Category Archives: Defence

Discrimination

Racism is bunk.

One simply cannot say ‘all so-and-sos are such-and-such’ as the racist does. Every case of this disintegrates almost immediately under a barrage of counter-examples. It’s illogical. Individual character will always be influenced to a greater or lesser degree by inherited genetic factors, and this degree, a vector quantity at least, will always vary with each individual.

In some individuals the degree is greater, and the influence may operate in a particular direction, while in others it is barely detectable, but it is always an individual matter.

The illogicality of racism leads its less self-examining proponents into cul-de-sacs of theoretical absurdity and in some cases practical atrocity.

The same is true of religion, though there doesn’t seem to be an ‘ism’ for it.

For example, among my Muslim acquaintances over time I number a minor Saudi prince, with whom I was in a flying club, and a typically devout recent sectarian convert from an old English family. They are both perfectly civilised people and neither would ever be so indiscreet as to mention that the one officially holds the other to be an apostatic heretic worthy only of instant death, nor that the other officially holds the one historically responsible for a series of deplorable atrocities and centuries of persecution.

On the other hand not a hundred miles from here is a substantial body of apparently less civilised people who, while using exactly the same title for their beliefs, seem, according to some of the things they say, officially to want me dead and my culture replaced with theirs, preferably before the weekend.

This presents the same difficulty as discriminating between my late and rather devoutly Anglican mother, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, and a member of the Ku-Klux Klan. All of these ‘Christians’ would consider me a sinner, but only one would offer what Over There they call ‘a clear and present danger.

And so we arrive at the semantic root of the problem. It’s that word discrimination.

We’ve made it wrong to ‘discriminate’. We’ve made it mean ‘to express in some detectable way the view that all so-and-sos are such-and-such’.

What we need right now is discrimination, lots and lots of it, and of the highest grade we can obtain. We have to be able to discriminate between people who are prepared to accept that things written more than a thousand years ago might since have changed in meaning or reasonable interpretation, perhaps like the Book of Leviticus, and people who are not.

The accuracy, timeliness and reliability of this discrimination must be as high as can be managed. This is not a theoretical but an existential challenge and should be addressed at once.

Until discrimination is achieved we must go armed, as do some of the people in the seventh paragraph.

 

Right now

Cold Fury quotes the well-quoted Vladimir Putin:

“If they bomb even one city in Russia, I swear, in half an hour every Muslim will die”

and endorses this view:

I never respected the guy more, and can only wish we ourselves had someone in office as dedicated to maintaining his nation’s power, security, and general well-being even half as forcefully. Someone who could compete with this guy on his own terms, someone who would negotiate from a position not of contrite weakness, but of self-assurance and strength.

Hear hear, Sir!

Having read some history I’m convinced that what we (the civilised West) are facing is of historic proportion and is nothing less than an Islamic world-domination plan, financed by oil, planned by theocratic dinosaurs and executed by murderous, expendable subhumans unsuitable for any other employment. Only conflict between competing would-be ‘leaders of the Islamic world’, the Saudis and Qataris versus the Iranians versus the Turks, is slowing down its implementation.

For many decades this genocidal campaign has been facilitated in the West by virtue-signalling socialists of whom Angela Merkel perhaps provides the best example. Even now a significant minority of British people, albeit confined to rich and fashionable cities, still believe that as a nation we should continue to demonstrate our bona fides and attract good karma by allowing Islam to defeat us.

Soon – almost instantly, in historical terms – sides will have to be taken.

Vladimir Putin is more like us than the enemy is; very much more. His country has successful experience in dealing with barbarian hordes, throughout history and from both sides. It also contains some of the toughest and most courageous and determined people in the world.

We need (in the old-fashioned, pre-NLP sense of actual compulsive necessity) to be allies with these guys.

Right now.

 

 

Minutesquirrels

Fine article by Fred on the poor value for money offered by the American defense (hey, got it right!) establishment as presently constituted.

Though I am sympathetic to the American position it is clear that US policy is aligned far more closely with pragmatism than with principle on this point – what matters here is defense contractor jobs in marginal constituencies, not theoretical puff from bespectacled nerds at the Brookings Institute.

The challenge faced by anyone trying to change this is around finding something for US industry to do other than arming the place up to fight the war before last. Let’s face it, without the globalists’ aggressive hegemonising swarm [Banks] it’d be largely redundant.

Actually defending the USA in the 21st century, as opposed to desperately seeking a venue in which to re-enact WWII, would be an entirely different undertaking and would be a whole lot easier and cheaper.

Who in their right mind, or even some distance out of it, would try invading the USA? Hitler’s ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’ wouldn’t be in it:

squirrels-and-guns

Look out, he’s got a matchbox!

I have mentioned before that I view individual defensive weapons as being in the same class of objects as fire extinguishers and first-aid boxes. We would prefer not to have to use them at all, but keep them ready because if they are ever needed they will be needed now, not in a few minutes’ time, because the situation will not allow those involved to wait for the arrival of an emergency service.

News of yet another ‘Allah Akhbar’ attack in the USA confirms this view.

It is clear that the enemy within, long accustomed to the lethal use of a breadknife, has now qualified on carving knives as well.

Since ‘our’ government and ‘our’ police, for their own political reasons, choose to regard criticism of this stripe of terrorism as a more serious crime than the terrorism itself, any attempt at self-defence against the terrorists will naturally be repressed with the utmost harshness, while media traitors continue to bleat obediently about a ‘religion of peace’.

We are therefore ‘behind enemy lines’ in our own country; it is as though we were escaped POWs, with every hand against us, and not even a Switzerland to escape to.

We must get tough. Captain Fairbairn, co-designer of the Fairbairn-Sykes and Applegate-Fairbairn fighting knives, wrote a book for British forces in WWII with exactly that title. In it, huge potato-faced members of the Nazi lumpenproletariat, officered by thin, monocled, cruel-looking Junkers, are knocked for six by heroic, if perhaps slightly less well-dressed, British fellows, mostly played by Kenneth More.

I commend to readers’ attention in particular his exposition upon the stick, since this is one of the few weapons one may get away with carrying in what is left of England, and also, for its ingenuity, the piece about how to disarm said cruel-looking Junker officer of his pistol when one is his prisoner, but is armed with an empty matchbox.

Fairbairn’s method of reliable unarmed killing is also likely to be appropriate to circumstances in which a surviving attacker will be treated as the ‘victim’ of the defender, and assisted by ‘society’ in pursuing that defender at law.

A whiter shade of elephant

It says in Russia Today that an elderly British general thinks that The Russians (!!!!!) could ground Britain’s entire fleet of Lockheed F-35 aircraft by arranging (doubtless using the services of SMERSH) the assassination of all forty or so of the pilots currently qualified to fly the thing.

It says in The Register that because Britain has only four of these aircraft, the US Marine Corps will oblige by operating theirs (which they ordered first) from the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Dividing through, one finds that were these allegations to be true there would already be ten pilots to each aircraft.

There is nothing uniquely special about the F-35 apart from its absurd propulsion system (I use this harsh term having been in the aeronautical business and working on both JSF contenders at the time when everyone was utterly gobsmacked at Boeing’s hideous but workmanlike offering being declined in favour of Lockheed’s exquisitely complex feinwerk).

It must therefore be that despite the F-35’s peculiarities, no sillier than those of those of many Service aircraft, extra pilots are being trained all the time and will probably always comfortably outnumber the available aircraft (for a given value of ‘available’).

Therefore the general’s assertion is what a defence analyst might call bollocks-rich.

The question in my mind is why we need this Cold War baroque weapons system at all. It costs perhaps $100 million per aircraft, with a cost per flight hour of about $30,000.

Of course we need it to fit out the carrier(s). Why do we need the carrier(s)? The traditional term is force projection, part of strategic doctrine evolved during the Cold War and to which as a member of NATO the UK has always subscribed.

The next question being whether this very expensive subscription ought to be maintained.

We can imho no longer afford the conceit of being a member of NATO any more than we can that of being a member of the EU. Either will soon drag us into an wholly unnecessary war with Russia for no better reason than that such a war is what they have always planned, equipped and trained for (cf. the German railway timetable story from WWI), and is that upon which their status quo depends.

Like the Swiss, we should defend ourselves, this to be construed in the traditional senses of defend and ourselves.