germany and Europe at large, has been created by my country’s policies.  I won’t get into who’s interests the United States is actually protecting in the Middle East but it’s US policies and practice that’s spawned a deluge of Middle Easterners heading north like a locust plague.  Europe’s policy of following in lock step with Washington’s laying waste to the Middle East has also contributed to a very great degree to the events unfolding.

I find it interesting that Germans, as a people, have been so beaten down since 1945, so dominated by the victors, so ridden with manufactured guilt, that they have exhibited little of their national character, outside of ‘industry’, for some seventy years.  Suddenly, that’s changing.  Until now Germans have been America’s compliant doormat.  Perhaps that’s because there was never a peace treaty signed with Germany after the war ended.  Perhaps it was due to Germany being occupied essentially indefinately since the war ended.

Not since the end of World War 1 has there been such an uptic in their ‘Ausländerfeindlichkeit’ or hostility against foreigners now that millions of islamic refugees are storming the gates.  Something is changing dramatically.  The Gastarbeiters” or guest workers that were acceptable once coupled with the millions coming from the decimated Middle East are now resulting in a paradigm shift within Germany and elsewhere.  Like the Mexicans (illegally) flowing by the thousands across the American border, the islamists are flowing by the hundreds of thousands into Germany thanks to Merkel’s open door policy.  Upon arrival, many, if not most, like the Mexicans here, want a free lunch and all the handouts they can get.  Sad to say, oddly, I don’t blame them.  Europe has itself to blame for allowing the US and Israel a free hand in disrupting the entire Middle East.  Now, they’re reaping what their leader’s lapdog behavior has sown.

In the 40s Europe was the site of an epic battle where the key players fought over which authoritarian ideology would prevail.  Today Europe will be the battleground again.    Not for mere ideology but over a clash of civilizations.  One side standing für die Freiheit while the other side for an uncompromising belief in an alien and dictatorial religion which, frankly, has no place in Europe.   But Germans are waking up.  The rank and file seem (at last) to be breaking lockstep with Washington and Germany’s compliant rulers in Berlin.  I’m not sure yet but they may just come off the leash over this immigrant invasion.  Wouldn’t it be about fucking time?


At rallies protesting the islamization/invasion of Germany and all of Europe, more and more often we’re seeing the people carrying an interesting variant of Germany’s national flag, the Wirmer ‘Resistance Flag’.  What’s very interesting is that this is the flag which, had Count von Stauffenberg been successful in overthrowing the Reich’s government in 1944, would have been the German Republic’s flag.  This says something.  Perhaps Germany’s population (of Germans) isn’t prepared to go quietly into the night.  Perhaps the German people are uncomfortable with this:


Perhaps the German people fear this:


“Ein Volk” indeed.

And well they should.  I read these flags popping up as a ‘statement’ or subliminal message to Berlin.  Germany may not be overrun easily.  Perhaps they’ve had enough.  Perhaps they’re regaining their cultural Germanic balls after seventy years of subservience.  The more Germans begin carrying these flags (of the resistance) the more the message resounds that Germany won’t be a vassal state much longer; perhaps that mindset will spread throughout Europe because I can’t believe Ausländerfeindlichkeit is limited to Germany.  Even the Swiss are being told by their newly minted Muslim communities that they are “offended” by the Christian inference of the white cross that’s integral to the Swiss flag and want the cross removed.  Is it just me or do others marvel at the arrogance of some of these people.  (Were this”inference” widespread among the islamic communities then we should expect demands that Denmark, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, England, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Netherlands Antilles, Northern Ireland, Sweden as well as NATO reconfigure their flags to accommodate the any possible “offense”.)  My retort might be that if you’re “offended” by Christians perhaps you shouldn’t relocate to Christian countries.


My take on “diversity” is a bit at odds with that espoused by the globalist clowns who’ve initiated this mass migration, this invasion, into Europe and Germany.  To have and respect “diversity” on a cultural or racial or sociologic basis REQUIRES ‘different‘ cultures, races and sociologies not some amalgamation of or unification of every civilization and people where cultural uniqueness has been crushed and besmirched.  Diversity makes humanity stronger through the competition of ideas and thus, there’s nothing wrong with the concept of Ein Volk in any of the classical European nations be it Germany, Russia, Italy, etcetera.  If one wants diversity then defend these nation’s Right to exist as unique cultures, else there BE no diversity to respect.

As was pointed out by Fjordman in the April 2008 Brussels Journal:  What we are dealing with is not “immigration” but colonization…”  It applies to the current crisis.  Germany, indeed all of Europe, can keep it’s culture or it can can be forced by political correctness to accept the globalists plans for it.  Given the fact that the majority headed for Germany/Europe are military age men with, I’m sure, a good number of jihadists thrown in for good measure, the plans these globalists have are nothing less than the destruction of the European powerblock and will have the same impact as would be the rise of the planet of the apes. 


Will Germany wait until there are 10-20 million potential subversives and criminals present within its borders and they’re pressing ‘1’ or Arabic and ‘2’ for German, as is the case in my country, or will they take advantage of the fact that being ‘in’ Germany or even being ‘born in Germany’ doesn’t grant foreigners citizenship.  

I hope to see more Germans carrying the flag below and being uncompromising with their ‘leaders’ open door policies.  Deport these mobs, while you still can.  Save Germany – save Europe – save yourselves.  The alternative is rolling over for cultural suicide. 


If you don’t, before these mobs are through with you, they will have turned your country into what their’s looked like before they left it and what your parents and grandparents had to contend with after they were overrun.

Panorama BrandenburgerTor1945 Backhaus_2

P.S.  This has nothing to do with muslims.  I would be saying the same thing were Germany to (for some reason) take in millions of Americans or Argentinians.  Germany’s institutions, finances and very culture would, in short order, be changed forever – destroyed, in fact – were an inordinate number of gate crashers allowed to come in and destroy the demographic, bleed the system and force it to allow for the odd customs and personality traits of outsiders.

Posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, Foreign Affairs, History, Israel, Muslims, police state, Propaganda, statehood | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The ‘Racist’ Confederate States of America (hmmm…)

(Total BS from the 21st century political correctness police)


Summer 2015 – As a result of another ‘questionable’ shooting event, where the perp was photographed with a version of the Confederate flag, the government and its compliant media pushes for the removal of the “racist” flags of the CSA from every venue they can.  There are even calls from a few nitwits to remove statues and memorials of Jefferson because he once owned slaves.  I tend to concur with James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan who said: “To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.  The government’s position is that the war between the states was all about “racism”, “hatred” and the moral battle to free the slaves and promote equality between men.  As a history buff I can see it’s time to reinvent the past and if you don’t jump on board, you’re a terrorist, a racist and you advocate ‘hate’.

Woodrow Wilson (President) was quite right when he stated:   “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”  Thus, you’re expected to believe (but never actually look into) the contemporary myth, created and perpetuated by the government in its schools, books and other media is that the ‘Civil War’ was fought to defeat slavery.  The people and states of the south were intent upon keeping the blacks (sorry, I meant “African Americans”) in bondage and that these southerners were cruel and brutal savages who required, as we say today, “a beat down” in order to change their evil ways.

When one reads remarks such as those below one can not but ‘feel’ the “racist” and “hate filled” mindset of the period:  

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, [sorry, he meant “African Americans”] nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”  

The ‘reinventors of history’ demand that you believe the war against the south was required to put down ‘white supremacists’ such as the speaker above.  But, were the comments above spoken by the President of the evil Confederate States, Jefferson Davis or one of his treasonist military minions such as General Robert E. Lee, General Stonewall Jackson or some other satan’s spawn of the Confederate States?  No.  They were spoken by Lincoln, our “Great Emancipator” on September 18th 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois (http://www.bartleby.com/251/41.html) who, through his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, ‘freed’ only the slaves of the Confederacy but NOT those in the north.  Lincoln was a virulent racist (by today’s standards) and a founding member of the Illinois “back to Africa” movement called the “American Colonization Society” – little different than the nazi plan to send all the jews east for “resettlement” – wherein blacks were to be sent back to Africa but you’re supposed to forget that.  In his inaugural address of 1861, Lincoln stated that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” 

In spite of Lincoln’s historical remarks coupled with the fact that he never really “freed” the slaves those ‘reinventors of history’ (the Kool-Aid drinkers) still insist that it’s the Confederacy and its flags that are symbols of “hatred” and “racism”.  The Confederacy, and all it stood for, was “racist”.  The war, according to the ‘federal’ government (north) was all about freeing the slaves, establishing equality and freedom and the rule of law.  Really?

I might ask these history challenged, liberal/progressive, fact blind individuals that if the Civil War was all about slavery, why on earth did the U.S. Congress pass (on February 28th 1861) the proposed ‘Corwin’ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?  Why would the U.S. Senate approve it without changes and the the President (on March 2nd 1861) personally sign/endorse it and forward it to the States for approval by their legislatures?  The Amendment would have shielded the States and their ‘institutions’  {slavery} from future abolition or interference by Congress. Specifically, it read:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. 

If the war, which was about to be launched in a mere 41 days by the North and Lincoln, was about slavery why, on the eve of such a moral crusade, would the North attempt to codify slavery, by Constitution Amendment and why would Lincoln, in his first inaugural address say of that proposed Amendment, that would enshrine slavery into our Constitution, that “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. 

When the Virginia Compromise Delegation asked, in March 1861, “Why not let the South go in peace?”, Lincoln replied: “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?”  This, in spite of the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 which states: “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed… Whenever government becomes destructive to life, liberty, or property [i.e., the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it… It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”  But the southern states were the federal ‘cash cow’.

Tariffs were the real issue of the day and had been for decades.  South Carolina threatened succession in 1832 not over slavery but tariffs but never went forward at that time. The Manchester Union Democrate which is today the Manchester Union Leader stated in February, 1861:  “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”.  Were the war really about slavery, hate and equal rights why would the famous author, Charles Dickens (himself an Abolitionist) say in 1862: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” so, it was clearly a ‘revenue’ issue.  Indeed, Lincoln reminded congress during a July 4th, 1861 address (paragraph 5) the war was about taxes “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861).”  According to Major General John B. Gordon CSA, later a two term US Senator, Governor of Georgia and the first Commander-in-Chief of the United Confederate Veterans stated in his book Causes of the Civil War that it was an “undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”

Were it “slavery”, why would one suppose that Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln’s Commanding General would write in a letter to The Chicago Tribune in 1863 saying: “Should I be convincedthat the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge to you on my honor as a man and a soldier, I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”  This guy would refuse to free ‘his’ family’s slaves until until after the war and the passage of the 13th Amendment while, William Mack Lee (Robert E. Lee’s black servant) stated for the record that “All of his (Gen. Robert E. Lee’s) servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.”

grant lee1

Were the war and the Confederacy about “slavery” and “racism”, why would one suppose that Frederick Douglass, the famous black (sorry again, I meant “African American”) leader of the Abolitionist movement, warn Lincoln that unless (Northern) slaves were guaranteed freedom and land bounties, “they would take up arms for the rebels.”  



Why would Douglas, an intelligent guy one presumes, think for one moment that slaves from the north would ‘defect/flee’ to the Confederacy to fight on their side if the Confederacy cause was racism?

The ‘facts’ were that some eighty percent of the South’s military (volunteers) were neither slave-holders, or had the remotest interest in the institution of slavery.  Some even say that slavery was an issue involving less than 2% of white people in the South who had slaves.  As such, it would be incongruous to think that the ‘war’ was fought over it.  Nor were all blacks slaves.  According to the 1860 census there were a quarter million free blacks within the Confederacy and that number grew as the war progressed.  Union General William T. Sherman, (himself a slave owner [A Soldier’s Passion for Order,_ pp. 45-46]] was ‘astounded’, during his “March to the Sea” which was intended to terrorize Georgia’s civilian population by killing civilians and burning and destroying everything in his army’s path (war crimes), how many plantations he found (and burned) that were owned and operated by blacks.  

Not just plantation owners and merchants they were uniformed soldiers defending the Confederacy. Frederick Douglass (again) reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army … real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal (Union) troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”  When enlistment was opened to all blacks 83% of Richmond’s male slave population volunteered for combat duty in the Confederate Army and a special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms.  They were not alone.  Were these  “African American” men fighting for racism and slavery?

If the Confederacy was all about “racism” and “hatred” why is it that the first military monument in the US Capitol that honors African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument, designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate who wanted to correctly portray the “racial makeup” in the Confederate Army and a uniformed black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers.  


Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, at the time that: “I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming; for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.

The above facts being noted, the federal government, their schools, their books and their shills have continued to perpetuate the myth of southern “hatred” towards blacks and institutionalized “slavery” which the historical record shows ended in the south before it ended in the north, to justify their war of oppression – beating the Confederacy into submission to the central government and occupying it with military troops for twelve years – for economic reasons. “Freedom” and “the Union” was saved and only required Lincoln to order the suspension of the Constitution; its writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war in the North was gone, which netted around 20,000 political prisoners (by comparison, Mussolini rounded up only 12,000 in his day). Nearly one in every 1,500 citizens of the Union including the editors of some 300 newspapers were arrested without trial. The arrest of the Maryland legislature who, on August 7th, 1861 were incarcerated in the prison at Fort McHenry resulted in Secretary of War, Simon Cameron’s remarks: “The passage of any act of secession by the Legislature of Maryland must be prevented. If necessary all or any part of the members must be arrested.” (Interestingly, Cameron sent a letter to several newspapers demanding a “slave army” be raised and used against the rebels.)  The Baltimore Mayor and a host of others were also arrested without charges; Lincoln even wrote an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who had ruled against suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Thus was “freedom” saved.

You WILL NOT read history books and form your own opinions.
You WILL NOT research a subject that your government
has rendered their interpretation of.
You WILL NOT contradict your government because that demonstrates a lack of “tolerance”, “hate” and “racisism”.
If you ‘do’, the ‘terrorists’ win.

If you don’t know these facts it’s because the schools (run by the government) didn’t allow them to teach actual ‘history’. In 1864, Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA (who did not own slaves) warned: “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” How avowedly accurate were his remarks considering what utter nonsense we’re witnessing now?  

George Orwell said, in his book 1984: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered…History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right”  Clearly, we’re there are we not?

In spite of historical facts articulated above, here we are listening to nitwits and pundits going ‘full retard’ over the Confederacy’s naval flag because they’re too indoctrinated by myth to open a few history books. If these fools read/studied a ‘history’ book rather than Facebook they would know the war resulted from northern instituted tariffs and taxes that crippled the southern states economically and their State’s Rights to see to their own destiny and NOT the hatred of people of color. Removing flags and talking of taking down monuments to southern heroes because some damn fool is ‘offended’ by myths perpetuated by shills proves the saying that “stupid never goes out of style.”

The Confederate flag represents resistance to what was (then) a growing federal tyranny that refused to ‘listen’ to the People of the south. I sort-of wonder if, rather than ‘disappearing’ the Confederate naval flag, that it should be reinvented having 50 stars rather than 13 because based upon the government’s current treatment of its People and the sovereign States, we should ALL be Confederates now.  

Winston Churchill said: “The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”

As a northerner, I suggests folks leave the southerners their pride, their history, their dignity and their flags rather than submit to cultural marxism.  After all, Lee only surrendered the ‘Army’ at Appomattox Court House – the rest of the Confederacy…

Veterans of the CSA

Worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUckUgpicZM


Posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, History, police state, Propaganda, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The 2016 American Candidates

Folks, it just doesn’t get any better than this…

Here we go America.  Another ‘presidential’ election cycle is upon us where we’ll be promised “change” (again) by every single candidate.  Where we’ll hear from by every single candidate that they’ll “fight for us” and that they’re “with the middle class”.  They’ll promise us a “strong military” even though we spend more than the next ten first world countries combined.  They’ll promise to secure our borders and every single candidate will promise to “stand with Israel” regardless of own military telling us/them it’s becoming more counterproductive to American interests every day.  Yup.  They’re ALL for “the little guy” (that’s you) and the best way to help “you” is to support everything Wall Street and the defense contractors  want.

I’ll update this list as more of these nitwits throw their hats into the race.  Just remember, it’s not necessarily about actually ‘winning’, it’s about the money being raised which, of course, they get to keep/use even if their goofy candidacy fails miserably which, all but two will.  Oh, and I won’t even mention the nitwit’s political parties because only a fool these days thinks that makes one bit of difference to how they will behave towards we Americans, whether they will uphold their Oath of Office, respect our Constitution and Laws or protect the actual interests of the United States over their contributor’s.

First up:  Ted Cruz – Canadian-born son of a Cuban immigrant who’s wife is a managing director at Goldman Sachs and member of the Council on Foreign Relations (I wonder who’s interests Ted will represent – you guess) who’s only claim to fame is his propensity towards being another chicken-hawk for the neo-cons.  As he said himself “imagine a president who stands unapologetically with Israel”.  Problem with Ted is, like Obama, he’s not a “Natural Born Citizen” which is a minor detail in running for president.  Yup.  His Dad was a Cuban national making Ted’s birth that of a ‘Citizen’ vs a “Natural Born Citizen” but Obama got away with it, so Cruz will as well.  Experience with anything?  Nope, but then Obama didn’t need any to promise us change right?



Rand Paul – Not much to say here.  He’s an empty suit who’s probably best known, by those in certain circles, as having put a knife in his Dad’s back while the latter was, himself, running for president.  He stands for nothing discernible beyond his own self interests and tells whatever crowd is in front of him whatever they think they want to hear.


Hillary – Leaving aside EVERYTHING ELSE in this lying witch’s background, by her own admission, she deleted and destroyed emails during her tenure as Secretary of State.  No one contests this.  As an attorney, she can’t claim she didn’t know full well this act was a violation of US Criminal Law.  The violation of 18 USC, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Part 1, Paragraph (a) specifically states that the perpetrator should be fined or imprisoned for 3 years, or both.  While Paragraph (b) says such “a perpetrator is thereby disqualified from holding any office under the United States of America.”  So, under the “Law” she’s barred from holding “office” in the United States of America and should be in jail but none of that matters; she’s probably the best they have…



Marco Rubio – This one was born in Miami, Florida, [in 1971] the second son and third child of Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia. His parents were Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.  So, like Cruz (above) he’s got the same ‘Obama’ problem.  His folks weren’t US Citizens when he was born therefore he’s NOT “Natural Born” and thus, doesn’t lawfully qualify to ‘be’ president of the United States.  A minor problem if the ‘law’ matters in America but not an issue (apparently) anymore where most voters are incapable of rational, or cognitive thought.  Besides, he’s supported by billionaire Casino owner Sheldon Adelson who’s daily newspaper Israel Hayom, seems to be backing him as well as billionaire Norman Braman out of Miami.


Mike Huckabee – is (as expected) tossing his hat in the ring again.  Another empty suit.


Senator Lindsey Graham is thinking about it.  Of course, he’s a wannabe that no one takes very seriously but his comments are telling in that they ‘admit’ what every other aspirant won’t.  He told the Wall Street Journal  “If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing…I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America…” Graham reportedly said, chuckling.

lindsey graham

Rumor has it Santorum’s ‘in’.  Word was he was headed for Israel in May which is usually a pretty good sign.


Unofficially we have Rick Perry.  No matter how often he visits ‘the wall’ he’ll never make it.


I’ll update the list.




In the end however, the only questions remaining is which two candidates have the best backing from the oligarchs.  Which two will provide the best illusion of ‘choice’ for the American public, so they can go to bed at night to the election refrain of “the better of two evils.”  Which two look best in a yarmulke as they’re photographed ‘touching’ the “Wailing Wall” in Jerusalem with their eyes closed, looking humbled and ‘thoughful’ as they pay their respects to the rulers of a foreign country who essentially dictate American political policy.

Oh my, I almost forgot!  I saw that Vermin Supreme – just tossed his hat in the presidential race and, from what I can tell, he’s thus far the ONLY candidate that ‘actually’ has a “hat” since he’s famous for wearing a boot on his head.  His policies include time-travel research, mandatory teeth-brushing and free ponies for all Americans – all commendable initiatives.  (I mean, who can argue with free ponies to all?)  He’s certainly ‘pro-gun’ as we can see from the photo(s) below and given his zero ties to Wall Street or Monsanto or AIPAC, thus far, he’s the only viable candidate that I can see.  So, I’m for him.

B_h0mFaU8AEmNrw546396_393820663988691_736483675_n portrait-of-vermin-love-supreme-anarchist-activist-photographed-in-d2bm2f


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evolving ‘Race’ Designations

Isn’t There a “Truth in Labeling” Law in the US?

15 U.S.C. § 1051

America ‘seems’ obsessed with race and ‘labels’.  At least the government and their sycophants appear to want us to take allot of time thinking about it, feeling guilty over it and allowing them to throw it in our faces more than (I believe) it needs to be.  I, personally, think it’s nothing more than an on-going attempt to keep folks separated or pigeon-holed into opposing groups (conservative, liberal, us, them, etc.), keep groups at each other’s throats rather than seeing that we’re, for the most part, all in the same boat, with the same aspirations and very much having the same goals.  Perhaps it’s thought that if America can be broken up into ‘groups’ and those groups are ‘kept appart’ by creating friction between them or forced to compete for resources when no competition is warranted, then the groups will be so busy banging heads that they won’t pay much attention to the jerks that are creating the divisions. The Romans, back in the day, called the policy ‘Divide et impera’ – Devide and Rule!

I’m going to relate my ‘take’ on the subject of labeling which, I’m sure, some will claim is full of baloney or my perspective is “a white guy’s perspective” but say what you will, generally speaking, I believe this ‘labeling’ and ‘race’ obsession in the twenty first century is highly over rated in this country.  Bill Murray once quipped in the 1981 film Stripes (http://movieclips.com/Qy2V-stripes-movie-were-mutants/), “we’re Americans”, “we’re mutts” and that’s the view I adhere to more than any fake tribal or ‘racial’ designation the feds and their mouthpieces want to perpetuate in order to get one group to feel oppressed by another or to feel guilt ridden over being.  “Labeling” is just this kind of pigeon-holing in which totally manufactured ‘guilt’ is used to pitch one side against another.

I’ll give you an example.  This BS about “hispanics” – the feds classify these folks as some kind of race clearly worthy (it seems) of some level of preferential treatment.  Even the yahoos that advocate for them have taken the name “La Raza” which translates to ‘the race’.  I asked my friends in Madrid and Barcelona what ‘race’ they were and I’m sure it would surprise DC that they said they were “white”.  I tried to explain how our government and others have seemingly created a race out of folks of Spanish decent and they just laughed.  According to a piece on the DC based Pew Institute site expounding on the concept of or use of the terms Hispanic or Latino the authors relate: “Who’s Hispanic? Anyone who says they are. And nobody who says they aren’t.”  So that about sums it up.  Hispanic is any darned group who can trace their roots to Spanish decent.  

By that standard I’m ‘hispanic’, since my Irish family name ‘originated’ from the few survivors of the Spanish Armada under Medina Sidonia’s command out of Coruña, wherein some 24 of the 110 ships of the Armada heading back from Britain after a botched invasion in 1588, went down from Antrim in the north to Kerry in the south.  I see little difference between the Spanish conquest of Mexico beginning in 1519 and their kinsmen swimming ashore in Kerry in 1588, which means I’m a ‘Mick’ of Spanish decent commonly referred to as “the Black Irish”.  By Washington’s standards I’m hispanic or latino so where’s my special treatment, damn it?  Why aren’t my ballots and driver’s test offered in Gaelic?  My genealogical family hails from Ireland and Prussia.  Where’s my hyphenated designation?  Does my Irish/Germanic background make me Celtic/Aryan?  How about a Celtic-American, Aryan-American or a European-American?  Are the Celts or the Aryans a “race” like the Spanish?  The reality is that my family, like yours, makes me what Murray described as “mutts” who, being here now for a generation or more, makes us American.  Only a freaking idiot, desperately attempting to create dissension (‘Divide et impera’), would ‘invent’ a category of ‘race’ or attempt to hyphenate me.  

So, back to the mythical hispanics and latinos.  Someone making up a race out of the Spanish conquerors colonizing Central and South America and allegedly interbreeding with the indigenous people of the region are grabbing at straws.  The Spanish brought desease which resulted in epidemics killing millions of people, essentially in excess of 90% of the indigenous population in the hardest hit areas so, ancestors having an indian in their family wood pile in the 1700s does not make you an “Indian”.  You’re “mutts” as Bill Murray said.  Those claiming that background are (sorry) Spanish.  Because your ancestors washed up on the Caribbean coast doesn’t make you special or ‘different’ so get over it.  You’re white folks just like me. No special privilege or consideration is warranted or due.

Moving on, I can still (vaguely) remember when blacks were called ‘negros’ in my youth.  According to Wikipedia the word “Negro” is used in the English-speaking world to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance. Negro denotes “black” in Spanish and Portuguese, derived from the Latin word, niger, “black”.  While there’s nothing particularly degrading in that word or description, because someone (back in the day) added a ‘g’ to the Latin word to describe people of color, it was perceived as racist and decided that to avoid the malicious connotation (the beginning of the political correctness era) they were called ‘colored people’ which, given the skin shade differential was probably more apt than either negro or black.  That said, “colored” went to “black”.  Now, of course, “black” and “colored” are out and the made up compound/hyphenated term of “African-American” became ‘in’ in the 1980s.

So let’s all obsess on names and labels that emphasize our differences rather than our common history.  The fact is, there’s no freaking reason on earth why the term “African-American” exists in the American lexicon.  Unless you can show me some lost tribe of Hottentots (a deprecated term for the Khoikhoi people of South Africa) living in Harlem or Detroit, I regret to say THERE ARE NO “AFRICAN” AMERICANS here unless those folks just showed up in America yesterday.  “African-Americans” have no more connection to Africa than I do.  Colored folks (blacks – whatever) in America are no more “African” than I’m European, Celtic or Aryan.  They’re ‘Americans’ with a better tan than I have.  

Oh, some might say, they were brought here as “slaves” and victimized on the evil southern plantations and, gee wiz, a civil war had to be fought to gain them their freedom, to which my response would be “that was over a century ago – get over it for god’s sake”!  Is it the fact that “African-Americans” were uniquely dragged here as slaves or is it the fact that a war was fought to free them that warrants a hyphenated label, special treatment in perpetuity, affirmative action or the expectation that after a century and a half, folks who had nothing to do with any of this are supposed to feel guilt ridden?

Slavery in the United States ended with the passage of 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865 unless you take the IRS into account.  Even the Confederate States of America, though their Constitution, outlawed bringing any future slaves into their country and that was 1860.  For those who won’t crack a history text or read anything beyond People Magazine I have some bad news on those Civil War/slavery issues.  The American Civil War (or the War of Northern Agression) wasn’t fought for the purpose of freeing any slaves.  Lincoln, the ‘hero’ of Abolition, stated in his inaugural address of March 4, 1861, that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  In a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, he stated “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,“ 

The North’s military commander, General Ulysses S. Grant (later President), in a letter to The Chicago Tribune in 1863, wrote: “The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge to you on my honor as a man and a soldier, I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”  Contrary to myth, Lincoln DID NOT free all the slaves with his (1862) Emancipation Proclamation rather, only freed the slaves within the Confederacy where he had no jurisdiction and NOT the slaves held in states loyal to the Union where he did – Grant didn’t free his slaves until after ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Frederick Douglass, the famous leader of the abolitionist movement, warned Lincoln at the time that unless (Northern) slaves were guaranteed freedom and land bounties, “they would take up arms for the rebels.”  Now why do you suppose Douglas (a black guy) believed northern slaves would defect to the Confederacy and fight for the South?  Freaking odd, eh?  (better addressed with a separate piece I think)  So, odd or not, the “Civil War” wasn’t fought for black folks or to abolish slavery.  Sorry.  As to ‘collective guilt’ everyone is supposed to have, feel and express by letting certain folks slide on their social responsibilities for hundreds of years over the slavery issue, I think that’s a bunch of malarkey.  

Again, were one to take a step beyond Grammar School propaganda (in other words, crack a ‘real’ book rather than Facebook), one would see that colored folks were certainly not alone in their travails regarding forced labor.  In the American slavery context, the colored folks were, in fact, last in line and NOT unique.  In the work The Slaves That Time Forgot, John Martin points out “The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold…  in the New World.  Speaking of the fate of the Irish and it’s people, he goes on to say: “From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.”  The Irish (NOT the colored folks) were the “human cattle” of the period from the 17th and 18th centuries.  Indeed, during this period African slave trade was only just beginning wherein the Africans (they WERE “African” back then) were far more expensive to purchase and were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.  So again, where’s my hyphenated (Celtic-American) name?  Where are my preferential treatments and society’s set-asides for the Micks, Harps, the Paddy’s, Bog-jumpers and the WICs (White Irish Catholics) who were slaves here in America before the Africans arrived?


Regardless of what the Brits and early American settlers did to the Irish or the settler’s progeny did to the Africans who arrived later, it was centuries ago.  Get over it.  I’m sure as hell not going to feel any guilt over how colored folks were treated prior to 1865 because neither I nor my family were there.  In fact ‘my’ particular family got here in 1897, a century after the majority of the colored folks did.  So, looking around my country at ANY colored folks I have to acknowledge that they and their ancestors are MORE ‘AMERICAN’ THAN I AM.   So, who’s more entitled to a hyphenated classification, them or me?

Quite simply, this “labeling” stuff and all the “guilt” that goes along with it is, in my view, bullshit.  Government set-asides in business for ‘minority’  businesses would certainly help my winning contracts but I doubt the hispanic/latino crowd (or government) is going to appreciate my claim to be hispanic regardless of my roots to the Spanish Armada in 1588 because it’s just plain STUPID.  I doubt the colored folks (or government) are going to  appreciate my claim to be “African-American” just because it’s been categorically proven by anthropologists that anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) ALL evolved in North or East Africa and then migrated out of Africa probably because it’s STUPID.  Both claims, on my part, might be said to be either a few centuries or a few million years stale.

If my concocted claim to be hispanic or latino is “stale” due to the time lapse  from 1588 to now (over four centuries), then so is any “African” claim stale unless ‘time’ means nothing.  If time doesn’t matter the American Indians (yeah, the Mayans and Aztecs too) need to revise their title from ‘American Indians’ to Asian-Indians or American-Asians because they got here from there 15-25 thousand years ago from Asia.  Perhaps the hispanic/latinos need to be reclassified as ‘Spasians’?

Rather than let the government and their shills try to convince folks to group themselves into artificial sub-groups (tribes) to compete for resources, guilt related sympathy or special accommodation and privilege over the other groups just because one gang of Homo-Erectus, leaving Africa turned left, another turned right and another went straight as they left the continent.  No one pays my rent & utilities because my ancestors were brutalized as slaves in the 17th century America.  No one feeds or educates me or my kid because my ancestors came ashore from a Spanish ship in the 1500s.  No one deposits funds to my ATM card every month, gives me preferential treatment in the business and job market or provides me a free cell phone because 200 million years ago my people left Africa and turned left.

We all need to put these hyphenated labels, made up categories of humanity and the expectation that “special treatment” should be afforded one group over another aside and start taking responsibility for our existence.  To do so gains people respect.  To not do so and to separate one’s self from those who do, through government inspired ‘differences’ and claims of entitlement based on the woes of one’s forefathers, can only result in distrust and the perception that those seeking such advantage are indeed incapable of taking care of their own.  It is self fulfilling.  Don’t demand equality in this world if you preface that claim by complaining you need ‘special’ dispensation from others.  In other words, forget “race” or “labels” and get off your ass. 

With regard to the Spanish fleeing Central and South America, I hate to be cruel but we don’t owe you an existence because where you came from is run by nitwits and living there sucks.  Go home and fix your country.  If need be put the current rulers against the wall and start over.  With regard to the colored, black or ‘people’ who, centuries ago came from Africa to America, this is your country not Africa.  It’s not the rest of us that somehow did this to you or your ancestors.  Your ancestors were sold to Europeans by the African elites of the time.  THEY sent your ancestors into bondage and, for the record, the first slave owner in this country was, in fact, a black guy named Anthony Johnson (Google it) who ended up ‘owning’ one John Casor who was another black guy.

We need to stop accepting these fake ‘labels’ foisted on us by those who’s goal is to keep folks divided.  We need to stop accepting these ‘labels’ that infer that one group of people should be anointed with ‘victim status’ such that we pander to them in perpetuity in ways such as not requiring them to learn or use our language while they live here or the many other preferential benefits that actually create division rather than integration into society as a whole.  We sure as hell need to stop accepting that we (in the 21st century) need to assume some measure of guilt over what was done to others hundreds of years ago.  These are unfounded accusations and are divisive.  Simple ‘respect’ is required for society to function and respect is NOT granted.  Respect is earned and requires that, at one point or another, all folks grow up and get their shit together rather than allow others (however temporarily benevolent) to provide for them.  No one is ‘entitled’ to more than they earn.

For any that still want to claim America is still some hotbed of ‘discrimination’ I might simply point out that this country has a ‘black’  President (such that he is) and a ‘black’ Attorney General, not to mention quite a few black General’s within the US military and you can’t get more ‘establishment’ than that.  The Army’s first was Benjamin Davis, Sr who became Brigadier General in 1940 (three quarters of a CENTURY ago) Commanding General of 4th Brigade, 2nd Cavalry Division in January 1941.  His son (Jr.) was an Air Force, four star General.  The number of black or “African-American” in the federal government’s employ is 18 percent which is 5 percent higher than our population demographic so let’s put to bed the myth that ‘the powers that be’ are discriminating against blacks.

Just my opinion of course but, since I’m (apparently) a hispanic/African-American, Irish-German lad, who’s ancestors, in some dark past, suffered under the boot of the ‘oppressor class’, my opinion should be afforded more weight and consideration than anyone else’s because I’m ‘entitled’ and ance upon a time,…  Yeah, right.

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Vladimir Lenin

Posted in History, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Martial law – Realistically Considered

It was a boring day at the office thanks to the crappy economy which is provided to us by out-of-control government spending, unpayable deficits and endless wars in foreign countries not to mention to banking cartels diddling the markets so, I thought I might scribble a few lines, pondering for a moment, the implementation of ‘martial law’ were it imposed on an unhappy American State or States.  Most rational, thinking people in this country would find any attempt to use our military to curtail Rights of Americans through the implementation of martial law as wholly foolhardy and with good reason.  The internet is awash with claims that such a move is right around the corner resulting in much hand wringing.  Perhaps it’s just a bit of paranoia on the part of Americans seeing those Homeland Security nitwits buying up billions of rounds of ammunition and tens of thousands of battle rifles or maybe those folks in DC really are thinking about it, believing  that there would be nothing that regular folks could do to stop it were ‘their troops’ to hit the streets.  Perhaps there really is a mindset that, as the evil Borg in Star Trek said “Resistance is futile.”   Indeed, if Washington orders troops into our streets (for whatever goofy purpose), they and a good many folks might assume that nothing could possibly stand in their way. Who knows.

While I must admit to having never passed a math course in my life, let’s ponder martial law by crunching some numbers, shall we?

A significant problem for the martial law crowd is shear numbers.  A great deal of our military is operating outside CONUS (the ‘continental United States’) running around in various sandboxes and sitting in one of the many bases within 150 countries spread across the planet.  There are approximately 1.4 million “active” personel in our military (Army, Marines, Navy & Air Force) of which about a million are sitting within the United States waiting for their chance to (again) get sand in their boots.  A “million” troops sounds like allot until you understand the ratio of ‘trigger pullers’ (combat riflemen) to support personel (called “tooth to tail”) which is about four to one in the Army & Marine Corps.  Since the Navy and Air Force would be of little value in a martial law scenarion, for the purpose of argument I’m going to lump their trigger pullers into that “million” in my calculations to help the government’s numbers.  One should note, however, that a million is damned optimistic when you deduct those two branches from the equation.  That said, the martial law crowd, using the “tooth to tail” ration can actually only throw around 200 thousand troops into the fray, the goal of which would, presumably be, scaring the crap out of the public into relinquishing their Rights or doing as DC says.

Here’s where the illusion of omnipotence of our military starts to head into the toilet for DC.  The current US population is roughly over 300 million of which some 120 million are fit for service or, if push comes to shove, potential resistance.  Add to that some 4 million reaching service age (18) every year, which doesn’t take into account those 21.2 million between 16-19 years of age, who are certainly old enough to use a rifle, which equates to 140 million folks of sufficient maturity to pose a problem for the 200 thousand military personel tasked with keeping them ‘in-line’.  Is the 140 million a real threat to the authorities?  Likely not.  However, were we to consider that in our nation’s fight for independence it’s said a mere 3% took part in the fray and apply that to the figure above it translates to 200 thousand troops expected to overawe 4.2 million pissed off Americans who would likely actually get off their ass or put down their Budweiser long enough to take a shot at some government representative coming to a neighborhood near them.  As any military commander will tell you, wars of attrition favor those with more people to throw at the cause.  

Based on the configuration of forces that might be arrayed – 200 thousand to 4.2 million – the math certainly doesn’t favor DC or the military even if the 4.2 were limited to sticks and stones but every American knows that’s not the case.  The fact is 100 million civilians own, at least, one weapon so (again) based on the 3% rule articulated above, 3 million of the aforementioned 4.2 million are going to be armed which means, any forces sent against the People are going to have their hands full when deployed to American streets.  Based upon ‘attrition’, even being math challenged, these forces will be wholly screwed if not eviscerated in short order.

Then, there’s the fact that as good as our military is, the first question I might consider is just how many of the active military personel may not look fondly on imposing DC’s will on their fellow countrymen when ordered to?  How  many of those down home boys are going to obey orders that entail shooting their fellow Citizens and that’s before they give five minutes of thought to their Oath when they joined the armed forces wherein they swore  “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” which sort-of precludes them from blindly carrying out orders from some Führer wannabe in DC saying “do as your ordered” and that our Constitution doesn’t apply under these circumstances?  (The same lying yahoos, I might point out, that ‘promise’ our veterans benefits yet allow thousands of our ex-soldiers to die while the bureaucracy keeps their benefits.) Consider, for instance, the Marine Corps credo is “Semper Fidelis” meaning ‘Always Faithful’.  Just what do you suppose they’re “always faithful” to?  Ask one.  Is it the leadership in DC, Congress or the Pentagon or might it be that they honestly believe they’re expected to be and will “always (be) faithful” to America and her People?  How many Marines will suddenly switch loyalties from the American People and their Constitution to a temporary regime in DC who’s decided the People are a threat to the ruling class?  Our Special Forces motto is “De oppresso liber” meaning ‘to free the oppressed’.  How many of our elite, special operations folks who’s forte is unconventional warfare, training insurgency tactics, reconnaissance, foreign internal defense and direct action – in other words, to train and lead unconventional warfare (UW) forces, or a clandestine guerrilla forces in an occupied nation – will ‘suddenly’ perceive their job as not “to free the oppressed” but to, indeed, lead the oppression of their own people on American soil?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, 90% decide to “just follow orders” which I find incredulous but let’s use the number for giggles.  That leaves the effective force to be thrown at Americans as being only 180 thousand shooters not to mention the 80 thousand LESS folks carrying out support duties such as supply/logistics, intelligence, transport, security, communication and command.  What does a loss of ten percent efficiency in supporting the trigger pullers do to their combat effectiveness I wonder?

Another factor to consider is the fact that operations within the United States against Americans means that members of the military deciding to take part in subduing and subjugating their neighbors are NOT going to work every day (as they did during a foreign deployment) knowing their families and loved ones are at home, safe, eating a McDonalds Happy Meal, while they do their jobs.  Rather, their families, loved ones, wives, husbands and children are present within the AO (area of operations) and thus, quite exposed to reprisals by the very people they are tasked to carry out acts of aggression against.  It will only take a few dead, overrun families or civilian bodies in the street to insure that those opposing military rule conclude there are no “innocent civilians” ie: that dependents of military personel are fair game with no bag limit.  That fact might just cause a bit of a moral problem as well as unease when they make their decision to carry out orders to subdue an angry population.  Quite simply, “war” will come home to their families and no longer be an abstract.

The DC administration and Command structure would, no doubt, try to accommodate the families of active personel by moving them within the confines of their bases where security might be insured but this would entail HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of additional people (dependents) that the bases couldn’t protect or support with either housing and/or food therefore every reprisal carried out against immediate or even extended family members would result in more and more military personel either walking away from their posts (to protect their families) or actually going over to the other side.


Then there’s the issue of these base’s locations.  They are simply NOT defensible being, presumably, within the AO and reliant upon the good graces of those surrounding them (the subjects of martial law) to supply food, water, fuel and electricity.  Take Fort Bragg for instance,  on 251 square miles of real estate with 39 thousand plus people having 4 thousand plus households of which 89% are married couples, 85% of which contain children under 18 years of age.  Were it to try to exist within a hostile environment, surrounded by insurgents from Cumberland, Hoke, Harnett and Moore Counties in North Carolina, the ‘fort’ would be foraging for food and necessities within three weeks, were the civilian population to see them as a threat to their ‘liberty’ and freedom and withdraw their support of the perceived ‘oppressors’. 

Then there’s logistics.  In the environment of martial law, when the military, DHS and local police are running around raiding homes, stomping civil Rights, kicking our Constitution under a bus and, presumably killing/jailing a bunch Americans under the NDAA or Patriot Act, does anyone suppose that government offices and bases are going to get their vending machines refilled?  Who supplies the food, fuel, bullets, weapons, electricity and water to these facilities?  The occupation of various sandboxes around the world is only possible because these necessities are flown in to them from the States.  I highly doubt they could purchase their needed supplies mentioned above from the Afghans when they’re killing Afghans.  Do you?  Thus, once the People realize the military is aiding a repressive regime in DC, resupply of these forces becomes VERY problematic.  Especially since anyone who can fog a mirror can fire a pistol/rifle into a few power transformers on any number of telephone poles and take out power to whatever infrastructure is providing support to their oppressors.

Further, so as not to have to ‘embrace the suck’ the military is going to have to tread very lightly on the People of the good old USA while the would-be rulers in DC insist on maximum ‘effect’.  This means that much of the cool technology that gives the US the edge when dealing with OPCs or ‘other People’s countries’ such as smart bombs (hell, even dumb bombs), artillery and or just good, old fashion, wholesale slaughter is going to be off the table because when one goes into some town like Dodge City, Kansas and initiates collateral damage (to non-combatants) or dropping clusterbombs in the town square, one is going to HIGHLY MOTIVATE large blocks of the civilian population to go over to the resistance such that Kansas would eat the oppressors for breakfast.  Kiss goodbye to ‘getting out of Dodge’, expect to learn a new meaning for calling Kansas “The Cyclone State” and likely a good number of government representatives will find themselves dangling from a Kansas Cottonwood tree while listening to the reprise of the State’s  theme song “Home on the Range”.  Indeed, a heavy hand will very quickly lead to a form of Déjà vu as twenty first century Quantrill’s Raiders take to the plains of Kansas to, once again, make a certain point.

So, how might the statists be liking that martial law gig faced with just the few issues I’ve brought up?  My guess is that, even in a pint sized State such as New Hampshire, they would have one hell of a time trying to gain control let alone maintain order.  The feds would find new meaning to the quote (wrongly) attributed to Admiral Yamamoto, when speaking of a potential invasion of the United States by Imperial Japan, that there would be “a rifle behind every blade of grass”.  Here in New Hampshire the locals know every backroad and more than 56,000 people aged 16 and and up hunt, which means they’re skilled with a weapon and taking prey from a distance.  Fifty six THOUSAND potential snipers! 


There are a mere 2 cops for every one thousand Citizens here thus, with a population of 1.3 million thereabouts, there are roughly 1,323 law enforcement folks in the State.  Indeed, statewide, police departments have a vacancy rate of 12 to 13 percent and the most recent Police Academy class couldn’t even muster a full roster yet, these folks will be expected to help with any federal martial law gig DC would try to implement here.  I’m not a strategic genius but I highly doubt many local cops would join such a party even if ordered to because, not to put too fine a point on it, we know where they live and our kids go to school with their kids.  As alluded to above, oppression = those opposing the implementation of martial law would conclude there are no “innocent civilians” ie: dependents of oppressors are fair game with no bag limit.

Ooooh, but they have tanks (MRAPS/BearCats) you say.  Civilians can’t prevail against armor!  Nonsense.  Armor, such that it is in New Hampshire, is used as intimidation or a show of force to convince the uninitiated that they can/will dominate any encounter with civilians.  SWAT uses them to ‘approach’  a raid or barricaded suspect affording protection to the ten to twelve people on the team.  Once stationary, the ‘vehicle’ is essentially a ‘pillbox’  or machinegun ‘nest’  (which never worked out well for German machinegunners in Normandy) from which they can deploy automatic weapons fire through, depending on the model, 4 to 9 gun or firing ports with an extremely limited field of fire.  These vehicles, like any other, can be brought to a halt via the simple police method of a rolling road block with cars boxing it in or simply rolling a vehicle (obstruction) into it’s path and another behind it.  Once stopped the age old military axiom that any ‘real’ tank man knows – armor, be it MRAPs or Abrams tanks can’t (shouldn’t) be deployed in urban/suburban environments without a large contingent of infantry lest the armored vehicles find themselves trapped, boxed in and, with a few Molotov’s on the engine compartment, end up as crisp as a Cape Cod Potato Chip while unable to maneuver or bring their weapons to bear. 



For that matter cover the exhaust and the engine will die and the crew will too eventually, either overheating, or asphyxiation. Hell, we trained the Afghan people how to stop a tank with a potato shoved in the tailpipe while the Soviet Union was visiting.   Oops.


Again, I’m no strategic genius but I think folks both on the initiating end as well as the possible receiving end, need to see how goofy or ludicrous the idea of martial law is.  The latter need to stop worrying too much about it while the former need to put the concept out of their minds.  We might not like the bozos in DC but Americans have ZERO beef with the men and women in our armed forces.  If Washington concocted some reason, policy or ‘event’ to justify sending troops into American streets I’m quite certain it would NOT end well for the government.  


The ONLY thing that keeps the People from marching on DC with torches and pitchforks right now is the ‘belief’ in our system of government (even though it’s becoming increasingly clear that it no longer represents us) and our Constitution and the protections it promises.  Toss those beliefs under a FEMA bus and DC will need to face the reality that the very optimistic number of 180 thousand shooters available to the military for martial law could well be a huge overstatement if a good number of the elite “Semper Fidelis” and “De oppresso liber” crowd (or a few other serving military professionals) realize that America, its People and our Constitution are what they swore to “protect and defend” rather than some some sycophantic nitwits in DC, some chain of command or some home grown Il Duce who orders them to break their Oath, their duty to their Republic and shoot their neighbors while rolling into American towns, cities or countryside to implement laws, policies and Executive Orders that are contrary to what we know we/they stand for.  They may find that 3.79 million square miles needing to be pacified is one hell of a lot of real estate to think they can hold while quelling 140 million folks raised on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies of which 100 million are armed, 43 million of which ‘hunt’ every year, with statistics demonstrating that 4.2 million will very likely turn off the Kardashians, put down their remotes and get off their couches to say ‘ HELL NO’!  Call me silly but it seems one hell of a gamble when the math just doesn’t work and losing the bet might be unpleasant.  Just my opinion of course, but sometimes, that which is presented to us may not quite be as real as it appears.  Sometimes folks should ‘look behind the curtain’.



Posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, police state, Propaganda | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments