Thursday, December 8, 2016

War, as the song goes, may be good for absolutely nothing, but as for the THREAT of war....

A few days back, a commenter I almost always agree with 100% Joshua Sinistar, seems to have missed my point about General Mattis entirely. In reaction to the second quibcag down below and the accompanying post here [link], Joshua wrote:

Getting a great Military guy for Secretary of Defense now is like hiring a Champion Horse Breeder for a one-horse town. I don't want any Gung-Ho Marines around the White House. We need someone to defend our border, and any more Middle East Adventures are going to be non-starters. If Iran nukes New York, I'm gonna have a Party. If they want to fight the Ayatollah, they better do it themselves. I don't care about sand dunes. America is what really matters. And no, New York City ain't America. Not even close.

I know exactly what Joshua means here, and I agree with him. Where we differ is in our evaluation of General Mattis. You'll notice in the quibcag that Mattis isn't threatening to fight anybody. Au contraire, he's recommending quite highly that a prospective enemy not push him into a fight, because the results for the prospective enemy will be grim indeed. And, what with being a Marine commander and all, it's not an empty threat at all. For that matter, it's a "threat" only in to minds of the left, who think true peace can be arrived at only through disarmament and surrender, which is suicidal madness, at this point in history just like in any other.

So we do need a gung-ho Marine, in the Mattis sense of the term, heading up Defense. Who do you want actually guarding the border — Mattis or some version of Pajama Boy? Every country needs the best military guy they've got heading their defense departments, because Defense Departments are supposed to be prepared to fight, which is not the same thing at all as eager to fight. History tells us that very often, "prepared" and "eager" turn out to be opposites.

We've all seen all too many phony military stereotypes in the fictional media (or should I say the explicitly fictional media?)  that mislead us about the military mind. Sure, there are crazy generals, just as there are crazy lawyers and crazy plumbers and crazy architects, etc.  But most of them are just specialists in war, and, as I put it before, as such know what war is, and are therefore less likely to resort to it for trivial reasons than most civilians, who don't know the difference between video games about war and real war.  Guess what these guys have in common:

Geo. Washington
Andrew Jackson
William H. Harrison
Franklin Pierce
Zachary Taylor
US Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
James Garfield
Dwight Eisenhower

They were all generals who became President. Now, think of all the terrible wars they got us embroiled in as President. Give up? Yeah. They'd all seen enough of it during their military careers. They mostly found other ways to settle disputes and further American interests.

I'll be very happy with James Mattis running Defense. And the fact that Trump is picking generals for important positions reassures me that, unlike Hillary, he, too, considers war a last resort.
Quibcags: The first is a fresh one, illustrated by some of the girls of Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā), who, admirably, are prepared but not eager to fight.  The second is illustrated by a military girl I found on Tumblr.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Hate the Russians, Suck Up to the Chinese

That's what the liberals/progressives advocate these days. Seriously, our leftie pals are having the vapors and hissy-fits over the fact that Trump accepted a phone call from the Taiwanese President, thereby maybe, just maybe, offending the Chinese. I'm not worried about that, because I think Scott Adams has it right, that the Chinese leaders are grownups who don't want to go to war because their feelings are hurt, or theoretically might be hurt [link].

On the other hand, these same smarmy liberals/progressives are beating the drums for war with Russia. Their latest champion, Hillary, called for extending NATO all the way up to the Russian border, and for instituting a no-fly zone over Syria. The latter is an act of war, and the former might as well be.

So why is the left so hostile towards Russia and go ingratiating towards China? I think Karol Traven has it right in the quibcag. Our American left has had a lifelong crush on communism, and of course it bent over backwards to argue for tolerance of, and aid to, the Soviet Union for as long as it lasted. The Chinese, despite their current wink to capitalism, remain communist in theory, so the left is expressing horror over Trump's phone call,  just as they expressed horror over Reagan's use of the term "evil empire," wailing that it might lead to war. It didn't cause a war with the USSR then, and it won't cause a war with China now. But as for Russia, it abandoned communism, and the American left just hates that, and will never forgive Russia in general, or Putin in particular.

Just one more proof that whatever they say they are, the leftists of America are nothing more than pimps for communism.
Quibcag: The Chinese girl is Kagura of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul")

Friday, December 2, 2016

"Mad Dog" "Chaos" "Warrior Monk" Mattis

Some of the best priests look like they'd make good military officers, and some of the best military officers look like they'd make good priests. The "warrior monk," General James Mattis, falls in the latter category.

Many people have heard about Mattis for the first time only over the last few days, but I heard about him some time ago. Me, now, I was in the Army almost half a century ago, but my oldest son was a Marine, a scout/sniper in the invasion of Iraq, and General Mattis was his commanding officer. And my son had nothing but praise and admiration for him, which is typical of the Marines under his command. So I was blogging about Mattis years ago [link]. 

As Trump's choice of Jeff Sessions demonstrated that he's serious about immigration, his choice of Mattis shows that he's very serious about our military

Vox Day has been blogging about all this. Here's his latest from his site here [link]:

This guy is GOOD

It's not hard to understand why the God-Emperor Ascendant was so impressed by Gen. Mattis. Speaking as a game designer, which involves thinking through things in a way few people ever have to do, I can say this is an indication of man who takes the time to be certain he really, really knows his stuff. The mind behind this level of detailed preparation and coaching can only be described in the vernacular as Belichickian:
First Marine Division was holding their first ROC Drill, the rehearsal of concept of what we were about to do. I had never seen a walk-through like this before. Marines had spent days building an enormous reproduction of southern Iraq in a bowl formed by a huge, semicircular sand dune. Each road, each river, each canal, each oil field was built to scale and even in proper color (water was blue dye poured into a sand ditch, and so on.)

Each Marine unit wore football jerseys in different colors, and with proper numbers. First Battalion, Fifth Marines, known as one-fifth, wore blue jerseys with “15” on the back, and other units were similarly identified. Principal staff from those units stood on the “border” drawn in the sand. About 300 officers stood and sat on the dune above. It was the perfect way to visualize what was about to happen.

General Mattis stood up and took a handheld microphone. Without referencing a single piece of paper, he discussed what each unit would do and in what sequence, and outlined his end state for each phase of the early war. He spoke for nearly 30 minutes, and his complete mastery of every nuance of the battle forthcoming was truly impressive.

A narrator then took over and picked up the narrative, the rest of the first week of the early war in sequence. As he described each movement, the officers from that unit walked to the proper place on their terrain model, and by the end of an hour the colored jerseys were spread over nearly a football field’s worth of sand. What a show.

At the end of the drill, questions were answered and then Mattis dismissed everyone. No messing around with this guy. Mike Murdoch, one of the British company commanders, leaned over to me, his eyes wide. “Mate, are all your generals that good?”

I looked at him.

“No. He is the best we have.”
As I've repeatedly observed about the God-Emperor Ascendant, when he says he is going to get the best people, he isn't blowing smoke or pontificating. He's simply expressing his intentions. And if those he hires subsequently demonstrate they can't get it done, he doesn't hesitate to eject them and replace them with someone who can.
Quibcag: I found the Marine girl on Tumblr.

Schneiderman on Anti-Semitism

There's something bizarre going on with the whole concept of anti-Semitism in this country. First, read what Stuart Schneiderman says [link] (it may be easier to read at the link) and then I'll comment on it:

The Keith Ellison Perplex

After eight years of systematically ignoring anti-Semitism Democrats went into high dudgeon over Steve Bannon’s work at Breitbart news. The media organization was founded by a Jew named Andrew Breitbart and the article that was supposedly the most offensive was authored by someone named David Horowitz. 

The story was salient because it affirmed the left-wing suspicion that anti-Semitism and all other forms of bigotry came from the one true enemy: the right wing.

Now, the specter of anti-Semitism has come to haunt the Democratic Party itself. In the wake of its election debacle the party had seemed to be uniting around the candidacy of one Keith Mohammed Ellison for Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Apparently, the lesson of election 2016 has been lost on Democratic operatives. As Mark Lilla wrote and as I commented on, the biggest loser in the election was identity politics. Dividing the nation into warring factions did not work out as expected. Placing everyone in different groups based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and whatever felt like a systematic attack on white people, an attack that relied on slander and defamation. And, not just on white people. It all felt like an attack on national unity. In the election the nation rose up against the tyranny of political correctness. 

And yet, as Bob Dylan famously chanted: “When will they ever learn?” This week the night riders of the thought police have set out against a Texas couple named Chip and Joanna Gaines. The two have a television show on HG TV called Fixer Upper. They have parlayed their show into a budding media empire. No one who has watched the show has any but good feelings for the Gaineses. As it happens, they are a mixed race couple. Not that that matters.

What was their thought crime? In truth, it wasn’t theirs. It was attributed to the pastor of the church they attend. According to Buzzfeed, among others, their pastor Jimmy Seibert holds politically incorrect, and therefore heretical views about marriage.

The Federalist reports:

[According to] Jimmy Seibert, the Gaines’ pastor: “So if someone were to say, ‘Marriage is defined in a different way,’ let me just say: They are wrong. God defined marriage, not you and I. God defined masculine and feminine, male and female, not you and I.”

You may, of course, want to debate the point. As it happens, until a couple of decades ago, no one doubted this notion. Now, it has been thrown into question. But, that is not all. It has been denounced as a thought crime, as an offense against the faith. Anyone who believes what every human society has believed and practiced until a couple of decades ago is a bigot and does not deserve to have a television show on HG TV.

In fact, it does not really matter what Chip and Joanna Gaines believe or disbelieve. Attending a church where the pastor holds heretical views is, in the minds of the politically correct zealots, disqualifying.

If you were wondering why identity politics went down in flames on November 9, here’s one good reason. Then again, remember when Democrats and the political left happily excused a presidential candidate who attended a church led by a pastor who hated America, white people, Jews and Israel?

In the meantime, the great minds of the Democratic Party, led by their congressional leaders have missed the point of the election. Alan Dershowitz excoriates them for not being too bright:

What should a political party that has just lost its white working-­class blue-collar base to a “make America great again” nationalist do to try to regain these voters? Why not appoint as the new head of the party a radical left-wing ideologue who has a long history of supporting an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam racist?

Such an appointment will surely bring back rust belt voters who have lost their jobs to globalization and free trade! Is this really the thinking of those Democratic leaders who are pushing for Keith Ellison to head the Democratic National Committee?

One hates to say it, but how can we ignore the fact that the current occupant of the White House himself had a long history of supporting an anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam racist. Hmmm. 

To be fair, Rev. Jeremiah Wright was not a Muslim and did not belong to the Nation of Islam. And yet, he worked closely with Louis Farrakhan, even to the point of participating in rallies with him. And, Rev. Wright, happily published Hamas propaganda in his Church bulletin.

Do Democrats see Keith Ellison as the new Barack Obama?

Neither Farrakhan nor Wright nor, for that matter, Ellison, could support a campaign to make American great. Even if they disagree over whether America ever was great—they do not—they can hardly be expected to support anyone’s craving for national unity. After all, Wright preached something that was called black liberation theology… a doctrine that defined blacks as an oppressed class that needed to rise up and overthrow their white oppressors. 

Since Ellison had a long history of associating with Farrakhan, it is fair to point out that the Nation of Islam founder has not been very much of a patriot. 

Dershowitz made the case:

Ellison’s sordid past associations with Louis Farrakhan — the longtime leader of the Nation of Islam — will hurt him in Middle America, which has little appetite for Farrakhan’s anti-American ravings. Recently, Farrakhan made headlines for visiting Iran on the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution where he berated the U.S., while refusing to criticize Iran’s human rights violations.

Farrakhan also appeared as a special guest speaker of the Iranian president at a rally, which featured the unveiling of a float reenacting Iran’s detention of 10 U.S. Navy sailors in the Persian Gulf. (Jessica Chasmar, "Louis Farrakhan Speaking in Iran, Slams American ‘Dismal’ Human Rights Record," The Washington Times, Feb. 12, 2016.)

In addition to embracing American enemies abroad, Farrakhan has exhibited a penchant for lacing his sermons with anti-Semitic hate speech. Around the time that Ellison was working with the Nation of Islam, for example, Farrakhan was delivering speeches attacking “the synagogue as Satan.” He described Jews as “wicked deceivers of the American people” that have “wrapped [their] tentacles around the U.S. government” and are “deceiving and sending this nation to hell.”

Those who care can also examine the record of Ellison’s anti-Israeli votes in Congress. The record is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look at it. 

Dershowitz outlines it:

Ellison’s voting record also does not support his claim that he has become a “friend” of Israel. He was one of only eight congressmen who voted against funding the Iron Dome program, developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel, which helps protect Israeli civilians from Hamas rockets.

In 2009, Ellison was one of only two dozen congressmen to vote “present” rather than vote for a non-­binding resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

And in 2010, Ellison co-­authored a letter to President Obama, calling on him to pressure Israel into opening the border with Gaza. The letter describes the blockade of the Hamas controlled Gaza strip as “de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents.”

And yet, the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party, including New York’s own Jewish senator, Chuck Schumer have supported Ellison. When Ellison ran for Congress in Minnesota Jewish groups decided that he had had a change of heart. They supported him. 

When Barack Obama declared that his twenty year association with Rev. Wright did not matter, Jewish groups supported him. How did that work out? 

Examine Obama’s contempt for the prime minister of Israel, his efforts to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood and his efforts to empower the Iranian regime. Then you can ask precisely how much he had really put the Rev. Wright in the past. When Obama sent hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to Tehran, money that would be funneled to Hamas and Hezbollah, the better to support their efforts to kill Jews... who in the American Jewish community stood up against him?

If Obama’s record with Rev. Jeremiah Wright did not matter to the Democratic Party, why should Keith Ellison’s? 

Now, the Anti-Defamation League has just discovered that Keith Ellison is too anti-Semitic. So perhaps his quest for legitimacy at the DNC is over? But, then again, why did it take this much time? And when will people understand that the issue is not Keith Ellison, but Barack Obama?

Okay, Schneiderman's right. It's crazy that Jews, or anybody else genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism, would have considered supporting Obama at all. And it's equally crazy that they would oppose Trump, who has a Jewish son-in-law and plenty of other connections, and about whom there is zero evidence of any anti-Semitism.

I've been thinking about this particular craziness among Jews all my life, and there's only one rational explanation. First keep in mind that most Jews, American Jews at least, are just a bunch of poor shlubbs in the working class, just like Joe Sixpack. Not a lot of time or inclination to think a lot about politics. Likely to follow the lead of their intelligentsia, again, just like Joe Sixpack.

So we're talking here not so much about Jews, but about the Jewish elite, which pretty much directs the thinking of, shall we say, Jake Sixpack.

So why does the Jewish elite, the formers of opinion, almost completely ignore the overt anti-Semitism of Black leaders like the Reverend Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan, to the extent of actually working with them in support of Obama? And why do they also support the importation of millions of Muslims, who, if they're not literally violent and dangerous, are infinitely more likely to be anti-Semites than any other religious group? And why did so many oppose Trump, who seems to have a very benign attitude towards Jews, and supports limits, at least, on Muslim immigration, which is more pro-Jewish than anything else?

It's because they hate the Tsar.


Jewish history teaches the Jewish elite that the Tsar is the embodiment of all evil, or was, at least, till Hitler came along. So they see the problem as a White, Christian, European tendency towards anti-Semitism, which they oppose any way they can. And the more well-organized — we'll just call them Whites for now — the Whites are, the more potentially dangerous they are to Jews. So the Jewish elite really don't take seriously the nonWhite Jew-haters (like just about every Black organization in the country) because they're relatively weak, and they're not White. The same goes for Muslims.

And with some of the Jewish elite, their hate for, and fear of, Whites has become the main thing. That is, they've sort of forgotten why they knee-jerkly oppose Whites, so they're willing to put themselves and other Jews in danger from anti-Semitic Black and Muslims in order to keep Whites from being in charge of things, because Whites are dangerous. And, of course, the more Blacks and Muslims and other Third-Worlders are imported into White countries, the more it screws Whites up and the less likely they are to get well enough organized to be a danger to Jews. And, of course, the more intermarriage there is (a natural consequence of proximity), the less White solidarity there will be.

This is crazy, of course, because in a formerly White country dominated by Third-Worlders of one sort or another, Jews have a much more precarious existence.

The fact is, here in the US, practically all Whites have a positive attitude towards Jews, and Jews couldn't possibly be safer.

There is a minority among the Jewish intelligentsia that understands that making common cause with Whites is the rational and moral thing to do. Schneiderman is one, and there's Nicholas Stix, Paul Gottfried, Milo Yiannopoulos, and this guy, and many more that I can't remember right now.

But, unless you're Jewish yourself, I recommend not arguing the issue with leftist Jews, because not being Jewish, you simply have much less credibility than a Jew would. The best thing is to urge them to read stuff by the alt-right Jewish intellectuals.

How much you want to bet this post will be denounced as anti-Semitic?
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by a girl from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) , and I've forgotten where I got the harem girl in the second. The third, I found the illustration a long time ago and I don't remember where, and I'm including it because it's a Nicholas Stix quote referring to Paul Gottfried. AND I just added a new one based on a comment. It's now number three, and the old number three is now number four. It shows the girl mascots from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア)., with Israel in between Germany and Russia.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

A New Glaivester Cartoon

In response to this [link],  Glaivester drew the below:

His site is here [link].

Monday, November 28, 2016

Here we go again

I swiped this graphic from Vulture of Critique, and you probably can see it bigger and more clearly at his site here [link]. Of course the talking heads on TV are pointing out that it's still a mystery as to what could possibly motivate a teenage Muslim Somali refugee to try to kill a bunch of us with a car and a butcher knife. Now that he's dead, of course, we'll never know, but it was no doubt either racism or Islamophobia, as you can see from the article above. Seriously, if you were in Somalia, and you couldn't find a Christian church to pray in, wouldn't you run your car into a crowd of Somalis and then attack them with a butcher knife? Of course you would. It's only natural. This is sarcasm.

Read Vulture's account of all this here [link].
Diversity is Chaos writes this [link].
And this question from SPBDL [link].

Now, then, will you SJW's out there explain to me how the beautiful diversity we enjoy by welcoming Muslims offsets the death and mayhem we suffer from them once they get here?

Oh, and here we have SJW idiots calling for gun control because the killer used a car and a knife. [link] There were no guns there, but there was a Muslim.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Matt Bailey puts things in perspective....

And it fits into a quibcag, which features, of course, the girls of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)