There is something dreadfully wrong with the American military. Whether it is DEI flavored recruitment drives, flaccid dress up generals playing politics & lying to the president, or shoddy floating docks that can't even float, there are many case studies that reinforce the premise. If you are feeling courageous & confident, and you aren't some atomized City lib, identify the combat arms veteran in your friend circle or community, and say something like the above to them.
Obviously, you aren't going to do that. The 600 have a poem about riding into the teeth of certain defeat, but no one is going to eulogize your tactical stupidity if you were to do this. If you’re smart, you will send in allegorical scouts, penetrate the target's narrative network, map the ontological terrain, lay in an academic barrage from a third person perspective, and only once you have arrayed the conversational circumstances in your favor, will you then march in your conceptual army. You may think this is excessive, but I've done it many times, in multiple ways, with myriad results; heed my advice and spare yourself the discomfort and possible fist fight.
You cannot broach the subject as an indictment on the holistic military, as in the past, present, and future entity. You have to assiduously frame the parameters of the discussion, leave loopholes and back doors for your interlocutor to exit the battlefield gracefully, and be ready to tactically withdraw multiple times. As I am not a veteran, I have no idea if, behind closed doors and within the confines of a vets-only circumstance, our Blooded Brothers discuss this topic honestly and in detail. I really hope they do, but the fervor with which many of them deny the obvious is discouraging, to say the least.
If you engage in this exercise, you may find that you will most often encounter a "Yes, but..." That usually boils down to "… sure, there are lots of problems with the military, but when the rubber meets the road, when the shit hits the fan, the *real* military is still top dog, the alpha amongst alphas, the undisputed champion of TWO world wars!!!” Inevitably, the special forces, the rangers, the top gun fighter, jocks, or the Night Stalkers will drop into the conversation to hoist Old Glory and plant the standard atop a mountainous cadaver pile of anyone foolish enough to come after the greatest country in the history of Herstory. To be sure, this is a compelling argument. There is plenty of easily obtained footage documenting the capacity for liquidation and technical prowess of the aforementioned outfits. When this happens, it is best to acquiesce, concede the battlefield, and move on.
The problem, for them, is that the rubber has met the road, many times across multiple decades in myriad instances, and the outcome has always been the same: The US military does not win, it just stops playing the game and everybody doesn’t talk about it for a bit, then resumes talking about it like it happened centuries previous. Arguments are deployed about technical definitions, conceptual parameters, and steaming piles of nuance that all demand we not call Afghanistan, Iraq, the Red Sea, Ukraine, Gaza, DRC, CAR, Somalia, Niger, Nigeria, or Yemen defeats1 for the Liberal World Order. The reality is that if you resurrected Napoleon, Caesar, and Alexander and gave them all of the information, they would not hesitate to affirm that this massive military machine is a perennial loser. Why is this the case?
I think there are a few reasons, And the ones that matter most can be rolled up neatly into a simple memeplex, or a rhetorical framework of nested rhetorical structures: countries with pride parades can't win wars. This is not solely an indictment of the political structures behind the normalization and veneration of sodomite lifestyle. Rather, it is forcing the focus onto the most promiscuous node in the Causal Network. Countries with governments that sponsor pride parades are not able to perform the necessary coordination for an objective victory in the realm of warfare.
Open homosexuality destroys brotherhood
When sodomites are tolerated, never mind venerated, it becomes impossible for men to trust each other blindly, and blind trust is a prerequisite of successful warfare. If you are always worried that saying " I love you," whacking a bro on the ass, hugging and/or crying, or just being being physically familiar with a brother will be perceived as gayness, or a signal of the desire for gayness, you will judiciously police all open emotionality. As well, homosexuals are like women in that they can't really be trusted to maintain loyalty when the chips are down2. We have yet to see how massed gayness will perform on a modern, peer-to-peer battlefield, but if the countless leaks and betrayals that plagued the US military in general and the SOF community in particular during the Global War On Terror are any indication, we should not be surprised to see that anyone marching under the rainbow flag can, and will, go both ways on the battlefield.
Blind trust, or Faith, is what keeps men in a trench and fighting to the last. They don't do it for political stump speeches or highfalutin principles, they do it for each other. And officers may order the deaths of the men they love for more elevated reasons, but the DNA is the same. No one intelligent and capable is going to commit war crimes so that gay men can spread disease recklessly until the first world medical system finally fails to keep them alive anymore. In that vein, the fact that there is even such a thing as "war crimes" is a bright red flag, in more ways than one, because it is a promise to soldiers that they will be punished for fighting effectively and/or winning.
Winning is a war crime
The idea that war can be prosecuted civilly is an epiphenomenon of white Europeans going through ~1,000 years of internal struggle. Between presumed equals who merely disagree on minute matters of geography, religion, resources, or honor, there can be rules to warfare. Once multiple races and geographically disparate ethnicities become involved, it is strategic stupidity to deal with your adversary honorably. Outside of the perpetual European contest3, there is no value to winning humbly or losing gracefully4. Leaving a remnant of a foreign enemy around is a curse upon your grandchildren. The most heinous and neglected example of this is the human menagerie composed of the Indian reservation system in the United States, a terrible practice that has been unfortunately exported around the world.
There is a lot of propaganda parading as history regarding the Indian nations that fought and lost to European culture. The struggle is always portrayed as a plucky band of noble savages facing off against unwashed curs with White skin and smallpox blankets and only lose because Europeans cheat. This is obviously not the case, nor was it ever the case. In plenty of struggles between colonizers and indigenous tribes, the latter had every advantage, be it numerical or geographic or tactical, or all three. Looking at the totality of North American history, it was an open question for a very long period as to how successful or unsuccessful the westward expansion would be. If the indigenous had had the sophistication and capacity to develop and change after proximity to a more advanced slate of cultures, the world we inhabit would be radically different. Oxford University predates the Aztec empire, and it always seems to be left out of the discussion that besides guns, Bibles, and steel, there was very little the Europeans had that the Indians didn't, at least in terms of space, raw materials, or population numbers. The ugly Truth is that their cultures, their religions, their collective Spirit was not up to the task of surviving in the contest of Nations & Culture5.
Instead of defeating utterly and/or absorbing the smashed Indian tribes, they decided to take the woman's road, the road of pointless compassion and short-sighted empathy. Taking the losers of a war and putting them in their own little land cage to be viewed and pitied like pets is maybe the greatest crime of my ancestors6. No one has benefited from the reservation system. While there are a handful of irrationally wealthy red men who spend their time stealing money from decrepit and abandoned old Whites living off miniscule penchants, the vast majority of Indians lead unenviable lives. The communities that are subjected to the reservation structures and rez culture gain nothing from the set-up. The only people who seem to benefit from this situation are the White liberal wine moms who get sexually aroused when they watch those cringe hakaa wedding videos. Take a moment to consider how incredibly shortsighted and evil the reservation system is. It would take me many weeks of effort to come up with something more humiliating for all involved parties, and it’s actually pretty elegant in how completely it locks in racial animus, awful lifestyles, and ruined cultures for everyone involved.
Compassion has no place in war. While it can be useful in highly specific circumstances, it is never a good idea to protect your enemy from your own team. If it is a brutal contest between warring European proto-nations, or the cute little sort-of countries the indigenous peoples used to have, there is a utility to sparing an adversary that may soon be an ally in the near future. But of what value is it to punish Navy Seals for killing mujahedeen in an unsavory way? How is it better to lob a smart bomb into a building but worse to summarily execute a brutal enemy who has lost the battle? At no point, ever, has a man been spared by a sworn enemy and thought to himself “You know what, maybe all of those massively compelling reasons that caused me to take up arms don’t actually matter, and no I will not only tolerate this adversary, I will support him!”
Only the addlepated brain of a woman7 drunk on marxo-feminism could possibly think it’s a good idea to make arbitrary rules of warfare. But we know they don’t actually believe any of it, because it is only ever used against White men in general, and American soldiers in particular. The noble savages of Iraq and Afghanistan violate every European convention of war, and they are rewarded with lifestyle accommodations and endless appeals opportunities as they await “justice.” Eddie Gallagher got worse treatment than the muslim terrorists who contributed to the deaths of thousands of Americans on 9/11. To put a fine point on it: Rules of War are a tool for political animals to punish the warriors of their own country for the audacity to fight and win by the most effective means possible.
Mythology as marxist manipulation of history
I think it’s rather obvious a hold a number of unpopular opinions that are basically indistinguishable from Alex Jones Tinfoilism8. One of those is that the American Revolution was a left wing victory over right wing order9. The course was corrected by a right wing coup in the form of the constitutional congress, but the disease of weaponized leftism was unleashed upon the world by the rebel’s victory10. The popular mythology surrounding the American Revolution is that the plucky Americans, led by the greatest General of all time, figured out they could hide behind stuff and shoot at the moronic Brits who were only able to march in rank & file directly at their most immediate enemy. Obviously this is exactly what happened because it makes the most sense. The British army was of course a terrible military that just happened to build an empire upon which the sun never set because they would march straight at an enemy who had never once thought to hide behind things.
Bollocks, obviously. The plucky al Qaedaists did not defeat the Coalition occupation through brilliant leadership and better tactics, they won because half of the elected leaders and ~60% of the bureaucracy of the American government made it impossible for the US Military to win while ~40% didn’t care about the outcome anywhere near as much as they wanted their stock portfolios and political/social profiles to expand. Likewise, the traitorous colonial rebels did not defeat the might of Britain through actual warfare, rather they stumblefucked their way to a brokered truce because about half of Parliament, a massive slice of the English aristocracy, and the vast majority of the senior officers tasked with the “war” were on their politico-spiritual side. If you delve into the primary sources of the war that fought with and for Britain, the maliciousness of their own generals as well as the incompetence of the colonials are incredibly hard to ignore11.
Ask yourself why the good guys of history always seem to win, while the good men of our time always seem to end up punished, imprisoned, or murdered? Ask yourself why brutal haitian cannibals and knife-wielding migrants are given endless rationalizations & allowances, but White men in the military are lambasted and diminished for violating the selectively applied rules of war? Why is this?
Something is rotten in the state of warfare
Technology and postmodernism has created a hilariously inaccurate perspective on what war is, what it means to fight a war, and what war does. It is similar to what Hollywood has done to and for guns as death tools. People seem to think that guns just hop up and shoot young black men on their way to collect their weekly Best Of Us awards, or that they obliterate whatever they are pointed at like a magical, invisible death ray. People assume that when you wear a uniform and carry a gun, all the shooty-shoot stuff just kind of happens according to the narrative thrust of the moment. In reality, guns are tools. They are designed, crafted, dispersed, used, and maintained by a wide array of types, some of whom are rather skillful, and others that make and carry Hi-Points. They don’t just kill people like a deadly form of laser tag, and there possession and presence does not confer some kind of martial skill or competency. If you want guns to do successful gun stuff, you have to understand the scope of the mission, select the right tool, provide the tools to the right people, supply these people with the proper training, accessories, and support infrastructure, and make sure they understand what the mission is.
Putting a motley assortment of morons, undesirables, criminals, migrants, and women in uniform does not make an army12. As well, gathering together a body of competent, capable, healthy, and intelligent Men doesn’t make an army either13. There are myriad constituent parts that have to be obtained and fit together then tested and perfected over time with real world exercises, defeats, and victories. Consider the Afghan National Army and the Armed Forces of Iraq. The former was an institution made up from no real precursor, fully outfitted and trained, left to do its job, and promptly dissolved in the face of an enemy. The latter was a century old institution that had perpetrated coups, dominated a region, fought a better trench war, challenged a global super power twice, was completely overhauled, THEN fully outfitted and trained, left to do its job, and promptly dissolved in the face of an enemy.
There are lots of variables at play, and this is an ongoing experiment in technology, sociology, and violence, but I say to you now, confident in my correctitude but ready and willing to admit incorrectitude should evidence be provided:
Countries with pride parades can't win wars.
I fear we may soon have a LOT more data to assess with, but as it stands, Russia (no parades) is wrecking Ukraine (parades). Israel (parades) cannot beat Palestine (no parades)14. CWPPCWW is just one of multiple measures we can deploy to assess history, understand the moment, and (attempt to) scry the future. I genuinely hope others take the time to put in the effort to support or oppose this thesis.
***Okay, I usually don’t do this because this is a free substack, I am nobody of consequence, and no one is being forced to read this (besides my Avram my Mossad handler and Ken over at the Malicious Midwits Task Force in the Fusion Center, of course). But I am the descendant of many, MANY noble and honorable military men, I have spent the vast majority of my life holding the USM in the highest regard, and think about, probably too often, how much I wish I had done even a little time in the military. All of that disintegrated completely September 2021, and in truth had been structurally compromised in the summer of 2020.
Who am I, a civilian, a never-served, a tubby feckless jody, to say WORD ONE about the military, the men who served and serve, and the operations undertaken by this august and diverse assemblage? This is a valid line of inquiry that I now reject utterly and with no reservation. The US Military has been weighed, measured, and found WANTING. Our military has FAILED US. That is who the fuck I am; I am one of the millions of excuses deployed to rationalize the massive investments of blood & treasure in every corner of the globe, the one whose “freedom” needs “protecting” “over there” so “we” don’t have to do it “over here.” Should I have a say? The martial mythology says so. The rhetoric says so. The propaganda says so. And so a choose to Say Something.
But I want to be very clear about this: no amount of words on screen or page can change the nobility, the honor, the brutality, the bloody perfection of some irreplaceable men who have paid the ultimate price. I can talk, but talk is cheap. There is a special place in heaven reserved for men who die in defense of their brothers, their homes, their kind, their country.
…it’s just that that’s not why my friends have been maimed. That’s not why thousands are addicted zombies shambling towards self-deletion. That sacrifice, that terribly expensive, is completely nullified by the sodomite monsters, the longhouse shrews, the emasculated saggy disgusting COWARDS of our government how gladly send MY KIND, MY PEOPLE, my brothers, to die for Tel Aviv or Lockheed Martin or the teeming massive of brown perma-refugees completely reliant on the unwilling largesse of MY COUNTRY.
This was supposed to be an apology to the GWOT bros, the old vets, the good men that were dangerous and dedicated in service to their country, but I fear I have mucked it up. I guess I am just done looking for excuses for the men who are sworn to protect the land of my progeny from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The enemy is here. We are occupied. We are enslaved. I don’t think it is doing anything good to pretend that serving the Liberal Occupation Government is in any way patriotic or beneficial.
I see the Global American Empire as a single entity, though it is of course a massive confederation. Elsewhere I have outlined the tool I use to delineate who is in the GAE, which can be summarized as “dresses, acts, and speaks like the US Military.” So, at the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War, both sides had the GAE DNA, though the Russian Federation has begun the painful & challenging process of speciation.
This is controversial, and I know there are loyal women out there because I have one, but history is pretty clear about what happens when the soldiers are broken on the battlefield in terms of where the wives and daughters go. The willingness of women to pair-bond with men that have destroyed their tribe or city, not to mention slew their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons, is a big part of the phenotypic homogeneity of greater Whites. It’s a topic that has been handled elsewhere, at length, and adeptly by others, but the book isn’t finished, and much more must be written and discussed about it. While the flightiness of women can be frustrating/galling/enraging, it is also a part of what makes them so much fun to pursue, retain, protect, and develop. Whatever the case, White women bring wombs to the equation. Sodomites do not.
This very well may be one of the most important factors in the development of White identity before the vaginal insurrection of the 1970s.
I switched this terminological couplet back and forth between the above formulation and “winning gracefully or losing humbly” too many times. I would really appreciate it if someone can tell me which is better in terms of the philosophy I am trying to articulate. k thx byeeeeee
Just as it was for countless half-remembered and completely forgotten tribes, races, and even species of Homos in Eurasia. Isn’t it curious how tribes and peoples obliterated throughout the Old World are just artifacts of Cultural Diffusion, but Red Indian’s abysmal failure to withstand the onslaught is some kind of historio-spiritual injustice? They were able to pick up scalping from the French, but re-organizing their tribal structures was racistly denied them by, I don’t know, racism or something. If you ever get the chance, as a Liberal Gazer how Europeans with no knowledge of microbiology are somehow responsible for smallpox blankets.
Dead heat with the 19th Amendment.
or a male with female characteristics
“History will vindicate me!” he informed the padded walls of his cell, yet again
Think about how monarchical Germany unleashed Bolshevik hell on Russia. Kind of similar to monarchical France enabling the colonists and their Whig patrons, I think?
All revolutions are left wing; all coups are right wing.
This may be a controversial statement. I may deported to Canada. It is a rare war where one side has all the talent and goodness and grit. Chipping away at foundational myths is a messy business, and it is often seen as the subversive activity of entryists, marxists, and feminists. If you are feeling aggrieved, if you feel that I am anti-American for anything I have written here, I ask you read this, make up your mind, and put the whole of your being into RESTORING our country *everyone cheers*… and the Monarchy *everyone boos, and starts the lynching party*
That’s a “mob,” which is also a tool of sorts with its own inherent characteristics and uses.
That’s a “Mob,” which is also a tool of sorts with its own inherent characteristics and uses.
In a recent tweet I am not going to look up, someone “corrected” me when I asserted that Poland is in the (no parades) category. Obviously, more work needs to be done to refine this categorization. Still, inaccuracies and unknowns accepted, I nonetheless assert that CWPPCWW is an axiomatic memeplex.