what the military is really for

It’s obvious that something strange is happening to the militaries of western nations. Combat efficiency is no longer considered to  be important. What matters is political correctness. What matters is diversity, and having equal representation for women, homosexuals and transgenders.

This seems odd at first. Surely it’s obvious that an army of women and homosexuals is not going to be the slightest bit of use against a real enemy? And in order to get women into combat units it’s going to be necessary to lower standards of physical fitness to such extreme degrees that even the men are going to be increasingly recruited from the less fit. So eventually your entire army is going to be of very poor quality.

It seems odd until you ask yourself the question – what is the military actually for? The West has no actual enemies in the sense of hostile nation states with formidable conventional military forces. The enemies that the media tries to get us worried about our illusory enemies. The Russians just want to be left alone. They have their own problems to deal with. The Chinese have no interest in anything outside their own backyard and their backyard is a long long way from any western nation. There are no other countries possessing military establishments that could possibly be a threat to the West.

The military and political establishments in the West are well aware of this. But there is one enemy that they are genuinely worried about. And that’s the enemy within. They are worried about the prospect of large-scale civil unrest as citizens increasingly lose enthusiasm for the globalist and social justice agendas. They are worried that civil unrest could escalate to riots, or even worse. The enemy they fear is their own people. They fear a repetition of 1968 in France, they fear the troubles that brought down the French Fourth Republic, they fear a repeat of the anti-Vietnam War protests, they fear a revival of anti-globalisation violence. They fear that their own people will, when pushed too far, turn against them.

That means they need a military that they can rely on absolutely. A military that is fiercely loyal to the regime. That means a military filled with women, minorities, homosexuals, trannies etc. It doesn’t matter if it’s a military of unfit overweight misfits, as long as those misfits can be relied upon to shoot down their own people if the government tells them to do so. An army of white heterosexual men might not obey such orders. The political and military establishment are confident that the new diverse army will obey such orders. An army of misfits will be loyal because they have no choice. They are entirely dependent on the government. They will pull the trigger on their own people.

There is another fear. What if civil unrest breaks out and elements within the military decide to throw in their lot with the dissidents and stage a coup? That’s a real possibility if you have a military with pride and esprit de corps, a military composed of men who believe in duty and sacrifice. The answer to that is to ensure that the entire officer corps is composed of reliable people. Female officers and homosexual officers – these people are of little use in the military but they’re even less useful in the real world. Their careers are all they have. They will be loyal.

The modern army does not have to be tough enough to take on professional battle-hardened troops. It just needs to be politically reliable to shoot Deplorables should that become necessary.

Advertisements

solving problems by throwing money at them

There are many reasons why consumerism and capitalism have been negative and generally corrupting influences. One of the simplest examples of this is the way we judge the efficacy of public policy by how much money it costs.

It really does seem to be accepted by most people that if you increase spending on education by 25 percent then you automatically get 25 percent better education. If you double spending on health then you must get a health system that is twice as good. All social problems are solved by spending money. There is no need to give any actual thought to the nature of the problems being addressed or to various policy options. What matters is how much money gets spent.

This is accepted because we know that virtue is measured by money. The societies that spend the most on education, health, social welfare, etc, are the most virtuous societies. The politicians who support spending the most money on these problems are the most virtuous politicians.

The fact the spending more on education just means more money going into the pockets of assorted parasites like diversity counsellors or our already overpaid teaches doesn’t matter. The fact that increased health spending merely directs more money to administrators and other parasites doesn’t matter.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not attacking the welfare state. I like the welfare state. But it is smart to give some thought as to how money is going to get spent.

The argument applies to right-wing sacred cows just as much as to left-wing sacred cows. People fondly imagine that an increase in defence spending makes the nation more secure. In many cases it makes the nation less secure, either by provoking or alarming potential enemies, or by encouraging insanely aggressive foreign policies or ridiculous foreign policy entanglements. Look at Britain for example. If the British reduced their defence spending to sensible levels they’d be a lot safer. Sensible levels would be close to zero. Britain faces zero military threats. Anything more than a token defence force just encourages British fantasies of being a great power again. Britain’s security depends on accepting the reality that Britain’s days as a great power are over.

Spending money is the easy way to solve problems. It always sounds impressive. The people making the decisions have the luxury of spending other people’s money. And if the policies end in failure there’s a built-in excuse. We just didn’t spend enough money. If we spend more next time the problems will definitely be fixed.

Trump hysteria – is there a point to it?

When you see the extent of the anti-Trump hysteria in the United States you have to ask yourself – what is the point? Trump won the election fair and square and there isn’t going to be another presidential election for another four years so surely the only rational thing for the Trump-haters to do is to wait four years and then try to come up with a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.
But they’re not doing that. The Trump-haters, and especially the ones in the media and academia, are behaving as if they really can get the election result overturned.
Of course this could just be evidence of the basic irrationality of the Trump-haters, or their inability to comprehend the fact that so many ordinary Americans hate them.
Or could it be something more? Is the US media preparing the ground for a coup?
A year ago I would have dismissed talk of a coup as the rantings of the Tin-Foil Hat Brigade. Coups were something the United States organised in other countries, but the idea of a coup against the US government itself seemed unthinkable, paranoid and delusional. Now I’m not quite so sure.
The fact is that the behaviour of the American media does look like the kind of destabilisation that usually precedes US-organised coups in other countries. More worrying is that it isn’t just the media. The judiciary also seems intent on destabilising the Administration.
Could such a coup succeed? Trump has widespread public support but that would count for nothing. What matters is power. And in the centres of power Trump has virtually no support at all. The media is united against him. The judiciary is against him. He cannot rely on the support of Republicans in Congress – they’d be delighted to see him replaced by Mike Pence. The bureaucracy is against him. The intelligence agencies are against him. The police hierarchies are against him. The only thing in doubt is the attitude of the military. Given the politicisation and corruption of the US military Trump would be unwise to rely on help from that quarter. He may have quite a bit of support among enlisted personnel but the senior officers are unlikely to back him.
The first step in staging a successful coup is to create the impression that the government you’re trying to overthrow has no legitimacy. Overthrowing an illegitimate government is not only permissible – it’s virtuous. It’s striking a blow for freedom. The process of painting the Trump Administration as an illegal and illegitimate government is already well advanced.
The second step is to start floating the suggestion that perhaps the government really should be overthrown. Some of the more hysterical anti-Trump voices in the media have already floated this suggestion, albeit in an indirect sort of way.
I’ve always been hyper-suspicious of conspiracy theories so it’s important to note that there is an alternative explanation for all this. It may be simply an attempt to intimidate Trump. The objective may not be to remove Trump but to persuade him to become a good little establishment Republican who can be relied on to follow orders. Or the objective may be to isolate him by frightening any potential supporters he may have in Congress or in the bureaucracy, or frightening members of his Administration into abandoning him. Either of these possibilities would effectively reduce the Trump Administration to powerlessness, and for the globalists that might be more desirable than facing the risks of an actual coup. 
The one thing we can be certain of is that Trump’s enemies have no intention of allowing him to put into practice any of the policies which won him the election.

unanticipated costs of the Cold War?

I’ve recently seen the interesting idea put forward that many of the follies that currently threaten the very survival of the West were actually misguided Cold War policies. It’s an idea that is worth some thought.

One element of this theory is that western countries were sensitive to communist propaganda that the West was a hotbed of racism and colonialism. Throwing open the borders to Third World immigration was a way of refuting these claims. It’s notable that the United States, Britain and Australia all moved towards liberal immigration policies in the 1960s. These three countries all felt themselves to be particularly vulnerable to charges of racism and colonialism (Britain because of its imperialist past, the United States because of its imperialist present and Australia because of the White Australia Policy). 
The move towards open borders was also a means of furthering western propaganda about the virtues of the Free World and also as a means of trying to cement various defence alliances in Asia, Africa and elsewhere.
There’s no question that “victory” in the Cold War came at a substantial price. The dangerous growth of the military-industrial complex (that President Eisenhower tried unavailingly to warn the US against) was one of the big costs. Is it possible that the foolish enthusiasm for open borders was another cost of the Cold War? 
Of course this begs the crucial questions – was the Cold War necessary and was it worth the cost? 
I think that while Stalin was still in power some kind of confrontational posture, or at least an aggressively defensive posture, probably was unavoidable. The Soviet Union under Stalin really was an Evil Empire and while Stalin’s foreign policy was often cautious there’s no doubt that his long-term intentions were pretty sinister. In the Khrushchev era the Soviet threat was still pretty real, this being as much as anything a product of Khrushchev’s unpredictability. 
I’m not really sure that the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was quite such a mortal threat. The success of Detente in the 70s tends to indicate that a live and let live policy was quite feasible. I’m not suggesting that the Soviet system under Brezhnev was either admirable or benign (far from it) but much of the anti-Soviet hysteria was overblown. 
In any case whether the Cold War really was or was not a confrontation between good and evil isn’t really the point. The point is that the Cold War caused a substantial deformation in western foreign policy, and perhaps domestic policy as well, and we may be still paying the price.
Of course what all this means is that we should be incredibly careful about being drawn into another Cold War with either Russia or China. The West has its own problems to solve and a Cold War 2.0 may well make it impossible for us to confront our very real current problems. We need to be particularly careful about falling prey to the Law of Unintended Consequences.