FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

DISCOVER THE WORLD

The 5% For Vets Fund

The 5% For Vets Fund
The 5% for Vets Fund is my promise to give back 5% of net profits each year to a non-profit organization that helps Veterans of the United States Armed Forces. The fund is inspired by my father's service in the Army. He served 2 combat tours in Vietnam (1966-1968) and was blessed to make it home. His memory lives on through this fund and his letters home as detailed in my blog

SUPPORT THE VETERANS PROJECT

★ HELP FEED HOMELESS VETS CHILDREN AND CITIZENS ALIKE ★ While veterans represent 8% of the total population in the United States, they are disproportionately represented among our homeless: a startling 12% of the homeless population are veterans, or 16% of homeless adults. Most homeless veterans–over 90%–are male. About half of homeless veterans are disabled. You can help.@ Click to Donate Now!

VETERANS PROJECT ANNUAL FUND RAISER

VETERANS PROJECT ANNUAL FUND RAISER
Not For Profit - For Global Justice - "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801,

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Best Armed Forces on the Planet?

The Best Armed Forces on the Planet?


In my recent article “Risks and Opportunities for 2017” I made a statement which shocked many readers. I wrote:
Russia is now the most powerful country on the planet. (…) the Russian armed forces are probably the most powerful and capable ones on earth (albeit not the largest ones) (…) Russia is the most powerful country on earth because of two things: Russia openly rejects and denounces the worldwide political, economic and ideological system the USA has imposed upon our planet since WWII and because Vladimir Putin enjoys the rock-solid support of about 80%+ of the Russian population. The biggest strength of Russia in 2017 is a moral and a political one, it is the strength of a civilization which refuses to play by the rules which the West has successfully imposed on the rest of mankind. And now that Russia has successfully “pushed back” others will inevitably follow (again, especially in Asia).
While some dismissed this as rather ridiculous hyperbole, others have asked me to explain who I can to that conclusion. I have to admit that this paragraph is somewhat ambiguous: first I make a specific claim about the capabilities of the Russian military, and then the “evidence” that I present are of a moral and political nature! No wonder that some expressed reservations about this.
Actually, the above is a good example of one of my worst weaknesses: I tend to assume that I write for people who will make the same assumptions I do, look at issues the way I look at them, and understand what is implied. My bad. So today I will try to spell out what I mean and clarify my point of view on this issue. To do this, however, there are a number of premises which I think need to be explicitly spelled out.

First, how does one measure the quality of an armed force and how can armed forces from different countries be compared?
The first thing which need to immediately get out of the way is the absolutely useless practice known as “bean counting”: counting the numbers of tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry combat vehicles, artillery pieces, aircraft, helicopters and ships for country A and country B and come to some conclusion about which of the two is “stronger”. This is utterly meaningless. Next, two more myths need to be debunked: high tech wins wars and big money wins wars. Since I discussed these two myths in some detail elsewhere (here) I won’t repeat it all here.

Next, I submit that the purpose of a military force is to achieve a specific political objective. Nobody goes to war just for the sake of war and “victory” is not a military, but a political concept. So yes, war is the continuation of politics by other means. For example, the successful deterrence of a potential aggressor should be counted as a “victory” or, at least, as a successful performance of your armed forces if their goal was to deter. The definition of “victory” can include destroying the other guy’s armed forces, of course, but it does not have to. The British did win the war in the Malvinas/Falkands even though the Argentinian forces were far from destroyed. Sometimes the purpose of war is genocide, in which case just defeating a military forces is not enough. Let’s take a recent example: according to an official statement by Vladimir Putin, the official objectives of the Russian military intervention in Syria were to 1) stabilize the legitimate authority and 2) create conditions for a political compromise. It is undeniable that the Russian armed forces fully reached this two objectives, but they did so without the need for the kind of “victory” which implies a total destruction of your enemies forces. In fact, Russia could have used nuclear weapons and carpet bombing to wipe Daesh, but that would have resulted in a political catastrophe for Russia. Would that have been a “military victory”? You tell me!

So, if the purpose of a country’s armed forces is to achieve specific and political objectives, this directly implies that saying that some country’s armed forces can do anything, anywhere and at any time is nonsense. You cannot access a military outside a very specific set of circumstances:

1) Where: Space/geographical
2) When: Time/duration
3) What: political objective

Yet, what we see, especially in the USA, is a diametrically opposite approach. It goes something like this: we have the best trained, best equipped and best armed military on earth; no country can compete with our advanced stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, our pilots are the best trained on the planet, we have advanced network-centric warfare capabilities, global strike, space based reconnaissance and intelligence, we have aircraft carriers, our Delta Force can defeat any terrorist force, we spend more money training our special forces than any other country, we have more ships than any other nation, etc. etc. etc.

 This means absolutely nothing. The reality is that the US military played a secondary role in WWII in the European theater and that after that the only “kinda victory” it achieved is outright embarrassing: Grenada (barely), Panama (almost unopposed). I would agree that the US military was successful in deterring a Soviet attack, but I would also immediately point out that the Soviets then also successfully deterred a US attack. Is that a victory? The truth is that China also did not suffer from a Soviet or US attack, does that mean that the Chinese successfully deterred the Soviets or the Americans? If you reply ‘yes’ then you would have to accept that they did that at a fraction of the US costs, so whose military was more effective – the US or the Chinese one? Then look at all the other US military interventions, there is a decent list here, what did those military operations really achieve. If I had to pick a “least bad one” I would reluctantly pick the Desert Storm which did liberate Kuwait from the Iraqis, but at what cost and with what consequences?!
In the vast majority of cases, when the quality of the Russian armed forces is assessed, it is always in comparison to the US armed forces. But does that make sense to compare the Russian armed forces to a military which has a long record of not achieving the specific political objectives it was given? Yes, the US armed forces are huge, bloated, they are the most expensive on the planet, the most technology-intensive and their rather mediocre actual performance is systematically obfuscated by the most powerful propaganda machine on the planet. But does any of that make them effective? I submit that far from being effective, they are fantastically wasteful and amazingly ineffective, at least from a military point of view.

Still dubious?

Okay. Let’s take the “best of the best”: the US special forces. Please name me three successful operations executed by US special forces. No, small size skirmishes against poorly trained and poorly equipped 3rd world insurgents killed in a surprise attack don’t qualify. What would be the US equivalent of, say, Operation Storm-333 or the liberation of the entire Crimean Peninsula without a single person killed? In fact, there is a reason why most Hollywood blockbusters about US special forces are based on abject defeats such as Black Hawk Down or 13 hours.

As for US high-teach, I don’t think that I need to dwell too deeply on the nightmares of the F-35 or the Zumwalt-class destroyer or explain how sloppy tactics made it possible for the Serbian Air Defenses to shoot down a super-secret and putatively “invisible” F-117A in 1999 using an ancient Soviet-era S-125 missile first deployed in 1961!

There is no Schadenfreude for me in reminding everybody of these facts. My point is to try to break the mental reflex which conditions so many people to consider the US military as some kind of measuring stick of how all the other armed forces on the planet do perform. This reflex is the result of propaganda and ignorance, not any rational reason. The same goes, by the way, for the other hyper-propagandized military – the Israeli IDF whose armored forces, pilots and infantrymen are always presented as amazingly well-trained and competent. The reality is, of course, that in 2006 the IDF could not even secure the small town of Bint Jbeil located just 2 miles from the Israeli border. For 28 days the IDF tried to wrestle the control of Bint Jbeil from second rate Hezbollah forces (Hezbollah kept its first rate forces north of the Litani river to protect Beirut) and totally failed in spite of having a huge numerical and technological superiority.

I have personally spoken to US officers who trained with the IDF and I can tell you that they were totally unimpressed. Just as Afghan guerrillas are absolutely unanimous when they say that the Soviet solider is a much better soldier than the US one.
Speaking of Afghanistan.

Do you remember that the Soviet 40th Army who was tasked with fighting the Afghan “freedom fighters” was mostly under-equipped, under-trained, and poorly supported in terms of logistics? Please read this appalling report about the sanitary conditions of the 40th Army and compare that with the 20 billion dollar per year the US spends on air-conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq! And then compare the US and Soviet occupations in terms of performance: not only did the Soviets control the entire country during the day (at night the Afghan controlled most of the country side and the roads), they also controlled all the major cities 24/7. In contrast, the US barely holds on to Kabul and entire provinces are in the hands of the insurgents. The Soviets built hospitals, damns, airports, roads, bridges, etc. whereas the Americans built exactly nothing. And, as I already mentioned, in every interview I have seen the Afghans are unanimous: the Soviets were much tougher enemies than the Americans.

I could go on for pages and pages, but let’s stop here and simply accept that the PR image of the US (and Israeli) military has nothing to do with their actual capabilities and performance. There are things which the US military does very well (long distance deployment, submarine warfare in temperate waters, carrier operations, etc.) but their overall effectiveness and efficiency is pretty low.

So what makes the Russian armed forces so good?

For one thing, their mission, to defend Russia, is commensurate with the resources of the Russian Federation. Even if Putin wanted it, Russia does not have the capabilities to built 10 aircraft carriers, deploy hundreds of overseas bases or spend more on “defense” than the rest of mankind combined. The specific political objective given to the Russian military is quite simple: to deter or repel any attack against Russia.

Second, to accomplish this mission the Russian armed forces need to be able to strike and prevail at a maxial distance of 1000km or less from the Russian border. Official Russian military doctrine places the limits of a strategic offensive operation a bit further and include the complete defeat of enemy forces and occupation of his territory to a depth of 1200km-1500km (Война и Мир в Терминах и Определениях, Дмитрий Рогозин, Москва, Вече, 2011, p.155) but in reality this distance would be much shorter, especially in the case of a defensive counter-attack. Make no mistake, this remains a formidable task due to the immense length of the Russian border (over 20’000km of border) running over almost every imaginable type of geography, from dry deserts and mountains to the North pole region. And here is the amazing thing: the Russian armed forces are currently capable of defeating any conceivable enemy all along this perimeter. Putin himself said so recently when he declared that “We can say with certainty: We are stronger now than any potential aggressor, any!” I realize that for a mostly American audience this will sound like the typical garden variety claptrap every US officer or politician has to say at every public occasion, but in the Russian context this is something quite new: Putin had never said anything like that before. If anything, the Russian prefer to whine about numerically superior their adversaries seem to be (well, they are, numerically – which every Russian military analyst knows means nothing).

Numerically, the Russian forces are, indeed, much smaller than NATO’s or China’s. In fact, one could argue for the size of the Russian Federation, the Russian armed forces are rather small. True. But they are formidable, well-balanced in terms of capabilities and they make maximal use of the unique geographical features of Russia.

[Sidebar: Russia is a far more “northern” country than, say, Canada or Norway. Look at where the vast majority of the cities and towns in Canada or Scandinavia are located. Then look at a map of Russia and the latitudes at which the Russian cities are located. The difference is quite striking. Take the example of Novosibirsk, which in Russia is considered a southern Siberian town. It is almost at the same latitude as Edinburgh, Scotland, Grande Prairie, Alberta or Malmö in Sweden]

This is why all the equipment used by the Russian Armed Forces has to be certified operational from temperatures ranging from -50C to +50C (-58F to 122F). Most western gear can’t even operate in such extremes. Of course, the same also goes for the Russian solider who is also trained to operate in this range of temperatures.
I don’t think that there is another military out there who can claim to have such capabilities, and most definitely not the American armed forces.

Another myth which must be debunked is the one of western technological superiority. While it is true that in some specific fields the Soviets were never able to catch up with the West, microchips for example, that did not prevent them from being the first ones to deploy a large list of military technologies such as phased-array radars on interceptors, helmet-mounted sights for pilots, supercavitating underwater missiles, autoloaders on tanks, parachute deployable armored vehicles, double-hulled attack submarines, road-mobile ICBMs, etc. As a rule, western weapon systems tend to be more tech-heavy, that is true, but that is not due to a lack of Russian capabilities, but to a fundamental difference in design. In the West, weapon systems are designed by engineers who cobble together the latest technologies and then design a mission around them. In Russia, the military defines a mission and then seeks the simplest and cheapest technologies which can be used to accomplish it. This is why the Russian MiG-29 (1982) was not a “fly-by-wire” like the US F-16 (1978) but operated by “old” mechanical flight controls. I would add here that a more advanced airframe and two engines instead of one for the F-16, gave the MiG-29 a superior flight envelope. When needed, however, the Russians did use fly-by-wire, for example, on the Su-27 (1985).
Last but not least, the Russian nuclear forces are currently more modern and much more capable than the comparatively aging US nuclear triad.  Even the Americans admit that.

So what does that all mean?

This means that in spite of being tasked with an immensely difficult mission, to prevail against any possible enemy along the 20’000+km of the Russian border and to a depth of 1000km, the Russian armed forces have consistently shown that they are capable of fulfilling the specific political objective of either deterring or defeating their potential enemy, be it a Wahabi insurgency (which the western pundits described as “unbeatable”), a western trained and equipped Georgian military (in spite of being numerically inferior during the crucial hours of the war and in spite of major problems and weaknesses in command and control), the disarmament of 25’000+ Ukrainian (supposedly “crack”) troops in Crimea without a single shot fired in anger and, of course, the Russian military intervention in the war in Syria were a tiny Russian force turned the tide of the war.

In conclusion, I want to come back to my statement about Russia being the only country which now openly dares to reject the western civilizational model and whose leader, Vladimir Putin, enjoys the support of 80%+ of the population. These two factors are crucial in the assessment of the capabilities of the Russian armed forces. Why? Because they illustrate the fact that the Russian soldiers knows exactly what he fights for (or against) and that when he is deployed somewhere, he is not deployed as a tool for Gazprom, Norilsk Nickel, Sberbank or any other Russian corporation: he knows that he is fighting for his country, his people, his culture, for their freedom and safety. Furthermore, the Russian soldier also knows that the use of military force is not the first and preferred option of his government, but the last one which is used only when all other options have been exhausted. He knows that the Russian High Command, the Kremlin and the General Staff are not hell-bent on finding some small country to beat up just to make an example and scare the others. Last but not least, the Russian solider is willing to die for his country and while executing any order.  The Russians are quite aware of that and this is why the following

At the end of the day, the outcome of any war is decided by willpower, I firmly believe that and I also believe that it is the “simple” infantry private who is the most important factor in a war, not the super-trained superman.  In Russia they are sometimes called “makhra” – the young kids from the infantry, not good looking, not particularly macho, with no special gear or training. They are the ones who defeated the Wahabis in Chechnia, at a huge cost, but they did. They are the one which produce an amazing number of heroes who amaze their comrades and enemies with their tenacity and courage. They don’t look to good in parades and they are often forgotten. But they are the ones which defeated more empires than any other and who made Russia the biggest country on earth.

So yes, Russia currently does have the most capable armed forces on the planet.  There are plenty of countries out there who also have excellent armed forces.  But what makes the Russian ones unique is the scope of their capabilities which range from anti-terrorist operations to international nuclear war combined with the amazing resilience and willpower of the Russian solider.  There are plenty of things the Russian military cannot do, but unlike the US armed forces, the Russian military was never designed to do anything, anywhere, anytime (aka “win two and a half wars” anywhere on the planet).

For the time being, the Russians are watching how the US cannot even take a small city like Mosul, even though it had to supplement the local forces with plenty of US and NATO “support” and they are unimpressed, to say the least.  But Hollywood will surely make a great blockbuster from this embarrassing failure and there will be more medals handed out than personnel involved (this is what happened after the Grenada disaster).  And the TV watching crowd will be reassured that “while the Russians did make some progress, their forces are still a far cry from their western counterparts”.  Who cares?

The Saker

 Pro Deo et Constitutione – 
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis 
Paratus et Fidelis 

Joseph F Barber

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 






LIKE










URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS 

Click to Donate Now!
The Best Armed Forces on the Planet?


In my recent article “Risks and Opportunities for 2017” I made a statement which shocked many readers. I wrote:
Russia is now the most powerful country on the planet. (…) the Russian armed forces are probably the most powerful and capable ones on earth (albeit not the largest ones) (…) Russia is the most powerful country on earth because of two things: Russia openly rejects and denounces the worldwide political, economic and ideological system the USA has imposed upon our planet since WWII and because Vladimir Putin enjoys the rock-solid support of about 80%+ of the Russian population. The biggest strength of Russia in 2017 is a moral and a political one, it is the strength of a civilization which refuses to play by the rules which the West has successfully imposed on the rest of mankind. And now that Russia has successfully “pushed back” others will inevitably follow (again, especially in Asia).
While some dismissed this as rather ridiculous hyperbole, others have asked me to explain who I can to that conclusion. I have to admit that this paragraph is somewhat ambiguous: first I make a specific claim about the capabilities of the Russian military, and then the “evidence” that I present are of a moral and political nature! No wonder that some expressed reservations about this.
Actually, the above is a good example of one of my worst weaknesses: I tend to assume that I write for people who will make the same assumptions I do, look at issues the way I look at them, and understand what is implied. My bad. So today I will try to spell out what I mean and clarify my point of view on this issue. To do this, however, there are a number of premises which I think need to be explicitly spelled out.

First, how does one measure the quality of an armed force and how can armed forces from different countries be compared?
The first thing which need to immediately get out of the way is the absolutely useless practice known as “bean counting”: counting the numbers of tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry combat vehicles, artillery pieces, aircraft, helicopters and ships for country A and country B and come to some conclusion about which of the two is “stronger”. This is utterly meaningless. Next, two more myths need to be debunked: high tech wins wars and big money wins wars. Since I discussed these two myths in some detail elsewhere (here) I won’t repeat it all here.

Next, I submit that the purpose of a military force is to achieve a specific political objective. Nobody goes to war just for the sake of war and “victory” is not a military, but a political concept. So yes, war is the continuation of politics by other means. For example, the successful deterrence of a potential aggressor should be counted as a “victory” or, at least, as a successful performance of your armed forces if their goal was to deter. The definition of “victory” can include destroying the other guy’s armed forces, of course, but it does not have to. The British did win the war in the Malvinas/Falkands even though the Argentinian forces were far from destroyed. Sometimes the purpose of war is genocide, in which case just defeating a military forces is not enough. Let’s take a recent example: according to an official statement by Vladimir Putin, the official objectives of the Russian military intervention in Syria were to 1) stabilize the legitimate authority and 2) create conditions for a political compromise. It is undeniable that the Russian armed forces fully reached this two objectives, but they did so without the need for the kind of “victory” which implies a total destruction of your enemies forces. In fact, Russia could have used nuclear weapons and carpet bombing to wipe Daesh, but that would have resulted in a political catastrophe for Russia. Would that have been a “military victory”? You tell me!

So, if the purpose of a country’s armed forces is to achieve specific and political objectives, this directly implies that saying that some country’s armed forces can do anything, anywhere and at any time is nonsense. You cannot access a military outside a very specific set of circumstances:

1) Where: Space/geographical
2) When: Time/duration
3) What: political objective

Yet, what we see, especially in the USA, is a diametrically opposite approach. It goes something like this: we have the best trained, best equipped and best armed military on earth; no country can compete with our advanced stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, our pilots are the best trained on the planet, we have advanced network-centric warfare capabilities, global strike, space based reconnaissance and intelligence, we have aircraft carriers, our Delta Force can defeat any terrorist force, we spend more money training our special forces than any other country, we have more ships than any other nation, etc. etc. etc.

 This means absolutely nothing. The reality is that the US military played a secondary role in WWII in the European theater and that after that the only “kinda victory” it achieved is outright embarrassing: Grenada (barely), Panama (almost unopposed). I would agree that the US military was successful in deterring a Soviet attack, but I would also immediately point out that the Soviets then also successfully deterred a US attack. Is that a victory? The truth is that China also did not suffer from a Soviet or US attack, does that mean that the Chinese successfully deterred the Soviets or the Americans? If you reply ‘yes’ then you would have to accept that they did that at a fraction of the US costs, so whose military was more effective – the US or the Chinese one? Then look at all the other US military interventions, there is a decent list here, what did those military operations really achieve. If I had to pick a “least bad one” I would reluctantly pick the Desert Storm which did liberate Kuwait from the Iraqis, but at what cost and with what consequences?!
In the vast majority of cases, when the quality of the Russian armed forces is assessed, it is always in comparison to the US armed forces. But does that make sense to compare the Russian armed forces to a military which has a long record of not achieving the specific political objectives it was given? Yes, the US armed forces are huge, bloated, they are the most expensive on the planet, the most technology-intensive and their rather mediocre actual performance is systematically obfuscated by the most powerful propaganda machine on the planet. But does any of that make them effective? I submit that far from being effective, they are fantastically wasteful and amazingly ineffective, at least from a military point of view.

Still dubious?

Okay. Let’s take the “best of the best”: the US special forces. Please name me three successful operations executed by US special forces. No, small size skirmishes against poorly trained and poorly equipped 3rd world insurgents killed in a surprise attack don’t qualify. What would be the US equivalent of, say, Operation Storm-333 or the liberation of the entire Crimean Peninsula without a single person killed? In fact, there is a reason why most Hollywood blockbusters about US special forces are based on abject defeats such as Black Hawk Down or 13 hours.

As for US high-teach, I don’t think that I need to dwell too deeply on the nightmares of the F-35 or the Zumwalt-class destroyer or explain how sloppy tactics made it possible for the Serbian Air Defenses to shoot down a super-secret and putatively “invisible” F-117A in 1999 using an ancient Soviet-era S-125 missile first deployed in 1961!

There is no Schadenfreude for me in reminding everybody of these facts. My point is to try to break the mental reflex which conditions so many people to consider the US military as some kind of measuring stick of how all the other armed forces on the planet do perform. This reflex is the result of propaganda and ignorance, not any rational reason. The same goes, by the way, for the other hyper-propagandized military – the Israeli IDF whose armored forces, pilots and infantrymen are always presented as amazingly well-trained and competent. The reality is, of course, that in 2006 the IDF could not even secure the small town of Bint Jbeil located just 2 miles from the Israeli border. For 28 days the IDF tried to wrestle the control of Bint Jbeil from second rate Hezbollah forces (Hezbollah kept its first rate forces north of the Litani river to protect Beirut) and totally failed in spite of having a huge numerical and technological superiority.

I have personally spoken to US officers who trained with the IDF and I can tell you that they were totally unimpressed. Just as Afghan guerrillas are absolutely unanimous when they say that the Soviet solider is a much better soldier than the US one.
Speaking of Afghanistan.

Do you remember that the Soviet 40th Army who was tasked with fighting the Afghan “freedom fighters” was mostly under-equipped, under-trained, and poorly supported in terms of logistics? Please read this appalling report about the sanitary conditions of the 40th Army and compare that with the 20 billion dollar per year the US spends on air-conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq! And then compare the US and Soviet occupations in terms of performance: not only did the Soviets control the entire country during the day (at night the Afghan controlled most of the country side and the roads), they also controlled all the major cities 24/7. In contrast, the US barely holds on to Kabul and entire provinces are in the hands of the insurgents. The Soviets built hospitals, damns, airports, roads, bridges, etc. whereas the Americans built exactly nothing. And, as I already mentioned, in every interview I have seen the Afghans are unanimous: the Soviets were much tougher enemies than the Americans.

I could go on for pages and pages, but let’s stop here and simply accept that the PR image of the US (and Israeli) military has nothing to do with their actual capabilities and performance. There are things which the US military does very well (long distance deployment, submarine warfare in temperate waters, carrier operations, etc.) but their overall effectiveness and efficiency is pretty low.

So what makes the Russian armed forces so good?

For one thing, their mission, to defend Russia, is commensurate with the resources of the Russian Federation. Even if Putin wanted it, Russia does not have the capabilities to built 10 aircraft carriers, deploy hundreds of overseas bases or spend more on “defense” than the rest of mankind combined. The specific political objective given to the Russian military is quite simple: to deter or repel any attack against Russia.

Second, to accomplish this mission the Russian armed forces need to be able to strike and prevail at a maxial distance of 1000km or less from the Russian border. Official Russian military doctrine places the limits of a strategic offensive operation a bit further and include the complete defeat of enemy forces and occupation of his territory to a depth of 1200km-1500km (Война и Мир в Терминах и Определениях, Дмитрий Рогозин, Москва, Вече, 2011, p.155) but in reality this distance would be much shorter, especially in the case of a defensive counter-attack. Make no mistake, this remains a formidable task due to the immense length of the Russian border (over 20’000km of border) running over almost every imaginable type of geography, from dry deserts and mountains to the North pole region. And here is the amazing thing: the Russian armed forces are currently capable of defeating any conceivable enemy all along this perimeter. Putin himself said so recently when he declared that “We can say with certainty: We are stronger now than any potential aggressor, any!” I realize that for a mostly American audience this will sound like the typical garden variety claptrap every US officer or politician has to say at every public occasion, but in the Russian context this is something quite new: Putin had never said anything like that before. If anything, the Russian prefer to whine about numerically superior their adversaries seem to be (well, they are, numerically – which every Russian military analyst knows means nothing).

Numerically, the Russian forces are, indeed, much smaller than NATO’s or China’s. In fact, one could argue for the size of the Russian Federation, the Russian armed forces are rather small. True. But they are formidable, well-balanced in terms of capabilities and they make maximal use of the unique geographical features of Russia.

[Sidebar: Russia is a far more “northern” country than, say, Canada or Norway. Look at where the vast majority of the cities and towns in Canada or Scandinavia are located. Then look at a map of Russia and the latitudes at which the Russian cities are located. The difference is quite striking. Take the example of Novosibirsk, which in Russia is considered a southern Siberian town. It is almost at the same latitude as Edinburgh, Scotland, Grande Prairie, Alberta or Malmö in Sweden]

This is why all the equipment used by the Russian Armed Forces has to be certified operational from temperatures ranging from -50C to +50C (-58F to 122F). Most western gear can’t even operate in such extremes. Of course, the same also goes for the Russian solider who is also trained to operate in this range of temperatures.
I don’t think that there is another military out there who can claim to have such capabilities, and most definitely not the American armed forces.

Another myth which must be debunked is the one of western technological superiority. While it is true that in some specific fields the Soviets were never able to catch up with the West, microchips for example, that did not prevent them from being the first ones to deploy a large list of military technologies such as phased-array radars on interceptors, helmet-mounted sights for pilots, supercavitating underwater missiles, autoloaders on tanks, parachute deployable armored vehicles, double-hulled attack submarines, road-mobile ICBMs, etc. As a rule, western weapon systems tend to be more tech-heavy, that is true, but that is not due to a lack of Russian capabilities, but to a fundamental difference in design. In the West, weapon systems are designed by engineers who cobble together the latest technologies and then design a mission around them. In Russia, the military defines a mission and then seeks the simplest and cheapest technologies which can be used to accomplish it. This is why the Russian MiG-29 (1982) was not a “fly-by-wire” like the US F-16 (1978) but operated by “old” mechanical flight controls. I would add here that a more advanced airframe and two engines instead of one for the F-16, gave the MiG-29 a superior flight envelope. When needed, however, the Russians did use fly-by-wire, for example, on the Su-27 (1985).
Last but not least, the Russian nuclear forces are currently more modern and much more capable than the comparatively aging US nuclear triad.  Even the Americans admit that.

So what does that all mean?

This means that in spite of being tasked with an immensely difficult mission, to prevail against any possible enemy along the 20’000+km of the Russian border and to a depth of 1000km, the Russian armed forces have consistently shown that they are capable of fulfilling the specific political objective of either deterring or defeating their potential enemy, be it a Wahabi insurgency (which the western pundits described as “unbeatable”), a western trained and equipped Georgian military (in spite of being numerically inferior during the crucial hours of the war and in spite of major problems and weaknesses in command and control), the disarmament of 25’000+ Ukrainian (supposedly “crack”) troops in Crimea without a single shot fired in anger and, of course, the Russian military intervention in the war in Syria were a tiny Russian force turned the tide of the war.

In conclusion, I want to come back to my statement about Russia being the only country which now openly dares to reject the western civilizational model and whose leader, Vladimir Putin, enjoys the support of 80%+ of the population. These two factors are crucial in the assessment of the capabilities of the Russian armed forces. Why? Because they illustrate the fact that the Russian soldiers knows exactly what he fights for (or against) and that when he is deployed somewhere, he is not deployed as a tool for Gazprom, Norilsk Nickel, Sberbank or any other Russian corporation: he knows that he is fighting for his country, his people, his culture, for their freedom and safety. Furthermore, the Russian soldier also knows that the use of military force is not the first and preferred option of his government, but the last one which is used only when all other options have been exhausted. He knows that the Russian High Command, the Kremlin and the General Staff are not hell-bent on finding some small country to beat up just to make an example and scare the others. Last but not least, the Russian solider is willing to die for his country and while executing any order.  The Russians are quite aware of that and this is why the following

At the end of the day, the outcome of any war is decided by willpower, I firmly believe that and I also believe that it is the “simple” infantry private who is the most important factor in a war, not the super-trained superman.  In Russia they are sometimes called “makhra” – the young kids from the infantry, not good looking, not particularly macho, with no special gear or training. They are the ones who defeated the Wahabis in Chechnia, at a huge cost, but they did. They are the one which produce an amazing number of heroes who amaze their comrades and enemies with their tenacity and courage. They don’t look to good in parades and they are often forgotten. But they are the ones which defeated more empires than any other and who made Russia the biggest country on earth.

So yes, Russia currently does have the most capable armed forces on the planet.  There are plenty of countries out there who also have excellent armed forces.  But what makes the Russian ones unique is the scope of their capabilities which range from anti-terrorist operations to international nuclear war combined with the amazing resilience and willpower of the Russian solider.  There are plenty of things the Russian military cannot do, but unlike the US armed forces, the Russian military was never designed to do anything, anywhere, anytime (aka “win two and a half wars” anywhere on the planet).

For the time being, the Russians are watching how the US cannot even take a small city like Mosul, even though it had to supplement the local forces with plenty of US and NATO “support” and they are unimpressed, to say the least.  But Hollywood will surely make a great blockbuster from this embarrassing failure and there will be more medals handed out than personnel involved (this is what happened after the Grenada disaster).  And the TV watching crowd will be reassured that “while the Russians did make some progress, their forces are still a far cry from their western counterparts”.  Who cares?

The Saker

 Pro Deo et Constitutione – 
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis 
Paratus et Fidelis 

Joseph F Barber

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 






LIKE










URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS 

Click to Donate Now!


Those Questioning Trump’s Legitimacy


The Extraordinary Array of Those Questioning Trump’s Legitimacy 



 It is an extraordinary situation. The ruling class seems by and large quite shocked by the election result. Donald Trump is surely a representative of the class—in that he’s a billionaire for god sake—but, for the majority of the richest and most powerful, not their preferred choice as chief executive of the USA. This is apparent by Trump’s treatment at the hands of the corporate media (that he continues to insult), by the foreign policy establishment, by the intelligence agencies (which he sometimes disparages), by Congressional leaders of both parties who generally regret that he won. The Deep State seems to have its knives drawn for him.
Wall Street would have been comfortable—equally comfortable—with Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton as president. The RNC and DNC—the Central Committees of the official Two Parties—are huge concentrations of bourgeois power. Reince Priebus and Debbie Schulz Wasserman as their chairs were creatures of the status quo. The pundits favored Bush to win the Republican nomination, or maybe Cruz (despite his unpopularity among his peers), or maybe Rubio; Trump was an amusing long shot. And of course they assumed that Clinton would be the Democratic shoo-in. What could go wrong?

Things started to go wrong when the Trump campaign, treated to limitless free media exposure, spiraled out of control. The more outrageous Trump became, the more he attracted, first the Neanderthals, and then the more thoughtful types who thought, “Hm, looks like he could win. He’s awful, but at least he’s better than her.” And there are always plenty of opportunists like Giuliani, Christie and Carson willing to jump on a bandwagon that looks headed to possible victory.

In alarm, prominent Republicans including Mitt Romney expressed open disdain. In August 50 GOP former intelligence officers signed a statement opposing Trump, including CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, former Dick Cheney security adviser Eric Edelman, former Homeland Security secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and former deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick. In October 55 retired flag military officers signed a statement declaring Trump “utterly unworthy of being commander-in-chief and president.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, the most powerful figure at the time in the Republican Party, who only endorsed Trump in June, was by one count obliged to distance himself from the candidate eight times by August and declined to campaign for him.
Alas, despite all this confusion and alarm within the ruling class, the Trump genie had been let out of the bottle.

And what of Clinton’s smooth path to power, to be paved by such experienced political operatives as campaign director John Podesta and Wasserman Schulz? Something started going very wrong when Bernie Sanders kept getting massive youthful crowds who were anything but turned off by an elderly Jewish socialist talking about college debt relief. They were so confidant of the pervasiveness of their own tired Cold War thinking among the masses that they assumed no self-avowed socialist could gather any momentum. The fools!

And then there were those Wikileaks emails (allegedly hacked by Russians) showing how the DNC chair had assured her colleagues that they needn’t be “silly,” because Sanders “won’t be president”; how one staffer had raised the prospect of labeling Sanders an atheist in largely evangelical districts; how Podesta had recommended using press contacts to promote Trump as one of the more easily defeatable of the Republican candidates.

This plus the (separate) issue of Hillary’s use of a home server for emails, and alleged violations of security policy and accountability, and Comey’s sudden reopening of the investigation so soon before the election. There was no enthusiasm for Clinton, and especially among the youth, a lot of simmering resentment that the primary process had been rigged. If the Clinton camp smugly expected the Sanders supporters (having been “brought into the political process”) would channel their much-praised “enthusiasm” into a Clinton vs. Trump race, they were optimistic. Many enraged Sanders supporters would never defile themselves with a Clinton vote.

And so, a corrupt process produced a uniquely unpopular president-elect. And now you have a unique convergence of forces all questioning Trump’s legitimacy to rule, but for different reasons.
Rep. John Lewis says he can’t accept Trump because Russia helped him get elected; his vow to boycott the inauguration ceremony has been embraced (so far) by over 40 other members of Congress. Similarly, the Deep State can’t accept him because he wants rapprochement with Russia. Suddenly all the liberal shills on TV are expressing reverence for Lewis’s civil rights legacy and associations with Martin Luther King alongside moral outrage at the charges leveled against Moscow by the Deep State. How strange to see Rachel Maddow and John Brennan in bed together.
There will be tens of thousands of protesters on the cold streets of DC on Friday chanting “He’s not my president!” mostly for the reasons touted endlessly by the DNC: he’s a racist, misogynist, bigot, who lost the popular vote. Some will add to the charges “He’s a Putin puppet,” thus making common cause with the worst war mongers who remain firmly lodged in the power structure and (despite his promises of good relations with Russia) around Trump himself.

The Revolutionary Communist Party on the other hand says we can’t accept Trump because he’s a fascist. Their manifesto calling for mass protests to “reach a crescendo January 20” declares:
“By any definition, Trump is a fascist… [Fascism] is a very serious thing. It has direction and momentum and must be stopped before it becomes too late. Fascism foments and relies on xenophobic nationalism, racism, misogyny, and the aggressive re-institution of oppressive ‘traditional values.’ Fascism feeds on and encourages the threat and use of violence to build a movement and come to power. Fascism, once in power, essentially eliminates traditional democratic rights. Fascism attacks, jails, even executes its opponents, and launches violent mob attacks on ‘minorities.’ In Nazi Germany in the 1930s and ’40s, fascism did all these things. This is where this can go.”

No mention of any supposed Putin-Trump “bromance.” Not that there should be. But the radical left—preoccupied with opposing more imperialist wars in the Middle East—is not much given to analysis of the U.S.-Russian relationship, or reflection on the very real possibility of nuclear war triggered by events in Ukraine, Syria or even the Estonia.

The U.S. possesses 7,100 nuclear warheads, Russia 7,300. (France is thought to have 300, China 260, the UK 215, Pakistan 140, India 110, Israel 80, North Korea 8.) A U.S.-Russian war could destroy civilization, not by blowing up monuments and orchestrating acts of exemplary horror, raping, crucifying and beheading children, but by obliterating whole cities the way the U.S. obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, worse, much, much worse next time than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That Trump’s few vague words about friendship with (as opposed to belligerency towards) Russia should set him up for this “Putin’s puppet” charge quietly intimated on the one hand by voices within the Deep State hoping to shame Trump into towing the new Cold war line, and on the other hand by John Lewis-type liberals eager to hop on the Cold War bandwagon to justify their rejection of the president-elect, should disturb any thinking person. It is the patriotic union of all who can be united over the traditional, knee-jerk Russophobia.

How can the progressive anti-Trump movement move forward, if it either embraces this narrative of Russian “interference in the U.S. election” (which is based, after all, on the premise that whoever leaked the damning DNC and Podesta messages showing how the DNC worked to promote Trump’s candidacy, and to curtail Sanders’ support, thereby influenced public opinion against Clinton whereas public opinion should have been mercifully spared the information), or fails to target it as misinformation and war mongering?

If the goal is to so isolate Trump that he is somehow driven from power, one would like the antiwar masses to smash the corrupt system, build a new society and avoid war. One would not like to make common cause with those who hate Trump, not for his fascistic tendencies, but for his challenge to the warmongering neocon/liberal interventionist status quo that wants to maintain a posture of unremitting hostility towards Russia.
Without analyzing these dialectics, how can those who long for revolution—as I do—navigate the post-election political situation, and exploit the crisis to serve the people’s ends?

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. 



LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 

LIKE
FOLLOW
SAVE TO FACEBOOK

SEND TO A FRIEND  

SHARE THIS

YOUTUBE  

URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS 


The Extraordinary Array of Those Questioning Trump’s Legitimacy 



 It is an extraordinary situation. The ruling class seems by and large quite shocked by the election result. Donald Trump is surely a representative of the class—in that he’s a billionaire for god sake—but, for the majority of the richest and most powerful, not their preferred choice as chief executive of the USA. This is apparent by Trump’s treatment at the hands of the corporate media (that he continues to insult), by the foreign policy establishment, by the intelligence agencies (which he sometimes disparages), by Congressional leaders of both parties who generally regret that he won. The Deep State seems to have its knives drawn for him.
Wall Street would have been comfortable—equally comfortable—with Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton as president. The RNC and DNC—the Central Committees of the official Two Parties—are huge concentrations of bourgeois power. Reince Priebus and Debbie Schulz Wasserman as their chairs were creatures of the status quo. The pundits favored Bush to win the Republican nomination, or maybe Cruz (despite his unpopularity among his peers), or maybe Rubio; Trump was an amusing long shot. And of course they assumed that Clinton would be the Democratic shoo-in. What could go wrong?

Things started to go wrong when the Trump campaign, treated to limitless free media exposure, spiraled out of control. The more outrageous Trump became, the more he attracted, first the Neanderthals, and then the more thoughtful types who thought, “Hm, looks like he could win. He’s awful, but at least he’s better than her.” And there are always plenty of opportunists like Giuliani, Christie and Carson willing to jump on a bandwagon that looks headed to possible victory.

In alarm, prominent Republicans including Mitt Romney expressed open disdain. In August 50 GOP former intelligence officers signed a statement opposing Trump, including CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, former Dick Cheney security adviser Eric Edelman, former Homeland Security secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and former deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick. In October 55 retired flag military officers signed a statement declaring Trump “utterly unworthy of being commander-in-chief and president.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, the most powerful figure at the time in the Republican Party, who only endorsed Trump in June, was by one count obliged to distance himself from the candidate eight times by August and declined to campaign for him.
Alas, despite all this confusion and alarm within the ruling class, the Trump genie had been let out of the bottle.

And what of Clinton’s smooth path to power, to be paved by such experienced political operatives as campaign director John Podesta and Wasserman Schulz? Something started going very wrong when Bernie Sanders kept getting massive youthful crowds who were anything but turned off by an elderly Jewish socialist talking about college debt relief. They were so confidant of the pervasiveness of their own tired Cold War thinking among the masses that they assumed no self-avowed socialist could gather any momentum. The fools!

And then there were those Wikileaks emails (allegedly hacked by Russians) showing how the DNC chair had assured her colleagues that they needn’t be “silly,” because Sanders “won’t be president”; how one staffer had raised the prospect of labeling Sanders an atheist in largely evangelical districts; how Podesta had recommended using press contacts to promote Trump as one of the more easily defeatable of the Republican candidates.

This plus the (separate) issue of Hillary’s use of a home server for emails, and alleged violations of security policy and accountability, and Comey’s sudden reopening of the investigation so soon before the election. There was no enthusiasm for Clinton, and especially among the youth, a lot of simmering resentment that the primary process had been rigged. If the Clinton camp smugly expected the Sanders supporters (having been “brought into the political process”) would channel their much-praised “enthusiasm” into a Clinton vs. Trump race, they were optimistic. Many enraged Sanders supporters would never defile themselves with a Clinton vote.

And so, a corrupt process produced a uniquely unpopular president-elect. And now you have a unique convergence of forces all questioning Trump’s legitimacy to rule, but for different reasons.
Rep. John Lewis says he can’t accept Trump because Russia helped him get elected; his vow to boycott the inauguration ceremony has been embraced (so far) by over 40 other members of Congress. Similarly, the Deep State can’t accept him because he wants rapprochement with Russia. Suddenly all the liberal shills on TV are expressing reverence for Lewis’s civil rights legacy and associations with Martin Luther King alongside moral outrage at the charges leveled against Moscow by the Deep State. How strange to see Rachel Maddow and John Brennan in bed together.
There will be tens of thousands of protesters on the cold streets of DC on Friday chanting “He’s not my president!” mostly for the reasons touted endlessly by the DNC: he’s a racist, misogynist, bigot, who lost the popular vote. Some will add to the charges “He’s a Putin puppet,” thus making common cause with the worst war mongers who remain firmly lodged in the power structure and (despite his promises of good relations with Russia) around Trump himself.

The Revolutionary Communist Party on the other hand says we can’t accept Trump because he’s a fascist. Their manifesto calling for mass protests to “reach a crescendo January 20” declares:
“By any definition, Trump is a fascist… [Fascism] is a very serious thing. It has direction and momentum and must be stopped before it becomes too late. Fascism foments and relies on xenophobic nationalism, racism, misogyny, and the aggressive re-institution of oppressive ‘traditional values.’ Fascism feeds on and encourages the threat and use of violence to build a movement and come to power. Fascism, once in power, essentially eliminates traditional democratic rights. Fascism attacks, jails, even executes its opponents, and launches violent mob attacks on ‘minorities.’ In Nazi Germany in the 1930s and ’40s, fascism did all these things. This is where this can go.”

No mention of any supposed Putin-Trump “bromance.” Not that there should be. But the radical left—preoccupied with opposing more imperialist wars in the Middle East—is not much given to analysis of the U.S.-Russian relationship, or reflection on the very real possibility of nuclear war triggered by events in Ukraine, Syria or even the Estonia.

The U.S. possesses 7,100 nuclear warheads, Russia 7,300. (France is thought to have 300, China 260, the UK 215, Pakistan 140, India 110, Israel 80, North Korea 8.) A U.S.-Russian war could destroy civilization, not by blowing up monuments and orchestrating acts of exemplary horror, raping, crucifying and beheading children, but by obliterating whole cities the way the U.S. obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, worse, much, much worse next time than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That Trump’s few vague words about friendship with (as opposed to belligerency towards) Russia should set him up for this “Putin’s puppet” charge quietly intimated on the one hand by voices within the Deep State hoping to shame Trump into towing the new Cold war line, and on the other hand by John Lewis-type liberals eager to hop on the Cold War bandwagon to justify their rejection of the president-elect, should disturb any thinking person. It is the patriotic union of all who can be united over the traditional, knee-jerk Russophobia.

How can the progressive anti-Trump movement move forward, if it either embraces this narrative of Russian “interference in the U.S. election” (which is based, after all, on the premise that whoever leaked the damning DNC and Podesta messages showing how the DNC worked to promote Trump’s candidacy, and to curtail Sanders’ support, thereby influenced public opinion against Clinton whereas public opinion should have been mercifully spared the information), or fails to target it as misinformation and war mongering?

If the goal is to so isolate Trump that he is somehow driven from power, one would like the antiwar masses to smash the corrupt system, build a new society and avoid war. One would not like to make common cause with those who hate Trump, not for his fascistic tendencies, but for his challenge to the warmongering neocon/liberal interventionist status quo that wants to maintain a posture of unremitting hostility towards Russia.
Without analyzing these dialectics, how can those who long for revolution—as I do—navigate the post-election political situation, and exploit the crisis to serve the people’s ends?

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. 



LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 

LIKE
FOLLOW
SAVE TO FACEBOOK

SEND TO A FRIEND  

SHARE THIS

YOUTUBE  

URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS 



Facebook & NSA Opening a Mind-Reading Division of Facebook

Facebook & NSA Opening a Mind-Reading Division of Facebook


Facebook, (i.e. Spybook) is opening a division of research with the NSA. And what are they researching? The use of mind-reading on social media. This sounds incredible, but it is unquestionably true. Here are the details

Facebook & NSA Opening a Mind-Reading Division of Facebook


Facebook, (i.e. Spybook) is opening a division of research with the NSA. And what are they researching? The use of mind-reading on social media. This sounds incredible, but it is unquestionably true. Here are the details



DUMB AS A POST AWARD:


Maxine Waters and John Lewis

DUMB AS A POST AWARD: Desperate Democrat calls for Trump Impeachment


Maxine Waters and John Lewis

DUMB AS A POST AWARD: Desperate Democrat calls for Trump Impeachment



Not moderate; not radical: simply Islam

Connor Cruise O’Brien back in 1995 tried to warn the world that what is happening is not some aberrant phenomenon called radical Islam, but a revival of authentic Islam itself


Not moderate; not radical: simply Islam


I remember several years ago reading the words of the late and much missed Dr. Conor Cruise O’Brien. The good doctor was referring to the erroneous belief that there is such a thing as moderate Islam set against radical Islam.

This eminent statesman known as “the Cruiser” was one of the most remarkable scholars, historians, authors, intellectuals and politicians that modern Ireland ever produced.

O’Brien who was born in Dublin in 1917 and who died in 2008, declared that for the past two centuries Islam has been dominated by the “House of War” (dar al-Islam) which calls for unremitting warfare against all non-Muslims.

He pointed out that it is intolerable to Muslims that Islam is not ascendant enough and that the remedy is jihad, not the struggle for inner peace that Muslim apologists falsely claim, but rather the violent struggle against non-believers which is a religious obligation imposed by Mohammad upon all Muslims.



“Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religion”
O’Brien’s view publicized in Britain’s liberal newspaper, the Independent, some twenty one years ago was not well received then, just as liberals and the ossified but vicious Left today still refuse to accept its reality. His words would certainly be derided by the apologist for Islam in chief; the man who infested the Oval Office of the White House during his last eight baleful years.

Dr. O’Brien was adamant that it was dangerous to talk about radical Islam for it falsely implied that there is some other kind of Islam; one which is well disposed and tolerant to non-Muslims. He baldly stated that there is no other kind and that Islam is “universalist, triumphant and highly political.”

Winston Churchill himself much earlier had written that, “Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religion.”

Want more proof? This from the words of the increasingly Islamist and dictatorial leader of Turkey, Tayip Recip Erdogan? Here is what he said as far back as 2009 when interviewed on Kanal TV’s Arena program about suggesting that there is both radical and/or moderate Islam.

“˜These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Islam does not mean peace; it means submission - not to the will of the people as in a democracy - but to the will of Allah.


The same Islam which rages today in hideous terrorism around the world and in America is the same which swept across the then known world from the 7th century onwards.


The many disputes and conflicts in the Middle East and throughout much of the world in which Islam is present are both territorial and theological
Mohammed showed the way in how he wanted his beliefs imposed upon all non-believers of Islam. He treated with the utmost cruelty the Jewish tribes in Arabia who held steadfast to their ancient faith and refused to accept his new Islam. He had all the men beheaded and the women and children sold into slavery.

He meted out similar horrors to Christian tribes while his followers in subsequent years carried his message far and wide with a sword in one hand and a Koran in the other. Are not the horrors today in Syria, Iraq and Yemen those very same horrors?

The many disputes and conflicts in the Middle East and throughout much of the world in which Islam is present are both territorial and theological. The conflict between Israel and the Arab world, for instance, has its origins in the Bible when the Amalekites, Moabites, Edomites, and hordes of other Arabs warred against Israel. We see their genocidal intent in Psalm 83, when we see in verses 4 and 5 their wish to destroy ancient Israel:

“Come and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent; they are confederate against thee …”

Now fast forward to January 15, 2017 and eerily a pro-Arab conference in Paris attended by 70 nations was attempting yet again to “cut off the name of Israel from being a nation.”

This infamy followed the UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry engineered, implying that the Jewish and Christian holy places in Jerusalem were illegal and that all the sites should be ruled by Islam and by the fraudulent Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

 Dr. O’Brien knew too well how hollow the belief was that the United Nations was a bastion of morality and he would have been horrified by Res. 2334. He famously once said that, “You can safely appeal to the UN in the comfortable certainty that it will let you down.”

Over the centuries in Islam, there developed basic ideas, which are critical to understanding the Middle East conflict today but especially the Israel-Palestinian dispute. One is that all lands are to be subjected to Allah and that once a land is thus subjected, it must forever remain in Allah’s dominion. Thus jihad (Holy War) becomes an urgent necessity in order to reclaim all lands which have been lost to Islam.

This, of course, is the situation with modern Israel today. But it is also the same condition for other territories lost to Islam including, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, parts of France, Greece, the Balkans and southern Russia, which all fell at one time under the yoke of Islamic occupation and Sharia law.

In a sense, the rebirth of Israel undermines the credibility of Islam. The Muslims are obligated by Allah’s injunction to wage relentless war and terror against Israel. Thus any territory Israel gives away in the hope of appeasing the Muslim world - the so-called land for peace and the two-state-solution - is a tragic and fatal delusion. Even if Israel was reduced to one square city block in Jerusalem, the Muslim and Arab world would still wage endless war and terror against it.

Some well-meaning Christians and Jews have been lulled into believing that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all happily worship the same God. But the nature and character of the Islamic god, Allah, is not the same as God who is revealed in the Bible and who is worshipped by Jews and Christians.

Connor Cruise O’Brien back in 1995 tried to warn the world that what is happening is not some aberrant phenomenon called radical Islam, but a revival of authentic Islam itself.

Tragically too many people in government, the media and within many houses of worship still remain under a self-imposed veritable veil of deception.

Victor Sharpe


LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 


LIKE

FOLLOW

SAVE TO FACEBOOK

SEND TO A FRIEND  

SHARE THIS

YOUTUBE  
URBAN-SURVIVAL- PACKS Click to Donate Now!

Connor Cruise O’Brien back in 1995 tried to warn the world that what is happening is not some aberrant phenomenon called radical Islam, but a revival of authentic Islam itself


Not moderate; not radical: simply Islam


I remember several years ago reading the words of the late and much missed Dr. Conor Cruise O’Brien. The good doctor was referring to the erroneous belief that there is such a thing as moderate Islam set against radical Islam.

This eminent statesman known as “the Cruiser” was one of the most remarkable scholars, historians, authors, intellectuals and politicians that modern Ireland ever produced.

O’Brien who was born in Dublin in 1917 and who died in 2008, declared that for the past two centuries Islam has been dominated by the “House of War” (dar al-Islam) which calls for unremitting warfare against all non-Muslims.

He pointed out that it is intolerable to Muslims that Islam is not ascendant enough and that the remedy is jihad, not the struggle for inner peace that Muslim apologists falsely claim, but rather the violent struggle against non-believers which is a religious obligation imposed by Mohammad upon all Muslims.



“Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religion”
O’Brien’s view publicized in Britain’s liberal newspaper, the Independent, some twenty one years ago was not well received then, just as liberals and the ossified but vicious Left today still refuse to accept its reality. His words would certainly be derided by the apologist for Islam in chief; the man who infested the Oval Office of the White House during his last eight baleful years.

Dr. O’Brien was adamant that it was dangerous to talk about radical Islam for it falsely implied that there is some other kind of Islam; one which is well disposed and tolerant to non-Muslims. He baldly stated that there is no other kind and that Islam is “universalist, triumphant and highly political.”

Winston Churchill himself much earlier had written that, “Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religion.”

Want more proof? This from the words of the increasingly Islamist and dictatorial leader of Turkey, Tayip Recip Erdogan? Here is what he said as far back as 2009 when interviewed on Kanal TV’s Arena program about suggesting that there is both radical and/or moderate Islam.

“˜These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Islam does not mean peace; it means submission - not to the will of the people as in a democracy - but to the will of Allah.


The same Islam which rages today in hideous terrorism around the world and in America is the same which swept across the then known world from the 7th century onwards.


The many disputes and conflicts in the Middle East and throughout much of the world in which Islam is present are both territorial and theological
Mohammed showed the way in how he wanted his beliefs imposed upon all non-believers of Islam. He treated with the utmost cruelty the Jewish tribes in Arabia who held steadfast to their ancient faith and refused to accept his new Islam. He had all the men beheaded and the women and children sold into slavery.

He meted out similar horrors to Christian tribes while his followers in subsequent years carried his message far and wide with a sword in one hand and a Koran in the other. Are not the horrors today in Syria, Iraq and Yemen those very same horrors?

The many disputes and conflicts in the Middle East and throughout much of the world in which Islam is present are both territorial and theological. The conflict between Israel and the Arab world, for instance, has its origins in the Bible when the Amalekites, Moabites, Edomites, and hordes of other Arabs warred against Israel. We see their genocidal intent in Psalm 83, when we see in verses 4 and 5 their wish to destroy ancient Israel:

“Come and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent; they are confederate against thee …”

Now fast forward to January 15, 2017 and eerily a pro-Arab conference in Paris attended by 70 nations was attempting yet again to “cut off the name of Israel from being a nation.”

This infamy followed the UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry engineered, implying that the Jewish and Christian holy places in Jerusalem were illegal and that all the sites should be ruled by Islam and by the fraudulent Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

 Dr. O’Brien knew too well how hollow the belief was that the United Nations was a bastion of morality and he would have been horrified by Res. 2334. He famously once said that, “You can safely appeal to the UN in the comfortable certainty that it will let you down.”

Over the centuries in Islam, there developed basic ideas, which are critical to understanding the Middle East conflict today but especially the Israel-Palestinian dispute. One is that all lands are to be subjected to Allah and that once a land is thus subjected, it must forever remain in Allah’s dominion. Thus jihad (Holy War) becomes an urgent necessity in order to reclaim all lands which have been lost to Islam.

This, of course, is the situation with modern Israel today. But it is also the same condition for other territories lost to Islam including, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, parts of France, Greece, the Balkans and southern Russia, which all fell at one time under the yoke of Islamic occupation and Sharia law.

In a sense, the rebirth of Israel undermines the credibility of Islam. The Muslims are obligated by Allah’s injunction to wage relentless war and terror against Israel. Thus any territory Israel gives away in the hope of appeasing the Muslim world - the so-called land for peace and the two-state-solution - is a tragic and fatal delusion. Even if Israel was reduced to one square city block in Jerusalem, the Muslim and Arab world would still wage endless war and terror against it.

Some well-meaning Christians and Jews have been lulled into believing that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all happily worship the same God. But the nature and character of the Islamic god, Allah, is not the same as God who is revealed in the Bible and who is worshipped by Jews and Christians.

Connor Cruise O’Brien back in 1995 tried to warn the world that what is happening is not some aberrant phenomenon called radical Islam, but a revival of authentic Islam itself.

Tragically too many people in government, the media and within many houses of worship still remain under a self-imposed veritable veil of deception.

Victor Sharpe


LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 


LIKE

FOLLOW

SAVE TO FACEBOOK

SEND TO A FRIEND  

SHARE THIS

YOUTUBE  
URBAN-SURVIVAL- PACKS Click to Donate Now!



Does a Rogue Deep State Have Trump's Back?

Does a Rogue Deep State Have Trump's Back?

Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.

Suddenly everybody is referring to the Deep State, typically without offering much of a definition.

The general definition is the unelected government that continues making and implementing policy regardless of who is in elected office.

I have been writing about this structure for 10 years and studying it from the outside for 40 years. Back in 2007, I called it the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance, which is a more concise description of the structure than Deep State. Going to War with the Political Elite You Have (May 14, 2007).

I've used this simplified chart to explain the basic structure of the Deep State, which is the complex network of state-funded and/or controlled institutions, agencies, foundations, university research projects, media ties, etc.

The key point here is you can't separate these network nodes: you cannot separate DARPA, the national labs (nukes, energy, etc.), the National Science Foundation, DoD (Department of Defense), the National Security State (alphabet soup of intelligence/black budget agencies: CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.), Silicon Valley and the research universities: they are all tied together by funding, information flows, personnel and a thousand other connections.

For the past few years, I have been suggesting there is a profound split in the Deep State that is not just about power or ideology, but about the nature and future of National Security: in other words, what policies and priorities are actually weakening or threatening the long-term security of the United States?

I have proposed that there are progressive elements within the sprawling Deep State that view the dominant neocon-neoliberal agenda of the past 24 years as a disaster for the long-term security of the U.S. and its global interests (a.k.a. the Imperial Project).

There are also elements within the Deep State that view Wall Street's dominance as a threat to America's security and global interests. (This is not to say that American-based banks and corporations aren't essential parts of the Imperial Project; it's more about the question of who is controlling whom.)

So let's dig in by noting that the warmongers in the Deep State are civilians, not military. It's popular among so-called Liberals (the vast majority of whom did not serve nor do they have offspring in uniform--that's fallen to the disenfranchised and the working class) to see the military as a permanent source of warmongering.

(It's remarkably easy to send other people's children off to war, while your own little darlings have cush jobs in Wall Street, foundations, think tanks, academia, government agencies, etc.)

These misguided souls are ignoring that it's civilians who order the military to go into harm's way, not the other way around. The neocons who have waged permanent war as policy are virtually all civilians, few of whom served in the U.S. armed forces and none of whom (to my knowledge) have actual combat experience.

These civilian neocons were busily sacking and/or discrediting critics of their warmongering within the U.S. military all through the Iraqi debacle. now that we got that straightened out--active-duty service personnel have borne the brunt of civilian planned, ordered and executed warmongering--let's move on to the split between the civilian Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the DoD (Department of Defense) intelligence and special ops agencies: DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, etc.

Though we have to be careful not to paint a very large agency with one brush, it's fair to say that the civilian leadership of the CIA (and of its proxies and crony agencies) has long loved to "play army". The CIA has its own drone (a.k.a. Murder, Inc.) division, as well as its own special ops ("play army" Special Forces), and a hawkish mentality that civilians reckon is "play army special forces" (mostly from films, in which the CIA's role is carefully managed by the CIA itself: How the CIA Hoodwinked Hollywood (The Atlantic)

Meanwhile, it's not exactly a secret that when it comes to actual combat operations and warfighting, the CIA's in-theater intelligence is either useless, misleading or false. This is the result of a number of institutional failings of the CIA, number one of which is the high degree of politicization within its ranks and organizational structure.

The CIA's reliance on "analysis" rather than human agents (there's a lot of acronyms for all these, if you find proliferating acronyms of interest), and while some from-30,000-feet analysis can be useful, it's just as often catastrophically wrong.

We can fruitfully revisit the Bay of Pigs disaster, the result of warmongering civilians in the CIA convincing incoming President Kennedy that the planned invasion would free Cuba of Castro's rule in short order. There are many other examples, including the failure to grasp Saddam's willingness to invade Kuwait, given the mixed signals he was receiving from U.S. State Department personnel.

Simply put, if you are actually prosecuting a war, then you turn to the services' own intelligence agencies to help with actual combat operations, not the CIA. This is of course a sort of gossip, and reading between the lines of public information; nobody is going to state this directly in writing.
As I have noted before:

If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.

As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.

Many so-called Liberals are alarmed by the number of military officers Trump has appointed. Once you realize it's the neocon civilians who have promoted and led one disastrous military intervention (either with U.S. Armed Forces or proxies managed by the CIA) after another, then you understand Trump's appointments appear to be a decisive break from the civilian warmongers who've run the nation into the ground.

If you doubt this analysis, please consider the unprecedentedly politicized (and pathetically childish) comments by outgoing CIA director Brennan against an incoming president. Even if you can't stand Trump, please document another instance in which the CIA director went off on an incoming president-- and this after the CIA spewed a blatant misinformation campaign claiming a hacked Democratic Party email account constituted a successful Russian effort to influence the U.S. election--a surreal absurdity.

Let me translate for you: our chosen Insider lost the election; how dare you!

A number of observers are wondering if the CIA and its Deep State allies and cronies will work out a way to evict Trump from office or perhaps arrange a "lone gunman" or other "accident" to befall him. The roots of such speculations stretch back to Dallas, November 1963, when a "long gunman" with ties to the CIA and various CIA proxies assassinated President Kennedy, an avowed foe of the CIA.

Setting aside the shelfloads of books on the topic, both those defending the "lone gunman" thesis and those contesting it, the unprecedented extremes of institutionally organized and executed anti-Trump campaigns is worthy of our attention.

Given my thesis of a profound disunity in the Deep State, and the emergence of a progressive element hostile to neocons and neoliberalism (including Wall Street), then it's not much of a stretch to speculate that this rogue Deep State opposed to neocon-neoliberalism has Trump's back, as a new administration is pretty much the only hope to rid the nation's top echelons of the neocon-neoliberal policies that have driven the U.S. into the ground.

Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.

If you have wondered why academics like Paul Krugman and the CIA are on the same page, it's because they are simply facets of the same structure. Krugman is a vocal neoliberal, the CIA is vocally neocon: two sides of the same coin. I invite you to study the chart above with an open mind, and ponder the possibility that the Deep State is not monolithic, but deeply divided along the fault lines of Wall-Street-Neocons-Neoliberals and the progressive elements that rightly view the dominant neocon-neoliberals as a threat to U.S. national security, U.S. global interests and world peace.

We can speculate that some of these progressive elements view Trump with disdain for all the same reasons those outside the Deep State disdain him, but their decision tree is simple: if you want to rid America's Deep State of toxic neocon-neoliberalism before it destroys the nation, you hold your nose and go with Trump because he's the only hope you have. 

Does a Rogue Deep State Have Trump's Back?

Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.

Suddenly everybody is referring to the Deep State, typically without offering much of a definition.

The general definition is the unelected government that continues making and implementing policy regardless of who is in elected office.

I have been writing about this structure for 10 years and studying it from the outside for 40 years. Back in 2007, I called it the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance, which is a more concise description of the structure than Deep State. Going to War with the Political Elite You Have (May 14, 2007).

I've used this simplified chart to explain the basic structure of the Deep State, which is the complex network of state-funded and/or controlled institutions, agencies, foundations, university research projects, media ties, etc.

The key point here is you can't separate these network nodes: you cannot separate DARPA, the national labs (nukes, energy, etc.), the National Science Foundation, DoD (Department of Defense), the National Security State (alphabet soup of intelligence/black budget agencies: CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.), Silicon Valley and the research universities: they are all tied together by funding, information flows, personnel and a thousand other connections.

For the past few years, I have been suggesting there is a profound split in the Deep State that is not just about power or ideology, but about the nature and future of National Security: in other words, what policies and priorities are actually weakening or threatening the long-term security of the United States?

I have proposed that there are progressive elements within the sprawling Deep State that view the dominant neocon-neoliberal agenda of the past 24 years as a disaster for the long-term security of the U.S. and its global interests (a.k.a. the Imperial Project).

There are also elements within the Deep State that view Wall Street's dominance as a threat to America's security and global interests. (This is not to say that American-based banks and corporations aren't essential parts of the Imperial Project; it's more about the question of who is controlling whom.)

So let's dig in by noting that the warmongers in the Deep State are civilians, not military. It's popular among so-called Liberals (the vast majority of whom did not serve nor do they have offspring in uniform--that's fallen to the disenfranchised and the working class) to see the military as a permanent source of warmongering.

(It's remarkably easy to send other people's children off to war, while your own little darlings have cush jobs in Wall Street, foundations, think tanks, academia, government agencies, etc.)

These misguided souls are ignoring that it's civilians who order the military to go into harm's way, not the other way around. The neocons who have waged permanent war as policy are virtually all civilians, few of whom served in the U.S. armed forces and none of whom (to my knowledge) have actual combat experience.

These civilian neocons were busily sacking and/or discrediting critics of their warmongering within the U.S. military all through the Iraqi debacle. now that we got that straightened out--active-duty service personnel have borne the brunt of civilian planned, ordered and executed warmongering--let's move on to the split between the civilian Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the DoD (Department of Defense) intelligence and special ops agencies: DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, etc.

Though we have to be careful not to paint a very large agency with one brush, it's fair to say that the civilian leadership of the CIA (and of its proxies and crony agencies) has long loved to "play army". The CIA has its own drone (a.k.a. Murder, Inc.) division, as well as its own special ops ("play army" Special Forces), and a hawkish mentality that civilians reckon is "play army special forces" (mostly from films, in which the CIA's role is carefully managed by the CIA itself: How the CIA Hoodwinked Hollywood (The Atlantic)

Meanwhile, it's not exactly a secret that when it comes to actual combat operations and warfighting, the CIA's in-theater intelligence is either useless, misleading or false. This is the result of a number of institutional failings of the CIA, number one of which is the high degree of politicization within its ranks and organizational structure.

The CIA's reliance on "analysis" rather than human agents (there's a lot of acronyms for all these, if you find proliferating acronyms of interest), and while some from-30,000-feet analysis can be useful, it's just as often catastrophically wrong.

We can fruitfully revisit the Bay of Pigs disaster, the result of warmongering civilians in the CIA convincing incoming President Kennedy that the planned invasion would free Cuba of Castro's rule in short order. There are many other examples, including the failure to grasp Saddam's willingness to invade Kuwait, given the mixed signals he was receiving from U.S. State Department personnel.

Simply put, if you are actually prosecuting a war, then you turn to the services' own intelligence agencies to help with actual combat operations, not the CIA. This is of course a sort of gossip, and reading between the lines of public information; nobody is going to state this directly in writing.
As I have noted before:

If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.

As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.

Many so-called Liberals are alarmed by the number of military officers Trump has appointed. Once you realize it's the neocon civilians who have promoted and led one disastrous military intervention (either with U.S. Armed Forces or proxies managed by the CIA) after another, then you understand Trump's appointments appear to be a decisive break from the civilian warmongers who've run the nation into the ground.

If you doubt this analysis, please consider the unprecedentedly politicized (and pathetically childish) comments by outgoing CIA director Brennan against an incoming president. Even if you can't stand Trump, please document another instance in which the CIA director went off on an incoming president-- and this after the CIA spewed a blatant misinformation campaign claiming a hacked Democratic Party email account constituted a successful Russian effort to influence the U.S. election--a surreal absurdity.

Let me translate for you: our chosen Insider lost the election; how dare you!

A number of observers are wondering if the CIA and its Deep State allies and cronies will work out a way to evict Trump from office or perhaps arrange a "lone gunman" or other "accident" to befall him. The roots of such speculations stretch back to Dallas, November 1963, when a "long gunman" with ties to the CIA and various CIA proxies assassinated President Kennedy, an avowed foe of the CIA.

Setting aside the shelfloads of books on the topic, both those defending the "lone gunman" thesis and those contesting it, the unprecedented extremes of institutionally organized and executed anti-Trump campaigns is worthy of our attention.

Given my thesis of a profound disunity in the Deep State, and the emergence of a progressive element hostile to neocons and neoliberalism (including Wall Street), then it's not much of a stretch to speculate that this rogue Deep State opposed to neocon-neoliberalism has Trump's back, as a new administration is pretty much the only hope to rid the nation's top echelons of the neocon-neoliberal policies that have driven the U.S. into the ground.

Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.

If you have wondered why academics like Paul Krugman and the CIA are on the same page, it's because they are simply facets of the same structure. Krugman is a vocal neoliberal, the CIA is vocally neocon: two sides of the same coin. I invite you to study the chart above with an open mind, and ponder the possibility that the Deep State is not monolithic, but deeply divided along the fault lines of Wall-Street-Neocons-Neoliberals and the progressive elements that rightly view the dominant neocon-neoliberals as a threat to U.S. national security, U.S. global interests and world peace.

We can speculate that some of these progressive elements view Trump with disdain for all the same reasons those outside the Deep State disdain him, but their decision tree is simple: if you want to rid America's Deep State of toxic neocon-neoliberalism before it destroys the nation, you hold your nose and go with Trump because he's the only hope you have. 


Philosophy of Guerrilla Warfare

Philosophy of Guerrilla Warfare Part I


This editorial piece on the Philosophy of Guerrilla Warfare was submitted by ‘Phantom’, a  Elite Member.  In this piece Phantom discusses an often overlooked element of insurgency, getting support from the citizenry before the killing starts.

In a hypothetical situation, you have an occupying force in your AO (area of operations).  The occupying force has set roadblocks, CPs (check points), patrols and warrantless home searches.   Clearly, every bone in your body is telling you to strap on your kit and start killing the enemy, but unless there is Direct Action Raids against gun owners, constitutionalists, ethnic groups, or religious groups taking place, you have to wait to sew dissent among the citizenry.  This, I believe is the most overlooked tactic in resistance; gaining popular support for the insurgency, and getting more resisters!

So how do we sway minds of the occupied sheep to hate to hate and resist their occupiers?  That is the question I will not attempt to address.

PSYOPS Phase I
Guerrilla Warfare Psyops


You stand by your window watching the daily patrol walk down your street enforcing the new regime’s curfew declared by the occupying forces chain of command.  Sit down, grab a pen, and three dozen sheets of paper – you have a lot of writing to do.  What you are about to do is write several letters, making true or false accusations of abuse at the hands of the occupiers.  In your letters you will mention that you will not give your name because you fear retaliation.  You will then conjure up a story of extreme abuse against the occupiers with the goal of making the story absolutely horrifying.  Note: It has been proven time and time again, where there is an occupying force there will be abuse, and injustice.  The likelihood of you having to make up a story is slim, but possible and necessary.  The first letter should be written in cursive with a red pen.  Under no circumstances should you keep any of these letters after delivery.  Additionally, you will want to use different types of paper for each letter.

After writing your account of the abuse and injustices you were subjected to you make several copies (around a hundred or so).  You then give these letters to one recipient you trust (who is also a resister) to hand out to your neighbors, warning them of the atrocity and not to trust the occupiers.  You will outline where the ‘delivery man’ is to discretely slip these letters under the doors of your neighbors, with the goal of ten houses every block or so under the cover of night.

You will then wait several days; with a black pen you will write another letter in upper caps/lower caps format.  It is incredibly hard to distinguish similarities between cursive and caps script. In this letter you will assume the identity of another person who has suffered injustices and abuse at the hands of the occupying force, stepping up the extreme nature of the raid.  You will then instruct your delivery man to deliver these letters to houses he hasn’t gotten to yet.  The goal here is to stir up as much resentment, and distrust among the citizenry against the occupiers creating that initial spark of resistance.

Now you will need to kick things up a notch.  This time you will use your gun, but not for what you think.  Wearing all black, and under the cover of night you will take your weapon to a relatively safe and secure location, while staying within earshot of the community, and rapidly fire half your magazine or so with the goal having the community hear the shots. Once you make it home safe you will fabricate another letter, and in this letter you will illustrate the murder of a civilian by the occupying force with the goal of making the murder sound horrifying as hell.  With this third act the citizenry will learn the occupying force truly can’t be trusted.



If you think PSYOPS like this aren’t needed, watch this video and think twice.

PSYOPS Phase II


After sowing the seeds of dissent you can then begin Phase II.  Under the cover of night you will begin spray painting pro resistance images (maybe of a crow) and phrases on buildings, freeways, road signs, and etc.  Even if you are an army of one you will need to make it seem like you are many, to be followed by your first guerrilla warfare operation.  You will want to attack a small five man fire team on patrol, convoy supply, CP, or another ‘soft target’ making sure you spray paint your pro resistance slogan before you jam out.  The message itself should urge others to take action, and to stand against the occupying force.

With these small and low risk actions you’ve planted the seeds of rebellion.  The next time we talk we’ll review the details of guerrilla warfare fire teams; directives, training, and conduct. I’d like any constructive critiques you have to offer, including any helpful tips that can help us all out when war meets our sovereign soil.




Note from the Administrator:  We appreciate Phantom’s input, and look forward to more of his writings to come.  To some of you this article may seem unethical to ‘lie‘ about the occupiers, but any occupying force on our sovereign soil is an enemy of The People, and as the old adage ‘If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!’.  Be sure to check out the Elite Database with hundreds of PSYOPS and Guerrilla Warfare Manuals.

what is being said ,especially getting the average folks on board in resistance.I will say also I believe that any occupying force needs to be hit from the beginning,before they become well entrenched in your homeland.I realise will be late if local armed govt. folks go along with a occupation but can still gum up the works/make it hard to “dig in”.I will also say any occupying force I see say raping/murdering will attack immediately whatever the odds.I have A family depending on me and could not,would not want to live with seeing that and not going on a offensive,we must realize it will most likely  get me/us killed but am a patriot and citizen not suicidal and I am comfortable with this decision.

if you're  wondering what my background is in general terms,my background consists of growing up in a rural country setting and being raised by a father that was military through and through a lifer you might say .we were taught the basics @ and early age and was expected to move in to advance skills by age 9 were I was sent to my grandfather s home to finish my education and marksmanship tracking and hunting skills woodsman ship and urban survival we will call it my grandparents hail from southern italy were both my grandfather and grandmother stood as resistance fighters against Hitler and Mussolini  as for my mother well she is and was a dinamice women who by all rights is a soldier in herself but she fights by standing in protest and speaking out in a better term in my day we called them hippies answer these questions is something I have had to deal with in the past already? So I hope you can get the jest of my education being raised as a sovereign is and advantage for me and most all citizens no matter your race ,color or creed you hail from  I will also say now is the time to win people over while we still have some freedoms left !!!!!!,we can will work on the rest when times up.and have no illusions that time is closer than any of us can imagine or want to realize in saying that I ask you to review this post to show you some facts to which I am speaking our freedoms lost A Parting Shot at Personal Freedom

The Blueprint for an American Patriot Insurgency














Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 






LIKE






FOLLOW







SAVE TO FACEBOOK






SEND TO A FRIEND 






SHARE THIS






YOUTUBE 







URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS 
Click to Donate Now!

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience
https://twitter.com/toptradesmen
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com/
https://tradesmen.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder/
https://www.facebook.com/lawfulrebelion/
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom
https://www.gofundme.com/URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS

Philosophy of Guerrilla Warfare Part I


This editorial piece on the Philosophy of Guerrilla Warfare was submitted by ‘Phantom’, a  Elite Member.  In this piece Phantom discusses an often overlooked element of insurgency, getting support from the citizenry before the killing starts.

In a hypothetical situation, you have an occupying force in your AO (area of operations).  The occupying force has set roadblocks, CPs (check points), patrols and warrantless home searches.   Clearly, every bone in your body is telling you to strap on your kit and start killing the enemy, but unless there is Direct Action Raids against gun owners, constitutionalists, ethnic groups, or religious groups taking place, you have to wait to sew dissent among the citizenry.  This, I believe is the most overlooked tactic in resistance; gaining popular support for the insurgency, and getting more resisters!

So how do we sway minds of the occupied sheep to hate to hate and resist their occupiers?  That is the question I will not attempt to address.

PSYOPS Phase I
Guerrilla Warfare Psyops


You stand by your window watching the daily patrol walk down your street enforcing the new regime’s curfew declared by the occupying forces chain of command.  Sit down, grab a pen, and three dozen sheets of paper – you have a lot of writing to do.  What you are about to do is write several letters, making true or false accusations of abuse at the hands of the occupiers.  In your letters you will mention that you will not give your name because you fear retaliation.  You will then conjure up a story of extreme abuse against the occupiers with the goal of making the story absolutely horrifying.  Note: It has been proven time and time again, where there is an occupying force there will be abuse, and injustice.  The likelihood of you having to make up a story is slim, but possible and necessary.  The first letter should be written in cursive with a red pen.  Under no circumstances should you keep any of these letters after delivery.  Additionally, you will want to use different types of paper for each letter.

After writing your account of the abuse and injustices you were subjected to you make several copies (around a hundred or so).  You then give these letters to one recipient you trust (who is also a resister) to hand out to your neighbors, warning them of the atrocity and not to trust the occupiers.  You will outline where the ‘delivery man’ is to discretely slip these letters under the doors of your neighbors, with the goal of ten houses every block or so under the cover of night.

You will then wait several days; with a black pen you will write another letter in upper caps/lower caps format.  It is incredibly hard to distinguish similarities between cursive and caps script. In this letter you will assume the identity of another person who has suffered injustices and abuse at the hands of the occupying force, stepping up the extreme nature of the raid.  You will then instruct your delivery man to deliver these letters to houses he hasn’t gotten to yet.  The goal here is to stir up as much resentment, and distrust among the citizenry against the occupiers creating that initial spark of resistance.

Now you will need to kick things up a notch.  This time you will use your gun, but not for what you think.  Wearing all black, and under the cover of night you will take your weapon to a relatively safe and secure location, while staying within earshot of the community, and rapidly fire half your magazine or so with the goal having the community hear the shots. Once you make it home safe you will fabricate another letter, and in this letter you will illustrate the murder of a civilian by the occupying force with the goal of making the murder sound horrifying as hell.  With this third act the citizenry will learn the occupying force truly can’t be trusted.



If you think PSYOPS like this aren’t needed, watch this video and think twice.

PSYOPS Phase II


After sowing the seeds of dissent you can then begin Phase II.  Under the cover of night you will begin spray painting pro resistance images (maybe of a crow) and phrases on buildings, freeways, road signs, and etc.  Even if you are an army of one you will need to make it seem like you are many, to be followed by your first guerrilla warfare operation.  You will want to attack a small five man fire team on patrol, convoy supply, CP, or another ‘soft target’ making sure you spray paint your pro resistance slogan before you jam out.  The message itself should urge others to take action, and to stand against the occupying force.

With these small and low risk actions you’ve planted the seeds of rebellion.  The next time we talk we’ll review the details of guerrilla warfare fire teams; directives, training, and conduct. I’d like any constructive critiques you have to offer, including any helpful tips that can help us all out when war meets our sovereign soil.




Note from the Administrator:  We appreciate Phantom’s input, and look forward to more of his writings to come.  To some of you this article may seem unethical to ‘lie‘ about the occupiers, but any occupying force on our sovereign soil is an enemy of The People, and as the old adage ‘If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!’.  Be sure to check out the Elite Database with hundreds of PSYOPS and Guerrilla Warfare Manuals.

what is being said ,especially getting the average folks on board in resistance.I will say also I believe that any occupying force needs to be hit from the beginning,before they become well entrenched in your homeland.I realise will be late if local armed govt. folks go along with a occupation but can still gum up the works/make it hard to “dig in”.I will also say any occupying force I see say raping/murdering will attack immediately whatever the odds.I have A family depending on me and could not,would not want to live with seeing that and not going on a offensive,we must realize it will most likely  get me/us killed but am a patriot and citizen not suicidal and I am comfortable with this decision.

if you're  wondering what my background is in general terms,my background consists of growing up in a rural country setting and being raised by a father that was military through and through a lifer you might say .we were taught the basics @ and early age and was expected to move in to advance skills by age 9 were I was sent to my grandfather s home to finish my education and marksmanship tracking and hunting skills woodsman ship and urban survival we will call it my grandparents hail from southern italy were both my grandfather and grandmother stood as resistance fighters against Hitler and Mussolini  as for my mother well she is and was a dinamice women who by all rights is a soldier in herself but she fights by standing in protest and speaking out in a better term in my day we called them hippies answer these questions is something I have had to deal with in the past already? So I hope you can get the jest of my education being raised as a sovereign is and advantage for me and most all citizens no matter your race ,color or creed you hail from  I will also say now is the time to win people over while we still have some freedoms left !!!!!!,we can will work on the rest when times up.and have no illusions that time is closer than any of us can imagine or want to realize in saying that I ask you to review this post to show you some facts to which I am speaking our freedoms lost A Parting Shot at Personal Freedom

The Blueprint for an American Patriot Insurgency














Pro Deo et Constitutione –
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis
Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD 






LIKE






FOLLOW







SAVE TO FACEBOOK






SEND TO A FRIEND 






SHARE THIS






YOUTUBE 







URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS 
Click to Donate Now!

https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience
https://twitter.com/toptradesmen
https://josephfreedomoranarchy.blogspot.com/
https://the-family-assistants-campaign.blogspot.com/
https://tradesmen.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/JosephBarberMastercarpenterBuilder/
https://www.facebook.com/lawfulrebelion/
https://plus.google.com/+JOSEPHBARBERforfreedom
https://www.gofundme.com/URBAN-SURVIVAL-PACKS