A JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY?

 

 

by Michael X.

A nation is a body of people with common values. From common values comes common behavior and from that comes a common culture. When a nation of people occupy a common territory we call that territory a country. Under this scenario, the people, the culture, and the territory are congruent.

It is only from a common culture (customs and values) that a form of governance called democracy (the will of the people) can work. From the will of the people will come generally agreed upon and enforceable laws.

Under the “rule of law” no one individual is above the will of the people as enacted in its laws. The agents of the will of the people make the laws and the judiciary administers said laws.

If the territory devolves from containing a single culture to a territory occupied by multiple cultures (value systems), then the laws do not have the same general authority as those enacted by a common culture. These laws tend to be mere expedients agreed upon by the various political constituencies at a particular moment in time. But the people long for a common thread in their governance, so they put their trust in “The Courts.”

Within the law, cultural differences are thought to be put aside so that no one culture dominates another capriciously. Lady Justice wears a blindfold so as to be oblivious to any special standing of those who stand before her. Rich or poor, strong or weak, black or white, man or woman, we are all thought to be equal before the law. Lady Justice's only consideration is the law. But this is not so under the current ruling class. They do not even pretend that they want justice to be blind. They want the appointees to the court to be very aware of who is standing before them and to make their decisions accordingly.

Inevitably, this will lead to a court rationale that any law can be unilaterally amended by the court if it believes that any party before it - with special status - is aggrieved by it.

Some of the choices to fill the vacancies (Sotomayor, comes to mind) on the Supreme Court are examples of how the court can be corrupted. What is breathtaking is that such choices are so nakedly political. 

Beware the judicial establishment. Let no one say that they have not shown their hand. They have made their intentions clear. They intend on assuming ownership of the Constitution.

VICTIMHOOD

 

by Michael X.

Victimhood is one of the most powerful political constructions in modern society because it absolves its practitioners from the burden of guilt.

"Victims" are no longer responsible for their actions. Those who plea on their behalf argue that because victims are politically powerless and morally helpless, they are not capable of making their own choices and, therefore, are not culpable. Culpability really belongs to unseen others who control the culture. However, to the casualties of crime and other misbehaviour, these morally weak individuals do not appear to be helpless at all.

 

These same self appointed protectors of society's "victims" say that pointing out that the weak make bad choices is beside the point. Only people with power have real choices. The idea that a man is weak and unsuccessful because he has made bad choices is a heresy to progressives. In truth, progressives regard social failures as not flesh and blood human beings; they are merely numbers on a statistical balance sheet.

This victim-oppressor political value system of progressives is posited on the right of politically designated victims to act without consequences.

By extension, designated nations who are victims of oppression, are not responsible for any wickedness and cruelty they commit in their pursuit of social justice. It is the actions of successful nations that are at the root of war and its consequences. Being successful, you see, is proof of being guilty of political and social exploitation.

The protection of the morally weak is simply a rationale for stealing the fruits of the morally successful. That's how the progressives justify their existence. Protecting the weak justifies any illegal exercise of power on their behalf. They ignore the historical evidence that democratic nation states that guarantee individual rights are the bedrock of a successful society and are the bulwark against the rapacious ways of tyrannical ideologies.

The weak can escape their irresponsibility but not the strong. Those who would presume to protect them see themselves as all knowing and benevolent. To social justice warriors, these good intentions entitle them to the levers of power and absolves them of any sin.

 

Moral weakness accepts no responsibility for it's actions. Progressives believe that the burden of responsibility belongs to society and not to the individual. It is society that is responsible for anti-social behavior because morally weak individuals are only mindless cogs in a social machine. Successful individuals, on the other hand, somehow have free will and bear the burden of accountability.

To social justice warriors, the strong and successful must not only be made aware of their guilt but must atone for that guilt by giving up their wealth and power and distributing it to the unwashed. And, as if to add insult to injury, they must practice moral suicide by divesting themselves of the very moral principles which account for their success. 

BARBARISM: THE BELLIGERENT STATE OF MIND

by Michael X.

Self control or self restraint is the ability to control one's emotions or impulses. The ability to over-ride natural impulses and become a self-disciplined citizen takes years of training or cultivation. In the beginning, parents and teachers oversee the training. But even the best overseers need to operate in an overall environment which constantly reinforces the goal of the training. Self control is not merely a personal attribute; it must be an attribute of the society in which one lives, but just what is it that we are controlling? The answer: "male sexual energy."

It is male sexual energy, under harness, that has built civilization. All civilizations divert male sexual energy from its immediate goals of waging war and sexual conquest to ones of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature.

There has always been a delicate balance between sublimating the male energy produced by testosterone for the building of a society and leaving enough left over to ensure procreation and, especially, the defence of the realm.

The distinguishing characteristic of all barbarian societies is that they have not harnessed male sexual energy. The males are governed by their impulses. The primary personal characteristics of impulsive males are that they are easily bored, act without thought for consequences, lack perseverance, are easily angered, are seekers of sensation, and are not governed by any articulated moral code. These are the natural characteristics of a male adolescent. Barbarism, then, can be likened to a protracted male adolescence, encouraged and enabled by the customs of the tribes that they inhabit.

To the barbarian mind, the life of others is of no importance. Due to the nature of barbarians they are in a state of constant belligerence. They are, generally speaking, a warrior society. They exist for war. They need enemies. Accustomed to death and uncertainty, they are indifferent to life.

Among the barbarians, the strong dominate the weak. The strong see no reason to produce because they can just take what they want. The weak have no motive to produce because it will only be taken from them. If someone acquires something, others become jealous and are inclined to appropriate it by force or intimidation.

If you are not able to keep what you produce then there is no sense in producing anything. So the predatory practices of barbarian societies leads to a shortage of goods - but that is not the worst of it. These practices makes it impossible to have the long term stability that is needed to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for increased productivity. Productivity is the key to increased standards of living. Excellence, accomplishment, and the production of wealth are not important values among barbarians.

The social rules about the moral qualities considered desirable for a civilised culture swing between strict control and permissiveness. Right now, due to the progressives undermining of our traditional social controls, we are on the permissive swing of the pendulum. Images of barbarians and the glorification of barbarian attitudes permeate our culture with predictable results. It shows that male sexual energy is becoming unharnessed. This has led to rampant drug addiction, violence, and sexual predation in our culture.

Soon, we will have to ask ourselves how much permissiveness can our society tolerate before we lose complete control of the hyper aggressiveness of young male sexual energy? Can we pull back from the growing impulse to barbarism?

These statements may seem hyperbolic to those who live in gated communities, either literal or metaphorical. But to those who live in the inner cities, the truth of these statements is a given.

The progressives also promote forced wealth redistribution (aka: Socialism) as the remedy for so-called economic inequities but socialism's essential nature leads to the large scale regulation of society, where the strong: the government, take from the less strong: the producers. This "the politically strong take from the politically weak" political ethos ends up mimicking the social results of the barbarian way of life.

Socialism suffocates civilized values and incentives. It inhibits the pursuit of wealth and excellence in order to achieve "social justice" and inevitably leads to production shortages. This, in turn, leads to the breakdown of the civilized order, anarchy, and a return to barbarism: the very opposite of socialism's stated intentions. Socialism, because it appeals to adolescent sensibilities, is not only hostile to civil society, it is antithetical to it. There is no small irony here.

THE FALL OF WESTERN CULTURE

 

In place of a type-true people, born and grown on the soil, there is a new sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical city dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially that highest form of countryman, the country gentleman. This is a very great stride towards the inorganic, towards the end – what does it signify?’  - Spengler

by Michael X.

 

Western intellectual culture has gone through many eras ranging from the classical, medieval, and renaissance periods, through to the literary and artistic movements of the enlightenment, romanticism, realism, and modernism.

 

Throughout western intellectual traditions there were always three fundamental questions: what is true, what is good, and what is beautiful? There have been many opinions put forward on these subjects by thoughtful people guided by reason and knowledge. Our culture of increasing freedom has allowed for a wide range of personal thought and expression within the limits of an acknowledged and accepted objective reality

 

Then along came postmodernism and critical theory which seeks to liberate the mind from the objective standards of western philosophy. These theories completely undermine our hard won intellectual progress that has come about as a result of our evolving advances in knowledge, ethics, and art. Postmodernist and critical theory advocates (who parade about under the banner of progressivism) seem blissfully unaware that they are the antithesis of progress. 

According to postmodernists all western theories about the nature of reality are nothing more than agreed upon opinions. As a consequence we now find our culture is beginning to slowly unravel as the “progressives" have unwittingly put a halt to four thousand years of advancing western thought. I say unwittingly because I don’t think they have the intellectual “chops” to realise that the logical extension of their theory that there is no objective reality is that the universe is aimless and without purpose.

The view that the natural order of things has no purpose is called nihilism. Postmodernism is nihilistic and Critical Theory is weaponised nihilism. I say “weaponised” because Critical Theory seeks to completely change the existing cultural order. The term “to completely change” means “to completely eliminate the one thing and substitute another thing.” By calling for the complete elimination of western culture and it's core value that there is a knowable objective reality is nothing less than a declaration of war on western civilisation.

 

One can see the preposterousness of the whole Critical Theory enterprise when one realises that they are, in fact, asserting that there is no truth - a self-contradicting idea that is as puerile as it is absurd. 

TRUE GRIT

 

by Michael X.

Grit : An elusive quality. It embodies courage, determination, steadfastness, the ability to endure pain, ridicule, isolation and doubt.

It is distinct from taste, political ideology or religion.

While women can have it, it is not considered essential to femininity. Grit is a masculine quality and all real men must have it to some degree.

In the 2008 American election we had John McCain, the war hero, and Sarah Palin, the housewife/governor. This pairing unintentionally stood conventional wisdom on its head. There was no small irony in the fact that McCain, the war hero, had no grit while Sarah Palin, the housewife who became governor, had it in spades.

In my generation, John Wayne had it. Ronald Reagan had it. George Patton had it. So did Burt Lancaster and Clark Gable. Almost all the men of that generation had it.

Clint Eastwood has it. Sly Stallone has it. Jason Statham has it. While Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, et al, do not have it.

That does not mean that men sympathetic to the left don't have it. Jeff Bridges has it and Liam Neeson has it. 

Our culture used to have grit. That was when men asserted themselves and exerted their influence as heads of the family. And women supported the role of men as providers and protectors. Now modern men are discouraged from thinking of themselves as providers and protectors and are encouraged to think of themselves as helpmates.

Women (mostly single women) are encouraged to think of government as a more competent and reliable provider and protector of women than men. Manliness is rejected as an intrinsic condition of the male.

And what do we get from this progressive view? Beta-males. Those unremarkable, careful men who like to wag their tails, back away from risk and confrontation and have an unmanly pre-occupation with avoiding pain and danger. In time this will become a self fulfilling prophecy. Manliness will become a cultural anachronism.

Grit is the defining characteristic of the male. Grit is essential. A nation without grit is a nation that cannot and will not defend itself. A nation without grit, ultimately, is not a nation at all.

THE TRUTH IS FLUID

 

Progressivism is predicated on the fluidity of truth. If truth is up for grabs then so are values. If values are up for grabs then so is culture. When I was growing up, if one were to ask people to name their most important values, having a work ethic would lead the way. We were taught and practiced the Protestant work ethic. After that, most people picked religion and having children.

Today, people are far less likely to trust authority or institutions. That’s good news because our authorities and institutions are not to be trusted. They lied to us about Iraq and Afghanistan; they lied to us about electoral integrity; they lied to us about Covid; they lie to us about about the consequences of ballooning national debt; the lie to us about nearly everything and they lie all the time. They do this to protect their class and its privileges. But the unintended consequence is that they have done something far worse - they destroyed our faith in reality itself.

As we watch the latest scenes from Kabul of panicked crowds of Americans and others trying to flee the Taliban and listen to Biden's explanation of the chaos, is it cynical to ask ourselves if anything the President says is true?

In this new world - when wishful thinking collides with facts, facts are discarded - where do we go to find the truth? If truth is relative, what then is the nature of reality?

Even Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when he testified to Congress in June, said the biggest threat to America's security was White Supremacy and the cure for it was to study and learn from Critical Race Theory. But, unfortunately, "facts are stubborn things."

Now we are witnessing the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan which has quickly become the most embarrassing national security debacle since the Vietnam War. 

It would be easy to conclude that Gen. Milley is either completely stupid or is ideologically straight-jacketed but either of those conclusions could be found wanting by the gut feeling that he is simply outright lying. He is simply trying to save his sorry soul in this pathetic attempt to please his political masters. Lying is easy when there’s no belief in truth.

THE FOLLY OF NATION BUILDING

I wrote this a few years ago. But it seems just as relevant today.

Nation Building in Iraq and Afghanistan

by Michael X.

All endeavors are composed of two parts: means and ends. In discussing the Middle East, if one were to ask: "By what means and to what ends are we engaging there?", you couldn't get a definitive answer from either the foreign policy establishment or any political leaders.

Stripped of rationalising verbiage, the current missions are to supplant evil with goodness. The West, in particular, America, wants to start a social re-construction in the middle east by replacing the region's growing theocratic fascism with democracy. Back in 2003, George Bush, under the guiding hands of the Neo-Cons (read: the Kagans et al), thought he would plant the seeds of a social revolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. So enarmoured was he in this undertaking that in his second inaugural address, he said, with almost missionary zeal: “Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.”

To every one's chagrin, though, the cultural soil has proven to be not only hard pan but contaminated with the poison of centuries of old hatreds and prejudices. So toxic is the culture that new ideas do not grow there; new ideas cannot grow there. Islamist values couple with and exacerbate murderous internecine feuds that render the middle east into an intellectually barren mindscape and has produced a society that could be fairly described as being composed of "a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel..."

One accepts that Islamic theocratic fascism is evil, but its opposite is not democracy. Democracy is not goodness; it is, at best, a means to an end. Democracy, even in America, is subordinate to morality. That's why Americans have a Bill of Rights which limits the powers of a democratically elected government. Islam tolerates no dissent. Under Sharia law there cannot be nor will there ever be, a bill of rights.

Under Sharia law, both individuals and democratically elected governments are subordinate to an Islamic theocracy, in all matters. In my opinion, a democratic style of government will not be the bulwark against theocratic despotism that Americans hope it will be.

The people of the middle east are not going to stop being Muslims. The installation of democracy to counter an Islamic theocracy is nothing more than a masturbatory fantasy of those Kantian inspired "peace through democracy" theorists: the liberal internationalists.

As a wartime rationale, replacing evil with goodness is a naive idealism. But if this is not a defensible rationale for war then what is? The only defensible rationale for war is when a country faces "a clear and present danger." Under this rubric, the purpose of war becomes clear. Wars should only be waged to remove an existential threat to a society.

Forcing "democratic principles" on any nation where democracy was, heretofore, unknown is, ultimately, an exercise in futility unless the forcing power has the intention of a permanent occupation which, in practical terms, is really a colonisation. Regardless of what one thinks of the legitimacy of colonisation, it is a very lengthy and  expensive endeavor and will never succeed unless the cost of colonisation can be recouped from the assets of the colonised country. In the present international political climate such a recouping is a non-starter.

The first phase of the 2003 Iraq war: the military invasion, was based on legitimate fears. Saddam not only had but used a WMD (biological weapon), was intent on starting a nuclear program, was developing long range missiles, hated the U.S., had started two major conflicts with Iran and Kuwait, and was a ruthless and politically ambitious megalomaniac. An additional worry was that if Saddam got his hands on a nuclear weapon, he might hook up with Al Qaeda and use them as one of his mechanisms of delivery. A regime change in Iraq was a logical and justifiable military intervention. The fact that it was implemented incompetently does not negate the fact that the rationale for the invasion was based on sound reasoning. The second phase of the invasion (social re-construction) was stupid, careless and an act of extraordinary naivete.   

When the U.S took over Iraq it made a number of significant errors. The two most egregious ones were to install a Shia government in a predominately Sunni country and to disband  the Iraqi military. Further, the new Shia government would not even allow the former ruling party to even participate in Iraqi political affairs. Just where did the American military, intelligence, and foreign policy establishments think Saddam's Sunni political establishment, officer corps and intelligence networks would go when they became completely disenfranchised? Did they think they would just disappear and take up dirt farming?

 

The former political and military ruling class became very fearful for their own safety, resentful and radicalised. If for no other reason than personal security, they needed a safe haven of their own; that is to say: their own state. So they plotted and waited. And, it must be emphasized, these are not stupid people. 

When the time came, they capitalised on two other major mistakes the American occupying forces made: In 2003, during the confusion of battle, the American military left Iraq's armories unguarded and, as a consequence, they  were subsequently looted. Still these arms and materiel could not be put to full advantage with American forces still in Iraq. During the period of 2003 until 2011, Americans kept Iraq awash in cash to be used as slush funds for Iraqi politicians and to pay bribes to Sunni tribal leaders to get them to keep Al Qaeda under control. But the Americans left in 2011 and the displaced Sunni insurgents saw a golden opportunity. They knew the central bank in Mosul held several hundred million dollars in cash without adequate security.

 

It did not take long for the insurgents to seize the opportunity and in 2012 they robbed the bank and made off with over $400 million dollars. This was the third win in a logistical trifecta and resulted in a well armed, well motivated and, now, well financed insurgency in Iraq. This new insurgency was composed of two groups: the secular Baathists and the religious Islamists (Jihadis) led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In the struggle for dominance, the Islamists out muscled the Baathists and, in 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) emerged under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

There is, by most accounts, a bloodbath going on in Syria and surrounding territories and the blame for this, rightly or wrongly, fell on American shoulders. American ineptitude, in addition to being viewed with contempt by the citizens of the middle east, has resulted in the U.S. being viewed as a paper tiger. Enemies of the U.S. now see it as weak and as lacking the will to win. Perceived weakness invites aggression.

It is vital to American security that the U.S. is be viewed as a credible military and moral force. To gain that credibility, the U.S. must win the wars that it engages in and, to be more emphatic, it must not enter into any wars that it cannot win.

So, what are the means to regain military credibility? In my opinion, the U.S. needs to replace the "Muslim theocratic fascism is evil and must be eliminated" type of narrative and substitute for it: "Muslim theocratic fascism may be evil but, more importantly, it is an existential danger and that danger must be contained."

The substituting of one narrative for the other is important. There will always be Muslim extremists as long as there are Muslims. One cannot eliminate all Muslims. This is not even theoretically possible. American actions will never and can never conform to that kind of narrative. "Containing the danger from Muslim extremists" is a narrative that U.S. actions can conform to.

For the U.S. to fight a "boots-on-the-ground-bang-bang-you're-dead" war is extremely expensive. At one point in the Iraq war it was reckoned that there was about 55,000  enemy dead at a cost of $450 billion and that was over ten years ago! The cost to make an enemy fighter bite the dust during that period? Eight million dollars! While the $8 million dollars per enemy K.I.A. is bad news (and probably represents the most expensive cost of killing each enemy fighter in history), it is not the worst news. The worst news is that the 55,000 dead enemy combatants was not nearly enough to achieve military victory.

A dozen years later, fighting ISIS is only the tip of the iceberg. The U.S, in a protracted war, would probably have to kill several times this number to make all of the various militant Islamic factions attrition rates higher than their replacement rates. The enemy has a billion and a half people to draw from. At the present rates of attrition the enemy has an endless supply of recruits. Unless Americans change their Rules Of Engagement to include "take no prisoners" they are not going to increase the enemy's attrition rates and we must face the fact that this change is not going to happen.

Therefore, the U.S. strategy has to change dramatically in order to contain a belligerent Islam. No matter how valiantly American soldiers fight, no land war with Islam can be brought to a permanent conclusion. Any boots-on-the-ground engagement would obviously conclude one day, but not in America's favour. What will end the war is that, if for no other reason, the U.S. will simply run out of money (and suffer war fatigue) and the enemy knows it.

 

For any new foreign policy strategy to succeed the U.S. military must completely disengage from Muslim countries. Americans are going to have to accept that their continued military presence in Muslim countries is intolerable to Muslims. No rapprochement with Muslims will be possible until this is done. But - and this is important - America must not leave the battlefield as perceived losers.

The solution? The military must pick a suitable radical Islamic faction to defeat. The choice of target will not be hard. The Muslims are always quarreling among themselves and all one has to do is find the most feared and hated faction and isolate and annihilate it in dramatic fashion. That would be ISIS. This will not only be a "parting gift" to the other factions but will serve as a warning that any attack on Americans or their legitimate interests will  be met with extreme ferocity. Others will observe and take note. It is imperative that the U.S. military must leave fear in the hearts of its enemies before it leaves the battlefield.

 

I believe these policies, once enacted, would remove radical Islam as an existential threat to the U.S.

 

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. unleashed a series of events which completely destabilised the middle east and has resulted in several hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. This is what happens when highly credentialed but naïve do-gooders get their hands on the levers of power. The lessons for U.S. foreign policy? Quit meddling in the affairs of other people. Accept the fact that the world is not perfect and do not use war as a means of social engineering.