Category Archives: History

The Stupidity of Sophisticates

The Stupidity of Sophisticates.

Mark Steyn penned a piece July 7, 2015, which begins:

“Last week, I swung by the Bill Bennett show to chew over the news of the hour. A few minutes before my grand entrance, one of Bill’s listeners had taken issue with the idea that these Supreme Court decisions weren’t the end and, if you just got on with your life and tended to your garden, things wouldn’t be so bad:

Claudine came on and said that’s what Germans reckoned in the 1930s: just keep your head down and the storm will pass. How’d that work out?

David Kelsey writes from the University of South Carolina to scoff at that:

In one corner, we have government recognition of marriage contracts between gays. In the other corner, we have Jews, Catholics, gays, their sympathizes [sic] and other undesirables being put in Nazi concentration camps.

One of these things is nothing like the other, unless you’re a lunatic. Maybe the reason conservatives keep “losing everything that matters” is because they really can’t tell the difference. Which causes increasing numbers of people to recognize them as lunatics.”

Please read the rest of  Steyn’s brilliantly argued piece to figure out who really is the lunatic.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, History, Politics

On wrestlers, rodents and rare discoveries

1 Comment

Filed under General Interest, History

Martin Van Creveld weighs in on Syria

Martin Van Creveld, prolific military historian, strategist and author, wrote an article at his blog, “For Whom the Bells Toll” that lays out the grim strategic realities in Syria in stark contrast.  I highly recommend bookmarking his blog, to add to your blog list.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Politics, Terrorism

Securing our blessings of Liberty

G. Murphy Donovan, with frank honesty, wrote a piece in The American Thinker, “The All-volunteer Military: Too Much From Too Few”, about our all-volunteer force, our detached self-absorbed citizenry and corrupted power-brokers in America, sure to give you pause for some reflection on the duty of being a good citizen in our  floundering Republic.  He writes:

“If every citizen benefits from national security, shouldn’t all beneficiaries have some skin in the game?        

The all-volunteer army has created a chasm between the combat veteran and the population served. That chasm gets broader with every reckless military intervention or deployment. If national defense is a subset of national security, then every citizen, every family, and every institution that enjoys the benefits of safety and democracy should share the risks and costs.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_allvolunteer_military_too_much_from_too_few.html#ixzz3crmdunwb
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

“We need to have a discussion in America”, the popular buzz phrase from politicos, those agenda-drivers in academia, and mouthpieces in the media, hinting that those calling for the discussion will be the ones defining the parameters and censoring any discussion they allow to be aired in the public square, dooms any hope that words like “civic duty” and “what you owe your country” will ever be allowed to be uttered.

In our present bipolar polity, the political left learned to quite effectively mask their absolute loathing of our military, carried forward from the Vietnam era, and adopted the insincere, “thank-you for your service” throwaway line, while they advocate policies aimed at neutering our military might and transforming it into a Peace Corps with hired guns. The political right devolved into a advocacy for special moneyed interests and a spoonful of sugar remedy, masking noxious foreign policy nostrums and magic potion strategic cures for exotic ailments they little understand.

GMD offers some excellent links within his articles, so be sure and check those out too.

7 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Politics

Losing your mind to the mob

Stella Morabito at The Federalist penned, “How To Escape The Age Of Mass Delusion“, which explains clearly how the political left in America operates in not merely nudging public opinion, but in creating mob hysteria and using mob force to compel their agenda from the accepted majority public opinion into law.  If you’re one of the few independent thinkers left in America, sitting there scratching your head wondering how fringe ideas only a few years ago are now rock solid majority opinions today, well, this excellent article details the social psychology and history behind the transformation.  Ms. Morabito writes:

There is indeed a war on the private mind, as Kevin Williamson explained in a recent National Review column. Unfortunately, too many Americans have been sleeping through most of its propaganda battles, and for a very long time. When it comes to understanding the inner workings of social psychology and political correctness, we seem to be at a loss.

Meanwhile, the power elites who now control the media, academia, and Hollywood seem to understand social psychology well enough to exploit it on a massive scale. They have engaged in psychological warfare against the private mind by inducing “collective belief formation.” There’s really nothing new here. Conditioning and nudging the masses into groupthink is a very old trick of all wannabe dictators. The bloody twentieth century is filled to the gills with examples.

Yet it feels like we’ve awakened to an ambush. A lot of Americans watched in shock while cultish mobs suddenly attacked the RFRA that Pence initially defended. But the groundwork for mass hysteria like this was stealthily laid for decades, and the minefields sown.”

Ms. Morabito’s article includes numerous excellent links to additional reading on propaganda, mind control, political correctness and a wide array of hot button topics.  A quick check of her bio includes work as an intelligence analyst on Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda.  Rather than drone on about her article, please take a few minutes and read it yourself and then start clicking on the links within her article.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest, History, Politics, The Media

I Still Blame the Communists | The Weekly Standard

I Still Blame the Communists | The Weekly Standard.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Education, General Interest, History, Politics

Remembrance

4 Comments

Filed under General Interest, History, Military

A tiny glimpse of Chinese history

I did promise a post on the danger of factions, but until I get that written, let me offer this glimpse of Chinese history. The story details the rags to riches story of a Chinese woman, Lady Mei, a child concubine who rose to become one of the most powerful women in China in the 1400s, in a very fascinating Washington Post article by Michael E. Miller: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/15/chinese-tomb-reveals-how-a-teenage-concubine-became-a-powerful-duchess/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3

Leave a comment

Filed under General Interest, History

Who I am and why I blog

Last night I posted some comments on another blog, which I rarely do, because there’s rarely any discussions or even debating issues, that is a give and take of ideas in online forums or in the public square or townhall.  For whatever the issue, people quickly choose their partisan affiliation, break up into virulent factions and thus begins the hurling talking points back and forth, the name-calling and the automatic dismissal of what anyone with an opposing view presents.

Perhaps, my naturally snarky disposition predisposes me to raising hackles, because last night I was called pompous, an armchair expert, one who presents “quisling appeasement arguments” on the matter of dealing with radical Islamists intent on killing us (being Americans and other Westerners).  I probably should have just turned the other cheek and walked away and I admit freely, without nearly as much contrition as I probably ought feel, I responded in a catty fashion.

I’ve quoted this blog many times, even though often the comments section runs into what I consider racist commentary, because they work on the crowd-sourcing method, where lots of posters generate lots of information. Even this thread allowed a comment that I felt was outright racist.   This blog fixates on the high-profile black/police controversies and high-profile race cases.  After my exchange with that poster, I submitted two other, what I considered, thoughtful,  comments in response to other posters on the topic and as of this morning, those comments are sitting in moderation, making me suspect I was banned.  Yes, yours truly, libertybelle, managed to offend someone, lol.  Who would have thunk that…The other poster, who called me names from the beginning, is still posting there,

In any group of people not ALL of them are the same – they are INDIVIDUALS.  You can check out the exchange and judge me and yes, I regret getting catty and hope that I don’t come across as pompous or as someone who throws out “quisling appeasement arguments”.  I took umbrage at being summarily cast into some group by a person, who  dismissed me out of hand, without explaining where I was wrong or presenting evidence to show the information I presented was a “quisling appeasement argument”.  She dismissed me as not worth even talking to and  I call women like her queens, they try to lord it over others, based on illegitimate power.  That is what offended me – not the personal attack, but the, “Well, that’s just precious. It’s really sweet that you can read stuff and be an armchair expert.” attitude. I tried to explain who I am and that I do have some knowledge of military strategy and I told her, “I don’t know what “like-minded people” you think I am like. I support national security 100%, but I believe in comprehensive strategic-planning, not knee-jerk reactionary “go kill ISIS!”

I relay this little catty exchange for a higher purpose.  The purpose is to discuss FREEDOM and hopefully I won’t present a “quisling appeasement argument” and I hope, I don’t come across as an armchair expert, but I am going to defend myself.  I have spent part of almost every day since 1980, reading and trying to understand “war” and “military strategy”.  I try to understand both the strategy and tactics that armies, past and present, employ to wage war. I read history and more history. I follow the news.  I look at maps and try  to understand the geography of various regions.  I look at old ideas successful armies used and try to think about ways those ideas might be used in our military. I hope I don’t come across as pompous and as this is my personal blog, people are FREE to consider my views or not, but my purpose is not to impress anyone or get noticed. The purpose is I refuse to ever let anyone silence me -especially some arrogant woman using illegitimate or borrowed power! Whether wearing her husband’s rank on a blog or being a co-President in America, I don’t care, as an American, I will exercise my right to FREE speech.  Being banned from that blog is no issue to me, because I am FREE to express myself here on my own blog and publicly.  I’ve faced bigger challenges to my FREE SPEECH and even my very LIBERTY and I am not a quisling!

I’m going to talk about an exchange on that blog last night in the big picture, global context first and then in the next post, I want to talk about the little picture, FACTIONS in America:

The other poster said to me:

“I hate to break it to you, but ALL Islamists are radicals.
Islam is a cultural and political philosophy that is antithetical to the Enlightened West.”

I responded:

“All Islamists are radicals, All Islamists are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Islamists, Therefore, not all Muslims are radicals – sorry that’s logic, I have yet to find any two people anywhere I have been, here or abroad who are both ALL anything – human beings tend to be INDIVIDUALS. As an American. I love meeting people anywhere as individuals and trying to get to know them, not accepting what I have heard about ALL of their group (nationality, religion, race, whatever).”

In the Muslim world Sharia law, practiced to varying extremes, is a totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion.  Muslims are taught to conform, from cradle to grave, to the dictates of the enforcers of Sharia law.  They have very little FREEDOM.  I have known some Muslims who aren’t radical Islamists, and while the poster is likely right that all those who join up with an Islamist group are radicals, her other comments led me to believe she feels this applies to Muslims in general.

In places where religious indoctrination squashes free thinking and free choice, most people conform to the rules.  If minor infractions like being a female riding a bike in her neighborhood can result in public lashing or imprisonment, it’s easy to understand the deafening silence from the purported vast, moderate majority of Muslims we’re told exists.

Even in America, the silence surprised me.  We have lots of leftist indoctrination going on in our colleges and universities, where free speech is under attack, we also have leftist activists fueling anti-American causes and anti-Semitism.  We’ve got radical jihadi recruitment going on in many American mosques and communities too. Another factor in the silence might be when former Muslims, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, speak out, they live with the daily burden of needing constant security, because their very lives are on the line in this battle against radical Islamists. What’s that saying, courage is rare, cowardice legion.

There’s been debate about “winning the hearts and minds”of Muslims.  SOME fear criticizing Islam offends ALL Muslims and therefore might incite more terrorist attacks.  SOME fear openly criticizing or offending Islam might create more radical Muslims. SOME fear private citizens  criticizing ISLAM might negatively impact American foreign policy or put US troops, at home and abroad, at risk.  I’ve unequivocally stated that I feel that argument is nonsense and that we need to speak up, loud and clear, and defend FREE SPEECH.  We should use these opportunities to explain that in America INDIVIDUALS are FREE – they are FREE to THINK, BELIEVE and SAY whatever they want.  Women here can even DRESS however they choose.  There are NO CONSEQUENCES in our legal system for being able to enjoy FREEDOM.  Throughout man’s history, INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM scares totalitarian regimes – whether it be a brutal king, a crushing communist regime or a 7th century religion casting holy terror, on it’s own people, and far beyond.

Our foreign policy response to the threat from the escalating radicalization taking place within the Islamist movement ranks as disjointed, lacking any sort of coherence and frankly between soft people’s revolts, which the US government encouraged, walking away from Iraq, the entire ME sits as a powder keg of explosive radicals engaged in brutal battle, dangerous power vacuums, massive instability from fleeing refugees, unstable governments and a looming nuclear arms race between the two houses of Islam, the Sunni and the Shia.  A detailed foreign policy plan is something I’ll hold for another day. Defeat ISIS is a way too simplistic stance, without a clear, long-range comprehensive strategy to bolster some sort of regional security framework and as a general idea, I believe  we should:

“Every effort should be made to reduce ethnic and regional friction points, but in the big picture world, we all need a geopolitical structure that offers some stability.  That comes from global leadership and strength, not from the major world powers feverishly eliminating their nuclear arsenals and hoping others follow suit.    A phrase like “greatest threat” presumes a whole heck of a lot and basically it’s sheer arrogance to believe one problem poses the greatest threat.”

I like to dissect strategic challenges into long range goals (the traditional Ends) and sift through ways and means too.  I  like to think about short and intermediate goals and I am always thinking about, “well if that doesn’t work, what then”, or I try to step into our adversaries’ shoes and brainstorm how the world looks from their position.  Now, how I started thinking about all this was because long ago, I was a young woman assigned to a Pershing missile unit in 1980 and trying to wrap my mind around “mutually assured  destruction” scared me.  I have been reading and thinking about our national security strategy almost every day since 1980 and asking myself “Why?”  I am seeking a different path forward to provide, not just a national security framework, but an international security framework for ALL of us. Yes, quite an insurmountable obstacle, a pipe dream perhaps, but there you have it – that is my personal mission and I’ll keep studying, reading history, and considering new ideas unto that end.  I am a nobody homemaker, but I am an American and no one ever told me I can’t succeed.  I started writing my thoughts and  ideas here and welcome other ideas.

I believe too much effort is directed toward extremes of “kill them all” or “bow down in submission to Islamist nuts intent on killing all of us“.  Hopefully, my determination to explore other avenues, than the extremes, doesn’t make me a quisling, an armchair expert or naive.  I’m a mother and a grandmother wondering about the future for them and I believe, we need to explore new ways of bolstering an international security framework and that demands LEADERSHIP.

What America needs most is better LEADERSHIP.  Policy failures dealing with the rising radical Islamist threat abound in both the Bush and Obama administrations, but in the Obama administration, America has abdicated  it’s role as a global leader.  The weak and appeasing  foreign policy decisions by this president have sown international distrust, instability, and chaos.  Into the void, the Russians, the Chinese, Iran and dangerous radical Islamists smelled that fear and moved.  That is where America stands now – we have a weak, cowardly person to lead us.  There aren’t any easy ways forward with an incompetent and cowardly leader, so railing for military action just puts our troops at risk, creates more chaos in the ME and emboldens the above mentioned adversaries to easily thwart any move President Obama makes.  Anyway, he’s too busy bowing to the mullahs in Iran to notice the disintegrating security situation, at home or abroad.  And most of all I don’t believe he cares one bit about the troops.

In my next post I am going to talk about the danger factions in America pose to remaining the United States of America.

I decided to add one more link to a post I wrote last year, which expands on some of my thoughts:  “Who will defend our castle?”

8 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Messages of mhere, Military, Politics, Terrorism

Free thinking: the key to defeating radical Islam

Since 2001 it’s safe to say the vast majority of Americans are aware of Muslims, who scream various incantations of “Death to infidels”.  Some subset of this group actually follow the threats with action.  The American response to the 9/11/01 attack in NYC was to embark on a muddled decades plus long effort to cite the number of peaceful, moderate Muslims in the world, twist ourselves into pretzels to avoid offending these peaceful, moderate Muslims, and then engaging in tortured parsing and prevaricating to pretend that this violent subset isn’t really practicing what the highest levels of our government dubbed “a religion of Peace”, but instead were some fringe outlier beliefs.  Well, I am not an Islamic scholar, but “Peace”, tolerance of other faiths, and any desire to get along with people of different faiths and views doesn’t appear to be part of the practice of the Islamic faith and the supposed vast moderate Muslim majority seems a fact to be taken on faith, despite the deafening silence from them for over 14 years.  Where is the moderate Muslim majority – either here or in the Muslim world?

We have big name pundits arguing about how the cartoon-drawing event was “incitement” and wrong and here’s an excerpt of Bill O’Reilly’s take on the matter from Breitbart News:

“He continued that the “Christian point of view” is that “you don’t demean other people unnecessarily. Jesus would not have sponsored that event.” And “the goal of every decent person in the world should be to defeat the jihad. And in order to do that, you have to rally the world to the side of good, our side. Emotional displays like insulting the prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually the fanatical Islamists. In any war, you have to win hearts and minds, and the situation in Garland, TX goes against that. Again, the freedom of speech issue is bogus. No one is saying the exposition was illegal. The point is winning, defeating the jihad.””

The recent terrorist incident in Garland, TX whereby two adherents of  the religion of Peace planned and tried to execute an attack on a private cartoon-drawing event, if nothing else has incited a firestorm over free speech, civility and even defeating jihad.

Let me attempt to disassemble Mr. O’Reilly’s argument and then point out where I disagree.  He states: “He continued that the “Christian point of view” is that “you don’t demean other people unnecessarily. Jesus would not have sponsored that event.”   America is a secular nation and luckily for all of us, one where that “Christian point of view” helped create our secular Republic, so that tolerance and respect for all people serve as keystone values.  Mr. O’Reilly wants us to rally the world to the side of good.  Yay, we’re all in for trying to “win the hearts and minds”.

Pam Geller is speaking the truth about the religion of Peace.  She’s speaking the truth about the radical Islamists, whose views are more mainstream in the Muslim world than we care to acknowledge.   You may not like her approach to making you confront the reality, but the fact is she held a private event in America where they drew cartoons.  Two adherents to the more radical branch of the religion of Peace planned to attack the event, ostensibly out of anger over the cartoons,  and drove from AZ to TX  to do so.  We are supposed to accept that if Pam Geller hadn’t incited them or had instead tried to win their hearts and minds, they would have had no reason to plan this attack….  Now, a contrarian like me  might argue they were looking for targets to make a point that their views will be obeyed or there will be hell to pay.  Then again I see radical Islam not as a religion, but as a totalitarian political movement hiding behind the shield of a religion.  Americans value freedom of religion, so we bend over backwards to allow free establishment and practice of religion, this Islamist movement exploits that American value.

Now,we’ve got Islamists screaming for her head, we’ve got Americans condemning her as the problem for inciting a response (Juan Williams is quite vocal on this point) and many others offering some variation of O’Reilly’s point, “Emotional displays like insulting the prophet Mohammed make it more difficult to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually fighting the fanatical Islamists.”   Let me take a stab at deflating this “higher-purpose” Hindenburg, descending in flames as Americans watch the ME burn, Al Qaeda stabbed in the heart by Obama, now rising from the ashes and morphing into the JV ISIS team and the “law-abiding Muslims” (moderates, we’re assured), remain silent.

Here’s how I see it from what I, as JK used the word,  glean from the last 14 plus years:  from oh, extensive reading, observing news reporting and following the news daily.  O’Reilly’s “law-abiding Muslims'” argument is ludicrous.  Here in the West, where Muslims are living in a free society, they already know free speech is reverently upheld and the most vile radical Islamists living in the West use that freedom to spread their abhorrent ideology, but on the other hand, they also scream, trying to rally others to silence Pam Geller and those who oppose their ideology.  Many Muslim groups and sympathizers in America and the West aid and abet the imposition of Sharia compliant behavior under the guise of  “we shouldn’t offend Muslims” and somehow by bowing down in fear of inciting them or creating more of them, we will  “defeat them”.  All we are doing is trying to censor free speech out of fear.  This is the the lunch room bully extorting your lunch money every day, so you just cower and pay up, but beg Mom and Dad for extra money or go hungry.  Bowing down makes you a spineless victim and it emboldens the bully.

The idea that private American citizens need to conform their beliefs, speech or setting up a private event to aid our dismal foreign policy  “to rally law-abiding Muslims, for example. Including nations like Jordan and Egypt, who are actually fighting the fanatical Islamists.” ” is one of the stupidest things I have heard lately.  There has been no mass rallying among moderate Muslims (at least I haven’t seen any reported, although there have been a few brave Muslims who have spoken out against radical Islamists).  I have seen many reports over the years of Muslims cheering attacks against Americans though. Egypt is run by a military cabal, who threw out the radical Islamist regime and umm,, I believe they outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and aren’t putting up with radical Islamists.  In Jordan, they’ve got a king – he’s got a British mother, is western educated and he will work with the West against radical Islamists regardless whether Pam Geller hosts a Mohammed cartoon-drawing contest every week.  To pretend private citizens behavior will impact whether leaders of other countries will work with the American government is ridiculous.

What O’Reilly and our leaders are pandering to is the power of propaganda in the Muslim world, because here’s a newsflash Bill O’Reilly, the news most Muslims in the Muslim world receive isn’t “fair and balanced” – it’s CENSORED.  Those who CENSOR that news look for small things like Pam Geller’s cartoon-drawing contest to sensationalize and INCITE anti-American sentiments.  You will never win “hearts and minds” of people who can not hear opposing views and be FREE to think for themselves.  The issue to argue about is not Geller “inciting”, the issue to argue about and the goal of our policy should be to enlighten Muslims on the power of FREEDOM and that starts by showcasing our values.  Sure, I’m all for civility and I would not attend a Mohammed cartoon-drawing contest, but then again I would not pay money to watch a play mocking Mormons, or sit through a stand-up comic bashing Jews.  And, I sure as hell wouldn’t ever consider trying to ban their free speech or drive hundreds of miles to murder them.  Until we can find ways to promote free thinking in the Muslim world, any hope of “winning their hearts and minds” is doomed!

I’ve believed for a long time that the way to open the doors to freedom in the Muslim world is through finding ways to reach women and help them learn to be free-thinkers and agents of change in the Muslim world.  Even here in America the most powerful cultural movements were championed and propelled by large numbers of women. If we can reach the women in the Muslim world and help them understand FREEDOM, more than half the battle is won.  Living as little more than chattel at best, slaves at worst, women in the Muslim world might be the key to actually “winning their hearts and minds”.  Yes, conservative ol’ me champions women too, but more than that, I champion the cause of FREEDOM!

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, History, Islam, Politics, Terrorism