Sunday, January 31, 2016

Strategy Trumps Confusion - By Mark D. Stahlman and Jeffery A. Martineau (And most of this is missed by the MSM)

As it turns out, our experiences, including a long career on Wall Street engaged with technology companies, such as IBM, Apple, Google and others, suggests that strategy is also extremely rare in the business world today.  What is usually attributed to “short-term/quarterly focus” goes much deeper than that.  Indeed, as veteran Fortune magazine reporter Walter Kiechel documented in his masterful 2010 book The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World, strategic-thinking in business world largely disappeared by the 1990s -- dying out with the WW II generation of corporate leaders for whom strategy was a way-of-life.

As Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Harvard Business School's Arbuckle Professor of Business Administration, specializing in corporate strategy, put it in public comments addressing the 2012 HBS U.S. Competitiveness Survey, “Unless you're a small, authoritarian enterprise like Singapore, strategic thinking in business today is nearly impossible.”

All this raises two basic questions: 
How is Trump different and why has this happened now?

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter |

Islam and the First Amendment - By David Deming

What can average people do to save their country and preserve Western Civilization? First, educate ourselves. We need to understand not only the true nature of the Islamic threat but also be able to articulate the virtues of Western Civilization and how it differs from the Islamic totalitarian system. Second, have the courage to speak freely without fear of being criticized. In the last few months, one man, Donald Trump, has almost single-handedly broken the shackles of political correctness by refusing to back down or surrender the moral high ground. Cast off the guilt and shame that the enemies of this country have tried to hang around our necks! Our ancestors bought our freedoms with blood in the snow. The longer we wait to act, the greater the chances our children will have to repeat their sacrifices.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Christian Action Project (CAP) – Study 2 – Kingdom of God – The Parables

Christian Action Project (CAP) – Study 2 – Kingdom of God – The Parables

As I stated in the Announcement of the CAP, this will be an ongoing ‘work in progress’, continually asking for feedback of any kind. Also, if I feel that something should be added or amended, we will do so as necessary. Since there is already a wealth of Godly wisdom written over the centuries, I will draw mostly upon what has already been written by both historic and/or current writers.
One of my favorite resources is a DVD set by Dr. Marshall Foster entitled “From Terror to Triumph”, which traces the history of Christian action to advance the Kingdom of God in the world for the last 2000 years.

His entire presentation is based on 3 premises:
1-God is reconciling the world to Himself.
2-God has clearly revealed His strategy in the Bible – from Genesis to Revelation, by the commission given to Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc., culminating in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.
3-All ‘terrors’ of history, whether perpetrated by ancient tyrants or various current ‘isms, are simply the result of various forms of paganism.

God’s Strategy:   Bottom Up – Generational – Exponential - Internal to External - Family Plan; Manifestation of Kingdom of God on earth through Civilization

5 Principles of God’s Strategy for Victory
1.  Redeeming Individuals
2.  Family Dynasty -   Deut. 7:9, Deut. 6:4-9 – Discipling
3.  The Church Commission as the keeper of the Sacraments - “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church”
4.  Limited Civil Government – as a sphere of God’s authority
5.  Common Grace- the blessing for the whole of society due to Christianity

For purposes of overview, this gives us a pre-suppositional basis, as we work through Gary North’s “Unconditional Surrender” book.

This Study 2 – Kingdom of God – The Parables will cover:
·         Why begin at the parables?
·         Why did the parables confuse both the masses and the disciples?
·         What is the overriding lesson of the ‘wheat and the tares’ parable?

Additional comments: If you word search the term ‘Kingdom of God’ (or Kingdom of Heaven), you will have a multitude of hits. If you have a biblical concordance, you’ll see similar listings. Matthew alone has over 50 references. The Kingdom of God was prophesized by OT prophets, announced by John the Baptist, preached by Jesus constantly and taught by His apostles.
How often have you heard it preached lately?

Please read and check your own Bible for any listed references or those your own questions might raise.
We’ve only just begun!

(The following is from Gary North’s book - “Unconditional Surrender”.) 
The best place to begin a study of the kingdom of God is to go to the parables and analogies regarding the kingdom which Jesus gave to His disciples. Some of them are what we might call "pocketbook parables," dealing with economic analogies. The parable of the talents is an example (Matthew 25:14-30), or the parable of the clever steward (Luke 16:1-11), or the parable of the unjust servant (Matthew 18:23-35), or of the field in which a treasure is buried (Matthew13:44), or of the analogy of the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46). Others are "agricultural parables," such as the parable of the four soils (Matthew13:3-23), or the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32). But one of the most illuminating is the parable of the wheat and tares. "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn" (Matthew 13:24-30).
This parable confused His disciples. It was deliberately intended to confuse the masses who came to listen to Him, as He explained: "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 13:34-35). When the disciples asked Him why He spoke always in parables, He told them: "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:11). He spoke in parables, citing Isaiah 6:9-10, in order to keep the listeners in darkness: "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matthew 13:15).
There have always been people who haven't liked the idea that God deliberately hides the saving grace of the gospel from some rebellious men, but He does. Isaiah said so, Christ said so, and Paul said so (Acts 28:27).
So the disciples were confused by the parable of the wheat and tares. Christ explained it to them. “He
answered and said unto them,  He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. The field is the world;
the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:37-42). And the crowning triumph: "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Matthew 13:43).

The tares and the wheat continue to grow together in the field. There is no rooting up of either tares or wheat until the final day of judgment. This is extremely significant as an insight into God's plan for history. History unfolds as a field planted with two kinds of seed. One seed grows unto righteousness, and the other seed grows unto perdition. But the two grow side by side in the world. Neither is rooted up before its time, and both are rooted up on that final day. Each seed works out its particular destiny, and each type of seed develops according to its inherent characteristics. This is a parable describing the continuity of history, on earth. There is no discontinuity in the development of the two kinds of seeds. There is no premature rooting up of the wheat. From seeds to full-grown plants, there is no break in the process. Then comes the day of harvest, which is the day of burning for the tares.
If anyone looks at the parables of the kingdom, he finds this concept of historical continuity repeated. The parable of the talents teaches that each man develops his capital, working out the implications of his faith, in responsible or irresponsible stewardship. Then comes the day when the Master returns. Again and again, the parables point to the continuity of history, with good men and bad men working side by side in the same world, until the return of God in final judgment. There is only one return. There is only one judgment. There is only one period of rewards and punishments. There is no great intermediate discontinuous break in the development of the two principles, good and evil. The evil seeds have no warning of the impending judgment. They witness no period in which the wheat is pulled up, and then is replanted after a period of time, which would testify to the tares of what is coming at the end of the age……
This is what the Bible teaches about the kingdom of God. For many of you, it will seem very peculiar. Perhaps the idea of the day of judgment sounds too impossible to believe, and you will point to the continuity of history to make your point. I can well understand this approach to such a message of the coming perdition. It's the same response the people of Noah's day made to Noah. But what astounds me is that there are literally millions of Christians who don't believe what these parables teach about the development of good and evil. They believe that there will be a massive discontinuous event, possibly more than one, in which Christ will come first for His people (the wheat), gather them up into the sky, and keep them suspended there for up to seven years. Then He will replant them, except that they will be fully grown and already harvested, right next to the tares, and to make things even more complicated, He will sow the field again with another batch of wheat seeds. How in the world could the tares miss the significance of events like these? What a warning of the radically discontinuous event to come, namely, the last day! Yet Christ pointed out that at that final day, people will go about their business as they did before the Flood in Noah's day not after the Flood, not after a great warning had been sounded, but before.
If a great historical discontinuity in between the planting of Christ's kingdom and the final harvest is actually coming, why didn't any of our Lord's parables or analogies so much as mention such an event or events to come? If we are to take the parables seriously, then we have to begin to think about the continuity of history in between Pentecost and the final judgment. If there is no great break coming which will divide this period into two or more segments, then whatever happens to the world, the flesh, the devil, and the church (institutional) must happen without direct, cataclysmic intervention, either from God or Satan. The process will be one of growth or decay. The process may be an ebb and flow, heading for victory for the church or defeat for the church, in time and on earth. But what cannot possibly be true is that the church's victory process or defeat process will be interrupted and reversed by the direct, visible physical intervention of Jesus Christ and His angels. No discontinuity of history which overcomes the very processes of history in one cataclysmic break will take place.
Christians must not base their hopes for collective or personal victory on a historically unprecedented event in history which is in fact the destruction of history. They will sink or swim, win or lose, in time and on earth, by means of the same sorts of processes as we see today, although the speed will increase or decrease in response to man's ethical conformity to God's law, or his rebellion against that law.
(Next we will study the Growth of the Kingdom of God.)

Pareto's Pyramid of Performance - by Gary North

Most people believe that second rate performance is fine, and third-rate performance is acceptable. I do not, and I never have.
The more important your cause is to you, the more important you think your cause should be to the world. If you represent your cause in a second rate way, you are doing your cause a disfavor. You are also identifying yourself as a second-rater. You are announcing this to the world: "Second rate is fine, especially when it comes to the thing I believe most dearly in. You should believe in it just as dearly as I do."……

(Full text at link below)

Getting into the top 20% has to do with vision, perseverance, and the amount of time you are willing to invest. It is not a matter of money. In any case, with YouTube,, and the Internet generally, you don't need any money. You can do it with what I call the three T's: talent, time, and technology.
Pick a niche field. Decide that you are going to get into the top 20%. Once you get into the top 20%, decide that you're going to get into the top 5%. After you get into the top 5%, don't worry about it. Getting into the top 1% is pretty much beyond your control. There is no technique for clawing your way in the top 1%. But there is for getting into the top 20%, and I think there is for getting into the top 5%.
Don't settle for mediocre. Don't settle for being in the range of 21% to 50%. You don't have to do this. You may choose to do this because you want to put your time into other things. That is legitimate. But do not attempt to represent a movement or whatever it is you believe in strongly if you take this attitude.
The best way to climb up the pyramid of performance is to start right where you are. Your task is to become a servant. You must become helpful. You must decide who it is you can help, and then you must dedicate your efforts to becoming a superior performer in this particular range of performance. You want to help other people do a better job, and to do this, you have to do a better job. As you improve, your range of influence will increase. As your range of influence increases, you will by definition move up the pyramid of performance. The remnant will tell you how good you are. The people who become dependent on you will determine how good you are. You may want to be a chief, but to do this, you had better have Indians.
In the field of ideas, there has never been a time in history that is more ideal. The Internet has changed our world, and it has opened the world to almost anybody with talent. It has also opened the world to millions of people whose talents are minimal, whose dedication is minimal, and who do not believe in the three T's.
Woody Allen is correct: 80% of success is just showing up. Show up every day or at least every week. Let people set their clocks or calendars by your self-discipline in showing up. Do this long enough, and you will get into the top 20%.
Then live to age 80. You will make it into the top 5%.

Ignore Congress and the Supremos - They’re a slough of irrelevance, says Fred Reed.Boehner-Kelley

I am a reasonably retired mid-level journalist of no import but much experience, interested in international affairs, law, society, education, and political trends. Yet, God’s truth, I do not know who Boehner and Pelosi are, or were, and now somebody or something called Ryan. Yes, I know that they are in Congress, or were, but I do not know what posts they hold, or held, or in which party they are, or were, or in which house. I really do not.
How can this be? How can someone who has spent a lifetime in the fetid bubblings of the news racket, including many years in DC, be so profoundly ignorant of the most elementary of political facts? Isn’t that like a neurosurgeon who can’t find the brain?
It’s simple. Congress seems to me to be of so little importance as not to merit attention. I mean this seriously. I cannot see that it matters who is on what committee or speaker of whatever or, for that matter, who wins the presidential election (unless Trump) or who is on the Supreme Court. I think I can name two of the stiffs on the Court.
Consider:  The crucial issues facing the country are the endless wars, racial hostility, immigration, affirmative action, federal surveillance, uncontrolled looting and burning, the deterioration of the universities, wildly excessive military spending, the abandonment of the Constitution, the conversion of the schools into indoctrination camps, the federal practice of torture, and the enforcement of political correctness by the federal government, academia, and the media.
What is the relevance of Congress to these? Is it possible to imagine the alleged legislators (allegislators?)  actually doing anything about any of them? If they were going to, they would have.
When is the last time Congress did anything that mattered?
Obamacare, perhaps, when they replaced a wretched form of health care with a wretched form of health care.
For that matter, why does it matter who wins the presidential election? With the exception of Trump, none would even try to deal with the things that matter to me. They all promise More of the Same. All are politically correct. They all represent a self-interested clique of parasites.
The Supreme Court? The Nine Cadavers could have found torture unconstitutional, or affirmative action, or undeclared wars. Nothing. They serve only to certify the status quo. What do they do all day? Sleep in their coffins, I suppose, and come out at night to flap around the Capitol.
In high school, we learned that the government consisted of three branches, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  This was at least sometimes accurate, intermittently, a little. Times have changed. The actual branches are more like the President, Israel, the corporations, Wall Street, the media, and the federal bureaucracies.
There is in this arrangement considerable overlap and much interlocking of directorates. Personnel go back and forth between Treasury and Wall Street, and corporate donors buy the President. Israel, the Pentagon, and the arms makers are as complexly tied together as copulating octopi. Or octopuses.  (Or maybe octopodes.) All of them regard the United States as ticks regard cows.
In its beautiful design, democracy serves to keep the population from meddling in policy. If the politically correct want children to be taught that Sojourner Truth was more important than George Washington, a committee nobody has heard of in New York mandates the text book and the Department of Education requires its use by regulation. No politician is responsible, and infuriated parents in Kansas have no recourse. How do you remonstrate with an anonymous bureaucracy? What is its phone number?
If the president wants to outlaw cultural symbolism—forbidding employees of the Veterans Administration to say “Merry Christmas,” for example—he just does it. (And did.) The Supreme Court, sloshing somnolently in its embalming fluid, will ignore the matter or affirm that the Constitution says whatever the President says. What earthly point is there in paying them attention? To do so establishes one as being in the last stages of naiveté.
Which, incidentally, is the attitude of citizenries of other Third World countries.
Along with Congress and the Supreme Dead and other such abandoned houses, I put Big Journalism. Encapsulated in a curious bubble of isolation, it serves chiefly to to produce a narcotic droning. The first rule of BJ—that’s “Big Journalism”—is to choose a point on the Left-Right continuum (it doesn’t matter what point) and never, ever deviate from it. This rule, rigidly followed, makes unnecessary the reading of their output. They could be done in software. Name a subject and you know without further investigation the views of any given talking head. Why listen to them?
If anyone comes along who doesn’t fit, either news weasel or pol, they want to disappear him.Thus we see the Republicans, desperate to find a candidate that Hillary can beat, chattering at each other, “Is Trump Really a Conservative?” Not “Does what he says make sense?” The underlying question of course is “How can we get rid of this guy that the constituency wants but who isn’t a member of the tree house?”
They all seem to spend their time talking to each other about each other. They remind me of ingrown toe-nails. I think of this as the National Review Two-Step, though it is industry-wide.  (Journalism is an industry: Ay, there’s the rub.) Thus the endless stories, “Leibniz on Atkins,” “Tugwurtle’s Response to Michael Moore on Coulter.”
When I go to political sites like, say,, I find dozens of talking herds, almost none of who have I heard of. They seem fascinated with each other. None ever says anything that provokes thought. They are like birds perched on their chosen points on the political x-axis, singing the song appropriate to that point. (Maybe you didn’t know that birds could perch on  axes. Well, they can.)  I suspect that they all live in a sealed cage in New York, connected to each other by wires. I am sick of their chirping.
If they have any notion of what is going on in the US, they conceal it well.
And my God, the narcissism. Any more self-esteem among the talking heads and they would need toe shoes. Reporters used to be honest drunks, ashen-souled, chain-smoking, profane, ugly, their cynicism a conclusion, not a pose, more concerned with getting the news than being the news. Ernie Pyle, Don Marquis, Mencken, Seymour Hersh.  Today “journalism” looks to be a branch of central casting in Hollywood. We have Michael Moore, who in his working-stiff costume seems to be trying out for a bit part in Rumble on the Docks, and Megyn Kelly, a babble-blonde BJ bimbo hoping for a gig with Victoria’s Secret.
‘Nuff said.

Progressivism’s Vanquished Foe—Conservatism - Part 1 of 3 - By James Ostrowski

Why did conservatism fail in its duel with the progressive state?  First, conservatism is an incoherent and ill-defined doctrine.  It is difficult to defeat a powerful and appealing set of ideas like progressivism with such a vague doctrine.  Who will go to the barricades for a mishmash?  Few, apparently.  Progressivism offers a simple and very satisfying panacea for all human ills.  Conservatism offers hostility to that simple solution without offering up an alternative vision.
Second, American conservatism is a reaction to progressivism as opposed to a positive doctrine itself.  It defines itself as an attempt to slow down progressivism.  As Mises argued, “conservatism is an empty program.  It is merely negative, rejecting any change.”  Mises also asked rhetorically, what do conservatives stand for?[3]  In the battle for public opinion between progressivism, which promises utopia on earth via the government and cost-free as well, and conservatives who said either “No” or “slow down,” it is no surprise that progressivism has defeated conservatism for decades and especially currently

ENOUGH NOW! - The Latest from Sweden - Vox Day

As I predicted months ago, the first stage of the nationalist response to the great orc invasion has begun. I am, however, somewhat surprised to see that it has begun in Sweden. It is a limited response; they're only beating them up... for now:
A mob of black-clad masked men went on a rampage in and around Stockholm's main train station last night beating up refugees and anyone who did not look like they were ethnically Swedish.

Before the attack, the group of 200 people handed out xenophobic leaflets with the message 'Enough now'.

Swedish media reported that the thugs, allegedly linked to Sweden's football hooligan scene, were targeting unaccompanied minors with a 'foreign' background.

The mob, wearing all-black balaclavas and armbands, 'gathered with the purpose of attacking refugee children' Stockholm police spokesman Towe Hagg said.
If the Swedish authorities are foolish enough to attempt to crack down on the anti-immigrant fighters rather than focus on respecting the "refugee children" back to their homelands, the slaughter is going to begin soon. As I warned five years ago, Anders Breivik was the harbinger of things to come.

And before the Swedish authorities decide upon their response, they should probably keep in mind that it isn't only the migrants who will be attacked by the nationalist forces if they decide that it is the nationalists, and not the migrants, who are their enemies.

The leaflet, as translated by the Daily Mail:


All over the country, reports are pouring in that the police can no longer cope with preventing and investigating the crimes which strike the Swedish people.

In some cases, for example, in the latest murder of a woman employed at a home for so called ‘unaccompanied minor refugees’ in Molndal, it goes as far as the National Police Commissioner choosing to show more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim. But we refuse to accept the repeated assaults and harrassment against Swedish women.'

We refuse to accept the destruction of our once to safe society. When our political leadership and police show more sympathy for murderers than for their victims, there are no longer any excuses to let it happen without protest.

When Swedish streets are no longer safe to walk on for normal Swedes, it is our DUTY to fix the problem. This is why, today, 200 Swedish men gathered to take a stand against the north African ‘street children’ who are running rampage in and around the capital’s central station.

Police have clearly showed that they lack the means to stop their progress and we see no other way than to hand down the punishment they deserve ourselves. The justice system has left walk over and the contract of society is therefore broken – it is now every Swedish man’s duty to defend out public spaced against the imported criminality.

Those who gathered today are neither your politician, your journalist or your policeman. We are your father, your brother, your husband, your colleague, your friend and your neighbour.

Swedish men and women deserve safety in their everyday life and we are therefore calling on all others who also see the problem to follow in our footsteps, both in Stockholm and in other places around the country. For a better future together.

The three top-rated comments at the Daily Mail:
  • This is going to become more common across Europe as the weeks go by.
  • It's inevitable, when politicians are unable to provide solutions, the people will.
  • If the government don't act then of course the people will!
However, the initial indications are that the European authorities are going to double down. It appears that they either want a civil war or they have an astonishing faith in their ability to redefine observable reality.
EU leaders insist there is 'NO LINK' between the migrant crisis and New Year sex attacks in Cologne - and vow to bring about an end to 'false accusations'. European Commission wants to 'unconditionally reject' link, minutes show. Officials are also growing concerned about possibility of a public backlash.
"Possibility", the Lacedaemonians said. 

Friday, January 29, 2016

Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up

In the office and in Congress, IT workers are fighting back -- often in silence

IT workers are challenging the replacement of U.S. employees with foreign visa holders. Lawsuits are on the rise and workers are contacting lawmakers. Disney workers who lost their jobs on Jan. 30, 2015, are especially aggressive.
The Disney severance package offered to them did not include a non-disparagement clause, making it easier for laid-off workers to speak out. This is in contrast to the severance offered to Northeast Utility workers.

Swedish police reveal they have dealt with 5,000 incidents involving migrants since October - and say the problem is increasing

·  Officers have been called out to nearly 600 assaults in last three months
·  Two bomb threats and 450 fights also linked to migrants or asylum seekers
·  Police chief warned an ever-increasing number of officers was needed

Turning Mediocre into Terrific for an Extra $5 - by Gary North

George Orwell was correct in 1946 when he wrote the following: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
I would add this insight: "If you don't know what you're doing, ask for help."
The problem is: the vast majority of people don't know that they don't know what they're doing.
Let me give you a sadly typical example. I came across a video of an articulate woman who makes the case against federal regulation of land in the state of Oregon. She claims to be a lawyer. I have no reason to believe that she is not a lawyer. She is articulate, as a competent lawyer should be.
But when it comes to basic technology, she doesn't know what she's doing. Furthermore, even more important, she has no clue as to the extent to which she doesn't know what she's doing.
Why is it that people on our side, who ought to know what they are doing, don't know what they're doing?
First, watch her video. It has a lot of good content. It has a story that ought to get out. It has been reasonably successful in getting the message out, since the video has about a quarter of a million hits. That is a lot of hits……………

(Full text and video at link below)

As you watch it, pay attention to the terrible sound of this video. Listen to the background noise.
As with virtually any video today, even when taken with a cell phone, if the camera is on a tripod, the video is going to be clear. We are the beneficiaries of a tremendous technological revolution over the last 10 years.
For $5, this woman could have produced a video with a professional sounding audio. But she didn't know anything about this. She didn't know that she didn't know, so she did not ask some teenage kid for assistance.

48.9% of Union Members Worked for Government in 2015 - BLS

Just how old do you think these migrant 'children' are? Alarming pictures of refugees - including 'the fastest 14-year-old in Sweden'

Sweden has been overwhelmed with ‘unaccompanied minors’ in what critics suspect is a huge fraud

Read more: 

Thursday, January 28, 2016

How America Can Capitalize On Europe’s Implosion - By Angelo Codevilla

“The same factors that are destroying Europe are at work in the United States, but their downfall can once again be our opportunity to arise.”

From the Atlantic to the former Soviet empire’s borders, from North Cape to the Mediterranean, the past half-century’s political order is ending. The outward signs are unmistakable. The U.S. establishment views them as problems manageable by redoubled U.S. efforts to preserve something like the status quo.
But the Old Europe of the past half-century was unsustainable, and its problems transcend day-to-day political choices, much less foreign policy. Its ruling class, adrift on events, lacks a civilizational anchor. At best, American statesmanship can lessen the consequences to ourselves of Europe’s decay—above all, by not imitating it. The former Soviet empire’s European domains, whose people long for a long-lost Europe, are in a different category.
Dramatic events divert our attention from the roots that make Old Europe’s problems intractable. In short, countries such as France, Germany, Italy, even Great Britain, that we had imagined to be fixtures of nature, are ceasing to command allegiance for collective action of the peoples who live within their borders. For practical purposes, they are ceasing to exist………..

(Full text at link below)

Invite Yearning Europeans Here
But Europe’s socio-political implosion is significant for America’s own internal well-being. Millions of Europeans now find themselves in an environment that precludes their talents’ development and that no longer satisfies their moral needs. More and more, especially the young and talented, seek to move.
Millions of Europeans now find themselves in an environment that precludes their talents’ development and that no longer satisfies their moral needs.
Between 1620 and 1965, tens of millions of such Europeans made the United States of America what it is. With apology to Emma Lazarus, these (though often poor) were not “tired,” much less “wretched refuse.” Rather, they were the Old World’s live wires, the ones most eager to work, to learn, and to embrace what it meant to become Americans. Now, as Old Europe deteriorates, the number of European would-be Americans is sure to multiply. They represent a bounty of talent, of allegiance and refreshment of America’s cultural roots such as we have not enjoyed for a half-century.
Whether we take advantage of it depends on how well we understand what Europe is doing to itself, and on how serious we are about not inflicting the same fate on ourselves. In recent years, Americans have begun to realize that, in fact, our own ruling class tries as best it can to follow the same socio-economic course as does Old Europe’s. Limited by America’s circumstances, our ruling class also has sought out the same kinds of migrants that now threaten to swamp Europe while reducing the number of traditional European immigrants to near zero.
Welcoming the refugees from Old Europe’s implosion would mean recognizing that the reason they want to leave is that the Euro-American ruling class’s idea of the good life—private as well as public—is dysfunctional. It would mean that the American people are determined to hold fast to the peculiarly American ways by which we have thrived since the nation’s founding.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Pearls of Wisdom - Rush Limbaugh

January 27, 2016

Trump on Ending the Crony Capitalism of War - By John Smith

Donald Trump's policy position on the US military has not received much attention during the primary season, but to my knowledge the other candidates’ positions haven’t been highlighted either.  Most of the candidates’ plans are seem to be reasonable, but do not address the critical problem, and that is a huge contractor warfighting capability has enabled US executive action to fight our wars divorced from both a sound national strategy and a connection to the American people.  If Trump’s plan outlined below is correct,* it shows that Trump has the right approach to return America's military strength to a traditional element of our national strategy to serve the interests of Americans.
Warning: This is not an old Cold War debate of bombers vs. day care centers, rather it gets to heart of how we fight our wars: (via Conservative Treehouse):
Trump believes the collaborative private/government sector military partnership should be limited to the modernization of equipment and material (research and development), and never the deployment of soldiers or U.S. fighting forces.  (snip) ... our soldiers should never be deployed through the use of private contractors who operate within a grey area, and whose objectives can become detached and end up serving their own best interests.
Read more:

Trump has melted the brains of the conservative commentariat - By Greg Richards

What is Donald Trump doing in his campaign? What is he doing that has melted the brains of the conservative commentariat (which will never recover from its cluelessness about the times in which we are living)?
Donald Trump is a practical man of action. We haven’t seen one of those in high office for a very long time. Trump is not Reagan. Reagan was from a much more cerebral tradition. He had actually read Hayek and Friedman and had given talks based on them which he had written himself. Writers know how impressive this is. Writing requires a depth of understanding of your subject; the ability to concentrate for a long period of time; and withstanding the loneliness of doing so.
A man of action reacts to external impulses, to external conditions and makes decisions quickly. If they are not perfect, he refines them as he works the problem.

Where is America? We are trapped within the liberal worldview. We are at the completion of Gramsci’s leftist “march through the institutions.” It took two generations and it has happened.

We see it in the universities falling apart because they are now run by liberals who have no philosophy to deal with the real world except to give things away. Liberalism rules the courts. Cases are decided on how the people judging feel, not on the basis of law. Justice Sotomayor advanced one of her credentials for the Supreme Court that she was a “wise latina” which should have had nothing to do with being a judge, much less a justice.
The ascendancy of liberalism in America is the cause of the silence of Republicans in Congress since they won the House in 2010. One would think that a solid majority in the electoral body closest to the people would provide a platform for advancing the Republican case. But no.

A lot of people think this is because the Republicans have been bought off by the contributariat. If so, that is only one tile in the mosaic. The larger picture is due to being unwilling to challenge the liberal world view. Conservatism is at all points hostile to liberalism, but liberalism controls the debate in the public space. The Democrats have been skillful at making non-liberal ideas not just wrong, but evil. Republicans have had neither the skill nor the intestinal fortitude – the courage – to operate outside the culturally dominant liberal paradigm.

This is why their voice is so weak. This is why their compromises amount to giving the Democrats what they want. They have preemptively surrendered in the public space because as it was amusingly put time back “In their hearts they know they’re wrong” – wrong in liberalland, which is the institutional culture of America.
Comes Donald Trump. He has walked into the cultural mess liberalism has created. He sees its disastrous outcomes all around him. Whatever his liberal impulses were in the past, and they are impossible to separate from the baksheesh the Democrats demanded, they were motivated by generosity of spirit. Not having much time, or interest, to devote to these issues, he accepted the liberal argle bargle and went along.

Now he sees what liberals have wrought. He sees they won’t defend the country. He sees that problems he has seen in business, such as our foolish trade practices, are not interim things, but the outcome of policy which is intended to last indefinitely. Trump thinks it is a bad idea to strip-mine the country of high wage jobs. Nobody else sees a problem and it is certainly not on the conservative agenda even though it is upending our society.

Trump is not attacking liberalism, as the conservative commentariat wishes him to do; he is attacking the results of liberalism. To do that, you have to do things in the real world – build walls, deport illegals, negotiate trade deals – all things that liberals have no intention of getting their hands dirty with.
This is why Trump seems so uncouth. He actually wants to do things rather than write about doing things. The difference between those two temperaments is immense – it is the difference, for instance, between Trump and Cruz. Cruz has accomplished something when he walks out of a courtroom; Trump has accomplished something when he has built a wall.
To build a wall you have to deal with labor, with suppliers who might want to trim on you, with politicians who expect their needs to be dealt with. Crude. Inelegant. Unnuanced: either the wall is there or it is not.

If it is going to be there, then that project has a beginning, a middle and an end. And it involves a lot of men moving a lot of material, and all those men must be provided for. This is not what has made suburban Washington the richest district in the country. Washington and the commentariat are appalled by the personality traits that deal with such crudeness.
But the public isn’t. This is how it lives. It has not had the chance to say so until now.

Swedish army prepares for war as police flee mob of Muslim ‘migrants’ - By Carol Brown

According to an internal military document, the Swedish army is preparing for war. Per a Breitbart report, “the chief of the Swedish army General Anders Brännström told men under his command they could expect to be fighting a war in Europe against skilled opponents ‘within a few years’.”
The 28-page document was directed to soldiers, civil servants, politicians, and guests who will be attending next week’s military demonstrations that will focus on the army’s ability to fight and survive a winter war.
…the General said the deteriorating security picture in Europe was the main factor behind his warning, indicating the Islamic State conducting military campaigns in Europe and spreading instability from the Ukraine could lead to conflict. Sensationally, he suggested a Third World War was just round the corner. He told the paper:
“One can draw parallels with the 1930s. A great uncertainty and [political] dynamics which then led to a great war. That time we managed to keep out. But it is not at all certain we could succeed this time”. (snip)
It is unusual for a serving senior military figure, much less the professional head of an Army to speak out on such political matters in Europe. Yet these comments are not just the General’s opinion, he added, remarking his senior colleagues all held the same thoughts. He said: “this is a serious position shared by most. This is a completely different situation to the one we had ten years ago.
“There is now a much stronger focus on national defence… it is about preparing for the worst”.
But back to Sweden.
The county, as we know, is in very deep trouble. How, or whether, Sweden will be able to extricate itself from the grip of Islamic supremacism remains to be seen. So far there is little evidence to suggest Swedes grasp the nature of that which afflicts them, which in my view began with a complete collapse of national pride – a feeling now replaced with shame. Dhimmitude is as rampant as the savages who wreak havoc. Sweden has allowed itself to be held hostage by the drive to be “multicultural” at all cost, including the death of the nation.
The West is ripe for the picking. And Islam is grabbing up bunches and bunches of it with each passing day.
War “within a few years?”
It is already war now. Would that the West would realize it and fight.

Integration is discrimination - by Vox Day and Trevor Phillips

That is a meme that is likely to serve the nationalists very well. After all, one doesn't want toDISCRIMINATE, does one?
Muslim communities are not like others in Britain and the country should accept they will never integrate, the former head of the equalities watchdog has claimed.

Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was disrespectful to assume that Muslim communities would change.

He told a meeting at the Policy Exchange think tank in Westminster on Monday that Muslims ‘see the world differently from the rest of us’.

According to The Times, he said: ‘Continuously pretending that a group is somehow eventually going to become like the rest of us is perhaps the deepest form of disrespect.

‘Because what you are essentially saying is the fact that they behave in a different way, some of which we may not like, is because they haven’t yet seen the light. It may be that they see the world differently to the rest of us.’

Mr Phillips added that people of certain backgrounds in the UK are not going to change their views ‘simply because we are constantly telling them that basically they should be like us’.
The truth is that Phillips is more or less correct, as the expectation of integration is indeed a form of discrimination. And in order to avoid entering into such a deplorable state of secular sin, the West should respectfully repatriate all non-Westerners in order to avoid disrespecting their cultural heritage and discriminating against them.

Integration is discrimination. Repatriation is respect.