Woker Dumber Military

Woker Dumber Military. By Anatoly Karlin.

Fundamentally, you need your military forces to be staffed with high IQ and well trained men with high morale and commitment to its cause.

High IQ is especially important in commanding positions and in the more “g loaded” services. According to a 2015 paper by M.F. Cancian and M.W. Klein, it seems to have been going rapidly down even before the diversity drives of the 2010s. The cognitive performance of US Marine officers has seen a 10 IQ point decline between the 1980s and 2010.



On the other hand, there has been an increase in physical fitness. But, good and aesthetic as fitness maxing is, brawn doesn’t do nearly as much for your combat effectiveness as brains.

During WW2, American officers were Chad jocks who could outrun their platoons, while German officers were nerds who studied military history, weapon specs, and did just one hour of athletics per week.

Consequently, German units were much more combat effective than American ones, with the best US Marine divisions only being equivalent to second-tier Wehrmacht ones. On the rare occasions that they were more or less evenly matched on the battlefield, with no American logistics or air power preponderance, the Germans almost always won.

This decline is systemic and probably unavoidable in so far as private sector salaries have become much more competitive relative to public sector salaries, including military ones. The attraction of military service as a civic and patriotic ideal has also declined. In academic terms, West Point is a decidedly middling school; it is not where the intellectual gifted go. …

However, in the past few years, these long-standing trends in deteriorating human capital have been turbocharged by the rapid infiltration of Woke ideology into the American military. …

  • In September 2020, recommended reading courses at West Point included classics of military theory such as “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction” and “A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory”. …
  • In October 2020, the head of the Air Force recruiting division says too many pilots are white men and that increasing diversity is a war-fighting imperative. …
  • In December 2020, apparently unsatisfied with the existing decline in officer IQs, the military called for a “a thorough review of DOD aptitude tests to ensure they do not adversely impact diversity.”

Note that up until now, this was all still under President Trump. One of Joe Biden’s first acts in office was to reverse the transgender ban in the military, heralding it by choosing a transgender veteran to be part of the transition team at the Department of Defense.

By February 2021, the US Navy was recommending its sailors read racial grievance grifter Ibram X. Kendi on “How To Be An Anti-Racist” … as well as other classics in the naval genre such as “Sexual Minorities and Politics” and “The New Jim Crow”. Conspicuously missing: “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History” by Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of the most prominent naval theorists of all time. (The Chinese for their part are reading him). …

Is it possible to arrest these trends? Probably not — as we see above, it was already in progress throughout the US Armed Forces for at least the past couple of years, including during a period when Republicans were ascendant.

Moreover, it has its antecedents in the other Anglo-Saxon countries, having started off in Canada and progressed onto the UK from around 2015. A British military affairs watcher with whom I’ve occasionally exchanged emails presented the following timeline a couple of years ago:

Britain has gone from, in just 5 years, the ability to train, organize and deploy the highest quality brigade-level expeditionary forces in the world to having an eroded military now more focused on “wokeness” and “diversity” than combat capability. This decline is not an overnight, black and white phenomena, but appears intractable due to entrenched ideology.

Remember what happened to the French when they politicized their military prior to WWI?

Baltimore student passes three classes in four years, ranks near top half of class with 0.13 GPA

Baltimore student passes three classes in four years, ranks near top half of class with 0.13 GPA. By Chris Papst.

Tiffany France thought her son would receive his diploma this coming June. But after four years of high school, France just learned, her 17-year-old must start over. He’s been moved back to ninth grade. …

France’s son attends Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts in west Baltimore. His transcripts show he’s passed just three classes in four years, earning 2.5 credits, placing him in ninth grade. But France says she didn’t know that until February. She has three children and works three jobs. She thought her oldest son was doing well because even though he failed most of his classes, he was being promoted. …

In his first three years at Augusta Fells, he failed 22 classes and was late or absent 272 days. But in those three years, only one teacher requested a parent conference, which France says never happened. No one from the school told France her son was failing and not going to class.

In his four years at Augusta Fells, France’s son earned a GPA of 0.13. He only passed three classes, but his transcripts show his class rank is 62 out of 120. This means, nearly half his classmates, 58 of them, have a 0.13 grade point average or lower.

John Hinderaker:

Anyone who thinks we can have a successful, competitive society when our public schools are this bad is deluded.

As for poor Mr. France, what future awaits him? On those rare occasions when he showed up for class and listened to his teachers, he most likely was told that America is a systemically racist society, which means that he has no chance. So why do homework? The Left’s “equity” campaign is perhaps the only thing that could possibly make an incompetent public school system even worse.

No one has been game to mention the elephant in the room, ever since The Bell Curve was demonized in the mid 1990s. Douglas Murray:

The Bell Curve, a 1994 book by Murray and Herrnstein, remains one of the most controversial pieces of analysis in the modern era. Though its critics tend not to have read the work, they insist that it not only argues for but positively rejoices in the idea that intelligence is largely determined by a person’s race. It is a misunderstanding that has rumbled on for over a quarter of a century, and every discussion of the book usually ends in acrimony.

Revolver: (Warning: The following applies to group statistics, only weakly to individuals.)

The book directly confronts one of the most politically-loaded topics in science: Human intelligence.

Its main theses were straightforward: Varying social phenomena attributed to poverty, bigotry, or inequality can be better explained as the natural byproduct of differences in intelligence.

Humans aren’t all the same, and people with higher intelligence are engaged in a whole host of beneficial behaviors that, over time, get them ahead in life. They stay out of prison. They stay employed, and in higher-paying, more cognitively-demanding jobs. They save their money, have more successful marriages, and engage in less self-destructive behavior.

The other half of the book is a warning about the direction of American society. Murray and Herrnstein warned that a “cognitive elite” was emerging in America. The economic rewards for cognitive ability were only increasing over time, and the American school system had become increasingly effective at identifying the cognitively gifted and directing them towards elite colleges. These cognitively gifted people were in turn marrying one another, and raising cognitively gifted children who in turn would marry one another and repeat the cycle.

Over time, they warned, a dramatic rise in American inequality was inevitable, without the need for any overtly discriminatory laws. …

That is, universal education inevitably leads to greater IQ stratification and inequality. It’s already happening.

The past two and a half decades have done nothing but prove the thesis of The Bell Curve over and over again. But instead of being praised for its foresight, the book has been condemned over and over. Most of the outrage over the book, predictably, is that it is racist. In reality, the book is just thorough and academically honest.

A few chapters of the book discuss the incontrovertible fact that different demographic groups score differently on measures of intelligence, and present the evidence that these differences may be genetic rather than merely the product of social forces. The science is robust, but whether Murray and Herrnstein are right is also besides the point. …

Critics can bash The Bell Curve all they want. They can protest Murray’s speeches, or assault the people who attend them. They can try to drive him from polite society entirely. But it won’t change one crucial thing: Murray and his late co-author were right.

Bear that in mind next time you hear the left try to tell you they are the party of science.

How the Government Will Shutdown Bitcoin

How the Government Will Shutdown Bitcoin. By Robert Wenzel.

Shutting down bitcoin … is simple … It doesn’t matter what the plumbing is. Here is the law that could be enacted:

“The government hereby makes it illegal to conduct transactions in bitcoin.”

This instantly eliminates the ability for bitcoin to be used in retail transactions or in banking — or for an individual to be paid wages in bitcoin. If there are severe penalties, and there would be, what retailer or bank or cafe or other business is going to accept bitcoin in a transaction? …

Making bitcoin illegal would push bitcoin into the shadows, uncensorable or not. What are you going to do with bitcoin if it is in the shadows? Being a bitcoin dealer would be an extremely high-risk business. Transaction costs would soar. Indeed because of the nature of bitcoin transactions, the risk on any given exchange being exposed would be a lifetime proposition.

It’s being discussed. Powerful people can profit from it. So it may happen:

In a discussion I had just yesterday on another topic with some Silicon Valley people, we talked for a bit about bitcoin. Our thinking went this way:

There is a massive amount of money to be made in shutting down bitcoin.

If you short it before the shutdown, you could make a lifetime-size amount of money that puts you on easy street if you are leveraged.

When the major league insiders are ready, this is what will happen.

Right now the more buying of bitcoin, the better for them. The more liquid the market, the more bitcoin can be shorted when the time is right. And the time will eventually come.

It is a rigged game in favor of the insiders and you are not one of them. There is no way that the Fed is going to want to compete with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies when the Fed is ready to introduce a Fedcoin.

I don’t doubt the Treasury and Fed are polling right now to test and see what story the public finds as the most acceptable justification for shutting down cryptocurrencies.

Maybe. Owning gold was illegal in the US from the early 1930s until 1975, for similar reasons — banks and governments hate competition. And the US Government under Roosevelt made a killing by forcibly buying the public’s gold for $20 per ounce and then immediately devaluing the dollar to $35 dollars per ounce.

Bitcoin might now be viewed in much the same way as collectibles of rare items, such as paintings (one of which recently auctioned for over a billion dollars, I hear). Such markets take on a dynamic of their own, driven primarily by the availability of money and by momentum. The profits are real, but so are the dangers.

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever. By Glenn Greenwald.

January 20:

First we had the hysteria over the violence we were told was likely to occur at numerous state capitols on Inauguration Day. “Law enforcement and state officials are on high alert for potentially violent protests in the lead-up to Inauguration Day, with some state capitols boarded up and others temporarily closed ahead of Wednesday’s ceremony,” announced CNN. …

The resulting clampdowns were as extreme as the dire warnings. Washington, D.C. was militarized more than at any point since the 9/11 attack. The military was highly visible on the streets. And, described The Washington Post, “state capitols nationwide locked down, with windows boarded up, National Guard troops deployed and states of emergency preemptively declared as authorities braced for potential violence Sunday mimicking the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump rioters.” …

But none of that happened — not even close. … All over the country it was the same story. “But at the moment that Biden was taking the oath of office in Washington, the total number of protesters on the Capitol grounds in Topeka stood at five — two men supporting Trump and two men and a boy ridin’ with Biden,” reported The Wichita Eagle (“With Kansas Capitol in lockdown mode, Inauguration Day protest fizzles). …

March 4:

Completely undeterred by that debacle, Democrats and their media spokespeople returned with a new set of frightening warnings for this week. The date of March 4 has taken on a virtually religious significance for the Q-Anon movement …

March 4 had taken on special dangers because Q-Anon followers concluded that this is when Trump would be inaugurated.

This is how apocalyptic cult leaders always function. When the end of the world did not materialize on January 6, [NBC News’ Ben Collins] insisted that January 20 was the day of the violent reckoning. When nothing happened on that day, he moved the Doomsday Date to March 4. The flock cannot remain in a state of confusion for too long about why the world has not ended as promised by the prophet, so a new date must quickly be provided with an explanation for why this is serious business this time. …

On March 3,The New York Times warned that “the Capitol Police force is preparing for another assault on the Capitol building on Thursday after obtaining intelligence of a potential plot by a militia group.” All this, said the Paper of Record, because “intelligence analysts had spent weeks tracking online chatter by some QAnon adherents who have latched on to March 4 — the original inauguration date set in the Constitution — as the day Donald J. Trump would be restored to the presidency and renew his crusade against America’s enemies.”

These dire warnings also, quite predictably, generated serious reactions. “House leaders on Wednesday abruptly moved a vote on policing legislation from Thursday to Wednesday night, so lawmakers could leave town,” said the Times. ….

Do you know what happened on March 4 when it came to violence from right-wing extremists? The same thing that happened on January 20: absolutely nothing. There were no attempted attacks on the Capitol, state capitols, or any other government institution. …

“Armed insurrection” on Jan. 6 they told us, over and over. Turns out to be total BS:

Perhaps the most significant blow to the maximalist insurrection/coup narrative took place inside the Senate on Thursday. Ever since January 6, those who were not referring to the riot as a “coup attempt” — as though the hundreds of protesters intended to overthrow the most powerful and militarized government in history — were required to refer to it instead as an “armed insurrection.”

This formulation was crucial not only for maximizing fear levels about the Democrats’ adversaries but also, as I’ve documented previously, because declaring an “armed insurrection” empowers the state with virtually unlimited powers to act against the citizenry. Over and over, leading Democrats and their media allies repeated this phrase like some hypnotic mantra …

But this was completely false. As I detailed several weeks ago, so many of the most harrowing and widespread media claims about the January 6 riot proved to be total fabrications. A pro-Trump mob did not bash Officer Brian Sicknick’s skull in with a fire extinguisher. No protester brought zip-ties with them as some premeditated plot to kidnap members of Congress (two rioters found them on a table inside). There’s no evidence anyone intended to assassinate Mike Pence, Mitt Romney or anyone else.

Yet the maximalist narrative of an attempted coup or armed insurrection is so crucial to Democrats — regardless of whether it is true — that pointing out these facts deeply infuriates them. …

What we know for sure is that no Trump supporter fired any weapon inside the Capitol and that the FBI seized a grand total of zero firearms from those it arrested that day — a rather odd state of affairs for an “armed insurrection,” to put that mildly. …

It’s all about seizing power, but not by right-wing mobs:

The threat was being deliberately inflated and exaggerated, and fears stoked and exploited, both for political gain and to justify the placement of more and more powers in the hands of the state in the name of stopping these threats.

That is the core formula of authoritarianism — to place the population in a state of such acute fear that it acquiesces to any assertion of power which security state agencies and politicians demand and which they insist are necessary to keep everyone safe.

There is, relatedly, a massive political benefit from convincing the population that the opponents and critics of those in power do not merely hold a different ideology but are coup plotters, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. … The more you can demonize your opponents as something monstrous, the more political power you can acquire.

Now that it is obvious they were lying, what next?

It’s almost as if QAnon has been taken over by the CIA, in order to generate false flag operations.

Tucker Carlson Zeroes in on the Left’s ‘Biggest Fear’

Tucker Carlson Zeroes in on the Left’s ‘Biggest Fear’. By Leah Barkoukis, on Tucker Carlson’s monologue on Thursday.

“When you’re a liberal, the world is a very scary place, but there is one fear that rises above all other fears in the liberal mind: The fear of “the other.” Like all primitive cultures, modern liberalism is tribal,” he said. “Liberals understand most of the American continent as a mysterious dark space, like a medieval map populated by drooling Trump voters and violent illiterates with extra chromosomes.

“Liberals despise people like this, of course, and on some level, they know they’re hated right back,” he continued. “They worry that someday there will be a backlash against the people in charge, which, of course, is them. That’s their biggest fear, a peasant revolt.”

And so, D.C. looks like Baghdad’s Green Zone, he said.

The left and right were fully prepared for another “insurrection” on March 4, but like a child fearful of the monster in the closet, the threat wasn’t real.

“A lot of liberals were certain that March 4 was the day the right-wing revolution would finally begin. March 4, they believed, with something called ‘QAnon Inauguration Day,'” he said, adding that they have no idea what that means and can guarantee the vast majority of Trump supporters don’t either.

“They’d heard about it from Nancy Pelosi, who told her bodyguards to write up a report on the threat of QAnon Inauguration Day. So that’s what they did. We never really learned any details, but members of Congress were not taking chances,” Carlson continued. “Many of them fled the Capitol Thursday. House leaders rescheduled votes so that the rank-and-file legislators could escape with their lives, if not with their dignity.”

What happened was predictable: nothing. More media showed up than anyone else. …

No longer a democracy, but an oligarchy:

“This is very strange behavior for a democracy,” Carlson pointed out. “In a democracy, leaders are supposed to rule with the consent of the governed. You would think that might have occurred to some people on Capitol Hill. If we’re this afraid of American voters, maybe something’s wrong. Maybe we’re not doing a very good job. Maybe we ought to shut up for a second and listen to the complaints of the people whose lives we control. Maybe then we wouldn’t need razor wire around the Capitol.”

Women are already running Australia

Women are already running Australia. By Michael Smith.

Women get a good hearing in Parliament and the National Capital.

39 out of 76 Senators are women.

More than half.

Perhaps there’s room to grow in the lower house 46 out of 151 Members of the House of Reps are women – roughly 30%. …

3 of the 7 Justices of the Court are women.

59% of the Commonwealth public service are women. Women have actually dominated the public service in terms of numbers since 1999.

Women now outnumber men in the E1 senior Executive Level of the Public Service.

About 60% of university students are women.

Women tend to vote left compared to men, which accounts for some of the leftward movement in western politics in the last 50 years.

Since we are mentioning group IQs today:

IQ intelligence male female

The distribution of g (raw intelligence) in male and female populations. The scale of the horizontal axis is in units of the male standard deviation. Only 37% of humans with IQs over 120 (the bottom of managerial level) are female. As the threshold IQ moves up, the male-female gap only grows larger. Blame God.

So if 50% of executives were female then females would be over-represented — if IQ is important. (Perhaps it’s not, in these PC times? The quoted source above notes that 66% of public service managers in the US are female.)

For those who want to dig deeper, read about the inappropriately excluded.


‘For The People Act’ confirms it: “Our Democracy” has officially replaced the American Republic

‘For The People Act’ confirms it: “Our Democracy” has officially replaced the American Republic. By Nebojsa Malic.

If there were any doubts that a civil war had in fact been waged in the US, and that the side that “fortified” the 2020 election and redefined the republic as “Our Democracy” triumphed, HR1 should dispel the last vestiges of them.

The bill, also named “For The People Act” of 2021, passed in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in a 220-210 vote on Wednesday. Only one Democrat was opposed.

The 800-page bill basically codifies all the problematic practices of the 2020 election into law. There’s an expansion of mail-in ballots and extended deadlines to count them, but also automatic voter registration, a waiver for voter IDs, and nationwide ballot-harvesting, California-style. It also shifts the authority to draw congressional districts from states, criminalizes broadly defined “interference” in elections, and so much more. …

Nor should anyone put hope in the courts. HR1 has incorporated the same “trick” as Pennsylvania used, narrowly defining how it can be legally challenged to the point of making it almost impossible. If a challenge somehow reaches the US Supreme Court, odds are the Nine will simply wash their hands and look the other way, as they did with the Texas brief. …

Meanwhile, thousands of National Guard troops that have been patrolling the Capitol inside a razor-wire perimeter fence are now staying through June, because the Biden administration keeps claiming there is “chatter” from “extremists” online about some kind of insurrection.

When nothing happens, they claim their measures prevented it, of course. That’s how phantom menaces are supposed to work. Feel free to shrug off the ‘Star Wars’ prequels or the ‘Hunger Games’, but there are clearly people in Washington who take their inspiration from them. …

What else does one need to understand that the old America, the Republic defined in the Constitution of 1789, has ceased to exist? It has been replaced by something everyone calls Our Democracy. You can hear the words capitalized when they say it. And in this new society, inspired by the intersectionality of dystopian fiction, the old rules simply no longer apply.

The combo of the new upper class and the Chinese CCP have conquered America without a shot.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”

The Facts About H.R. 1: The “For the People Act of 2021”. By The Heritage Foundation.

H.R. 1 would federalize and micromanage the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary, unwise, and unconstitutional mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process — which is essential to the protection of our liberty and freedom.

It would (among other things) implement nationwide the worst changes in election rules that occurred during the 2020 election; go even further in eroding and eliminating basic security protocols that states have in place; and interfere with the ability of states and their citizens to determine the qualifications and eligibility of voters, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, secure the fairness and integrity of elections, and participate and speak freely in the political process. …

What H.R. 1 would do:

Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting. …

Make it easier to commit fraud and promote chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials would have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and the eligibility of an individual to vote and could not anticipate the number of ballots and precinct workers that would be needed at specific polling locations. …

Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registration that is not tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license. …

Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters. …

Ban state voter ID laws …

Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 would add a provision criminalizing “hindering, interfering, or preventing” anyone from registering or voting, which is so vague and so broad that it could prevent providing any information to election officials about the ineligibility of an individual, such as an applicant not being a U.S. citizen. [Selective enforcement will ensure there are no complaints from the right.] …

H.R. 1 would impose onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public. [Only the upper class can afford this.] …

Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. [Ex-prisoners overwhelmingly vote left.] …

H.R. 1 would permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations before granting tax-exempt status, thus enabling IRS officials to target organizations engaging in First Amendment activity with disfavored views. …

The bill would prohibit the filing of any lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 1 anywhere except in the District Court for the District of Columbia and would allow the court to order all plaintiffs and intervenors, regardless of their number (such as all 50 states), “to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument,” severely limiting the legal representation and due process rights of challengers.

Consolidating the steal.

Of course, the US Government will lose all credibility after a few more rigged elections.

Is Your Friend a Liberal or a Leftist? Ask These Questions to Find Out

Is Your Friend a Liberal or a Leftist? Ask These Questions to Find Out. By Dennis Prager.

Virtually every value liberals have held for a century is now held by conservatives and scorned by leftists. Therefore, America, in serious jeopardy of being lost, will be saved when people convince the liberals in their life that the left, not the conservative, is their enemy.

This process begins by establishing whether a friend or relative is a liberal or a leftist. If it turns out that he or she is a liberal, it is worth engaging in respectful dialogue on the issues of the day. If the friend or relative is a leftist, you can probably only talk about innocuous subjects such as the weather (though not about global warming) or sports (though not about players taking a knee during the national anthem).

If you talk about the great issues of the day with a left-wing friend or relative, that could be the last time you talk to each other. He or she is likely to unfriend you not only on social media but also in life. Leftists generally do not dialogue; they dismiss.

Here are questions you might want to pose to friends and relatives to determine — as much for them as for you — whether they are liberal or left. …

3) Is the goal of being “colorblind” — doing one’s best to ignore a person’s color and concentrating only on the person’s character and personality — a noble goal or a racist one? …

5) Do you agree that all white Americans are racist? …

7) Is it possible for a black person to be a racist? …

16) Has capitalism been a net-plus for America and the world? …

20) Should America have full control over its borders to prevent illegal immigration? …

23) Do you believe police departments should be defunded, or at least have their budgets severely cut? …

25) Which school do you believe is more likely to be attacked by a gunman: one that has a sign in front that reads, “Gun-Free Zone” or one that reads, “This School Has Armed Personnel”? …

26) Should it be legal for a teenage girl to have her breasts surgically removed because she identifies as a male—or should there be a minimum age of 18 or 21? …

28) Should biological males who identify as females be allowed to compete against biological females in sports? …

32) If you believe hate speech should be banned, who do you believe should determine what is hate speech?

Read it all.

Former CIA Head John Brennan Is ‘Embarrassed’ to Be White

Former CIA Head John Brennan Is ‘Embarrassed’ to Be White. By Robert Spencer.

Former CIA top dog John Brennan tuned in to CPAC over the last few days, and was disgusted by what he saw — not just because he voted Communist in 1976 and is still very far to the left, but because white people were behaving there in a way that made him sorry to be among their number:

“I’m increasingly embarrassed to be a white male these days,” Brennan claimed, “with what I see other white males say.”

Brennan, scrambling for the moral high ground, charged that the only acceptable Republicans were the ones who were indistinguishable from Democrats: “With very few exceptions, like [Sen.] Mitt Romney, [Rep.] Liz Cheney, [Rep.] Adam Kinzinger, there are so few Republicans in Congress who value truth, honesty, and integrity.”

Sure, whatever, John, but try to stay on point: aren’t Romney, Cheney, and Kinzinger, um, white? Were the speakers you hated at CPAC saying things you disliked because they were white, or because they believe in principles you likely detest, such as the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the need for free and fair elections?

Brennan was, of course, just reflecting the zeitgeist: those who tell us that racism is virtually everywhere and must be eradicated at all costs have no problem demonizing one race and ascribing to it all the ills of society. It is now acceptable on the Left to despise white people as a group, and Brennan’s ridiculous statements reflect that…

The re-rise of claiming to be of a different race in order to escape social opprobrium:

Back in the old South during the Jim Crow days of institutionalized racial discrimination, some light-skinned blacks tried to pass for white in an attempt to avoid the discrimination and harassment that blacks faced all too often in those days. …

This phenomenon is not dead. There are still people trying to pass as members of another race. There is Hilaria Baldwin, the upper-class Bostonian who pretended to be Spanish for a decade. The white Jewish professor Jessica Krug passed as black for years. So did Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP official who famously turned out not to be a CP at all. Still at it is Shaun King, aka Talcum X, who strenuously insists that he isn’t white despite photographic evidence of his being a light-haired white child before he was woke.

Warren and Dolezal

Then, of course, there is Elizabeth Warren, as white a white person as you’ll ever find, who for years passed as Native American for social approval and career advancement. She was even hailed as the first “woman of color” on Harvard’s faculty. What color? A light peach, apparently.


Muslim “feminist” activist Linda Sarsour is also passing: in a Vox video published in January 2017, she revealed: “When I wasn’t wearing hijab I was just some ordinary white girl from New York City.” But in an April 2017 interview, Sarsour referred to “people of color like me.” All it took was a hijab to enable Sarsour to change races.

Baldwin, Krug, Warren, Dolezal, King, and Sarsour are the vanguard of the society the Left is working hard to create — a society in which being white carries so much of a social stigma that it results in job discrimination and more, and those who are clever and audacious enough to pull it off avoid this opprobrium by passing as being a “person of color.” Today, to be white is to be evil. No wonder John Brennan tangles himself in incoherence while trying to escape the stigma.

Race hatred should be no more acceptable today than it was in the days of Jim Crow. No one should ever feel compelled to pass as a member of another race.

What went wrong with China’s relationship with Australia

What went wrong with the China’s relationship with Australia. By Ted O’Brien.

When China’s ambassador, Cheng Jingye, chastised Australia last April for calling for an independent investigation into COVID-19, he accused Australia of “teaming up” with anti-Chinese elements. “…

“Siding with” and “doing the bidding of” the United States are regular complaints of the PRC. These accusations also featured prominently in their list of fourteen grievances.

Framing Australia as if we were an extension of the United States allows the PRC to effectively dismiss our positions. By wrapping Australia into their master narrative, it triggers a deeply emotional element in the Chinese psyche. This mobilises support in China, but it limits their diplomatic options abroad.

Invoking past wrongs perpetrated by foreign powers and suggesting we are part of a foreign plot that threatens China leaves its diplomats with little room to move, forcing them to take a hard line. In turn, they find it hard to compromise without looking weak, tensions escalate and a zero-sum game starts to emerge. This is what has happened to the Australia–China relationship.

This is a weakness in the PRC playbook. Like any country, the PRC is at its best when it enjoys strategic flexibility. But China’s new brand of nationalism constrains them by invoking emotional triggers about historical humiliation and threats from the West. …

The PRC’s narrative works best at home in China, but that hasn’t stopped them from using it abroad. How else can they seek to justify coercive behaviour against countries like Australia?

The world is watching as the PRC punishes us. By teaching us a lesson, they also warn others about the consequences of getting China offside. What’s more, they can’t afford to be seen to lose, which makes the situation even more difficult to resolve through peaceful negotiation.

It hasn’t escaped the world’s attention, however, that the PRC is picking on Australia rather than tackling the United States head on. In doing so, the PRC is practising the very behaviour it purports to oppose; it is bullying a smaller power against which it has no historical grievance, a country that has never done it harm. This is another reason why it’s so vitally important for the PRC to frame Australia into their narrative of grievances and foreign plots — to do otherwise risks diluting their moral authority in the eyes of the world. …

It’s one thing for the CCP to foster a brand of Chinese nationalism anchored to memories of foreign humiliation, but to imply Australia was party to any traumatic past fails any test of logic, let alone evidence.

When China’s “century of humiliation” began with the outbreak of the First Opium War in 1839, Australia was still a penal colony. We were in the final throes of establishing the Commonwealth of Australia in 1900 when Allied forces of Germany, Japan, Russia, Britain, France, the United States, Italy and Austria-Hungary invaded Beijing to relieve besieged foreign legations and end the Boxer Rebellion. By the time China’s century of humiliation was coming to an end, both Australia and China were fighting against Japan. …

The Australia–China relationship will never be the same again and so the relationship needs to be rebuilt for the future, not the past.

The left raises reparations to lure conservatives onto the stage so they can be pelted with cabbages for their racism

The left raises reparations to lure conservatives onto the stage so they can be pelted with cabbages for their racism. By the Z-Man.

Former president Barak Obama has come out in favor of reparations.

Reparations have always been a ridiculous idea, which is why it has been popular with ridiculous people like Ta-Nehisi Coates. His plan to set things right for black people is just a call for more complaining. Like so much of the English language, he never bothered to learn the meaning of the word reparations. Reparations is about making amends and clearing the books, not endless self-pity. …

Of course, the absurdity of the demand is part of the appeal.

The point of raising the topic of reparations is not to come up with a solution, the final solution, to the race problem in America. The point of raising the issue is to lure conservatives out onto the stage so they can be pelted with cabbages by the crowd for their racism. Their opposition to this ridiculous idea is proof that white privilege is real. …

The point of the American political drama is the drama. It is never about solving real problems that are popular with the public. The Obama years, like the Bush years and the Trump years, were sound and fury to distract from the great looting of the middle class by a class of parasitic billionaire pirates. Race is just one of the most convenient distractions in the political playwright’s toolkit.

When A Great Democracy Politicized The Military

When A Great Democracy Politicized The Military. By James Corum, a military historian, author, co-author of 14 books, and retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve.

President Joe Biden has embarked on a revolutionary program to replace constitutional freedoms with a new social justice agenda. Supporting the radical agenda is his defense secretary Lloyd Austin, whose top priority is to politicize the military to eliminate “extremists.”

So, what happens when the hard left takes control of the government of a great democracy and decides that the desired social revolution requires the destruction of conservative institutions and leaders, and then institutes aggressive policies to expel conservatives from the military? We have a good answer when we look at France from 1899 to 1914 when hard-left governments were in power. …

Top leftist political leaders wanted to use their power to utterly break the power of the conservative half of France, which meant going after two key institutions: The Catholic Church and the military officer corps.

The Church was the main target. Inspired by fanatically anti-clerical Émile Combes, French premier 1902-1905, the government passed new laws regulating the Church in 1901 that required all education to be secular. Ten thousand Catholic schools were shut down. Many churches were closed, and convents were closed on the order of the government. …

The government announced in 1901 that promotions in the army would no longer be an internal matter of the military promotion boards but would be under the purview of the War Department, run by the political ministers. … The War Ministry initiated a secret system of surveillance and informants to collect information on the political, social, and religious background of officers. A network of Freemasons, leftist government officials, and leftist officers sent information on French officers directly to the War Ministry. A vast system of secret files was amassed, eventually amounting to files on 19,000 of the 25,000 regular officers. The War Ministry used the files to push the careers of officers known to favor the left, while adherence to Catholic practices or familial and social contacts with the old aristocracy, were enough to dead-end even the most competent officer’s career. …

Morale plummeted when it was obvious the promotion system was rigged. …

The politicization of the army in the decade prior to World War I had an enormous effect. Many good officers left the French army as politically correct mediocrities were promoted. The officer education standards fell dramatically as applications to the elite military academies of France, which mostly consisted mainly of officer cadets from conservative and religious families, fell dramatically. … The professional NCO Corps also abandoned the military. …

Merit matters. Now we know why the French Army was so mediocre in WWI, and why the Germans so outperformed them man-for-man, especially early in the war.

While the Left Bloc governments before World War I focused on the internal politics of the military and ensuring a politically loyal force, they forgot that France had a serious threat in the form of the German Empire.

While French officer education standards dropped precipitously, the German states dramatically raised their education standards for joining the officer corps. German officer pay at all ranks was 50% higher than the French. …

More than a decade of politicization of the military resulted in a French army that went to war in August 1914 with appallingly poor leadership and training. The great social experiment of the Left Bloc was a bloodbath. In the first month of the war, the French army lost 250,000 casualties — 20% of the field army. Faced with an existential crisis, the French government announced a truce between the left and the conservatives. For the duration of the war, with France’s survival at stake, meritocracy would be the only standard in the French army.

By 6 September 1914, General Joffre, French Commander-in-Chief, had relieved two army commanders, ten corps commanders, and thirty-three division commanders (half of the French Army divisional commanders) for incompetence. Some officers slated for retirement in 1914 and denied promotion for political and religious views, became full generals and army commanders within a year. France barely survived in 1914 thanks to the British Expeditionary Force and Russia’s invasion of East Prussia. …

See 21:20 for effect of politics on the Army.

Lesson for the USA in 2021, which has a serious threat in the form of the Chinese Empire:

You can have armed forces that are completely loyal to the political leadership and rigidly follows its political ideology. Or you can have a military based on meritocracy and competence. You cannot have both.

hat-tip David Archibald