No, not a giant, The Giant.

Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn was born in southern Russia December 11, 1918, shortly after his father had accidentally shot him self in June while loading a hunting rifle. He grew up poor near Rostov-on-Don. After finishing secondary school, he was able to study mathematics and physics, and received a Stalin Scholarship in 1940, while preparing to teach. Solzhenitsyn was conscripted in October 1941. Initially he was assigned to a horse transport unit, but he managed to transfer to the artillery like his father, and was commissioned as a Junior Lieutenant. He served through the war as a forward artillery observer and received a number of medals. In February 1945 he was a Captain fighting on the First Baltic Front in East Prussia, when he was arrested for writing a letter containing a sly reference about “a man with a moustache”. He spent eight years in a number of labor camps until amnestied in 1953 after Stalin’s death.

Even before the war, Solzhenitsyn had been drawn to literature, and now he began to write. In 1962 he, and the world received a lucky break when Khrushchev endorsed publication of his short novel, One Day of Ivan Denisovich, which he hoped would prove useful in his de-Stalinization campaigns against his political enemies. This short book made Solzhenitsyn’s name and fortune, permitting him to publish a series of ever more provocative books, simultaneously introducing the word, Gulag into foreign languages around the world. It is no exaggeration to say that he played at least as great a role as Ronald Reagan in the defeat of communism. Eventually, The Soviets realized he had grown to great to silence or to ignore, and they exiled Solzhenitsyn to the West. Twenty years he lived in America, and though he could have received easy and honored citizenship, he never asked, though not form a lack of gratitude or admiration. In 1994, he returned to a newly liberated Russia. In America he and our regnant Liberals rapidly became disillusioned with each other, particularly after his Address to Harvard. (Some of us knew he was correct at that time, as his has been subsequently proven.) In 1994, Solzhenitsyn was able to return to Russia and did so, even as he still stood against some of the features of the new Russia and kept his distance from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, widely known as a KGB stooge. He lived, and worked for another fourteen years. He died August 4, 2008.

Even more than a political writer, Solzhenitsyn was a moralist, though in the Christian sense only later. From early years he admired the military virtues - bravery, self-sacrifice, fortitude, camaraderie, stubbornness, and patriotism.) While he admired democracy, it was never as the primary end it itself, but as a means to a greater end. He preferred an orderly and hierarchic society, with respect for individuals and the rule of law. He opposed arbitrary injustice and interference with individuals. He was a firm believer in standing up for one’s rights, and also of doing the right thing. In one of his books a character says that Russia began its long slide downward when they first gave up the half-kopek coin (equivalent to our giving up the penny). In his novel The First Circle, his protagonist voluntarily gives up the sheltered live of a sharashka (a scientific research camp) in exchange for a harsh labor camp, rather than complete a research assignment which would give the KGB new abilities to spy on people.

Solzhenitsyn will also be remembered as one of the greatest stylists and literary craftsmen of Russian literature, fit to stand with Pushkin, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Careful with every word, he relied heavily on allegory and symbolism, and frequently revived older Russian proverbs and folk expressions, but could also switch to the blunt language of the street and camps when needed. It is sad that some of his most elegant craftsmanship can only be appreciated by those who know Russian, and some of the details of Soviet history. He is also famed, more in his own land for his short stories, some of which were written before he became famous.

I said one of Solzhenitsyn’s core virtues was patriotism – not particularly Russian nationalism, but in the sense the word may apply to us all. In this sense, it explains why he never claimed American citizenship, but returned to Russia when he could. I give you my own translation of one of Solzhenitsyn’s shortest, but most poignant works, written before 1960.

The Fire and the Ants

I threw onto the bonfire a rotten log, not noticing that it was teeming with ants.
The log began to crackle, the ants poured out and began to desperately to dash about. They ran about the top and writhed, burning in the flames. I took hold and pulled out the log, casting it to the side. Then many of the ants were saved, as they ran onto the sand and the pine needles.
But how strange: they did not flee from the fire.
No sooner had they overcome their terror than they turned about, circled and… Some kind of a force began to draw them back to their forsaken homeland! And there were many who ran back onto the burning log, rushed about on it and perished there.
And the people were amazed!

It is why Aleksandr Isaevich returned to his log. And why many of us veterans remain on our own log.

As Solzhenitsyn’s epitaph, perhaps I can do no better than to paraphrase the close of one of his most famous short stories, Matryona’s House

…He was that one righteous person without whom, as the saying goes, the village cannot stand. Nor the city. Nor the entire land.

-Rurik

Often the fundamental changes are not recognized at the time, but only in retrospect, after their results have taken root and grown. And sometimes it is difficult to see at the time how certain seemingly unrelated developments may reinforce each other. Something like that has been happening in our own time, and it is shaking our politics in ways yet not understood.

A first sea change came during the course of the early 1990s. It began in 1989 when Rush Limbaugh began a three hour a day radio broadcast. His formula was an unpredictable mixture of discussion, commentary, satire and humor, and occasional indignation. He was outspokenly conservative and preferred the stories and issues the established media feared to mention. And he developed a wondrous synergy with the internet, which was also newly born, and equally untamed. Suddenly it became almost impossible to spike news stories. Certainly it was Limbaugh and Matt Drudge who facilitated the Gingrich revolution, and all but destroyed Clinton’s intended socialist revolution, virtually before it got started. People gained a voice, even if only by proxy. Liberal politicians had a new foe they could not silence by stealing an election. Everything changed.

We are now observing the fourth anniversary of another seminal event, one which has changed a number of lives, including my own, and hopefully is having a lasting impact on our politics. It was just about this time, four years ago that John Kerry, Ketchup Consort and presidential wannabe, stepped forward, gave a goofy salute and “reported for duty”. Like most vets, I received the return of Kerry like the aftertaste of a piece of spoiled New England cod. I was aware he had been in Viet Nam, but I knew him for his 1972 treasonous hi-jinks with VVAW, and his far leftist agenda. Daily following the news on Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s radio shows, I fumed impotently.

Then I learned of a new website Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and a quick visit changed everything. And I do mean everything, as even my previous disdain for Kerry hardened into a deep loathing. After several weeks of lurking and studying, and discovering that the Swifties were accepting volunteers from other branches of the service, I, too, reported for duty, though without the silly salute. I spent the next three months as a minor but enthusiastic activist at the site. The story of the men who created this website, and changed history has recently been told by Soctt Swett and Tim Ziegler in To Set The Record Straight, How Switf Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry.

From the historical perspective, the election of 2004 was a first, an election decided by the influence of a website of veterans, all enthusiasts, drawn by personal conviction about the defective character of one candidate. Though the Swifties had some non-service volunteers who were family members of veterans, the site was organized around, and led by vets. This was not your usual veteran political activism. The Legion, VFW, DAV, AmVets, etc, generally organized themselves as groups to pressure for veteran benefits. This was driven by personality and ideology, and not to be bought by an extra percent or two of pension. Such a grassroots campaign has not been seen since the 1870s, if even then. Everything has changed.

Even more important was the role of the veterans themselves. Through most of America’s history, Veterans have returned home, hung up the sword and returned, like Cincinatus to their fields. Viet Nam Vets, in particular, had retreated to the closet and tended to shirk our identity. Brow-beaten by lefties, most of us just wanted to get on with life at the price of disowning our proudest past. But now we were back, with a full basic load and ready to rock-n-roll. Led by the Swifties, the ex-POWs, and Veterans for Truth, we were learning to stand tall. With the aid of a few books, such as J.G. Burkett’s Stolen Valor, the past was reexamined and our reputations began to be restored. This was a development which could have further importance. Everything has changed.

Fro me the Kerry War was a major step in my forging as an activist. I had never retreated to the closet nor denied my past, but now was standing taller. Four years later, I see that almost all my current circle of friends are either direct contacts from the Swifties Forum or derived introductions. Once the election was won, a small group of us decided that we were not going to disband or go inactive. Too many unanswered questions remained to be investigated, about such things as the original character of Kerry’s discharge, his relationships to various VVAW chums, and so on. And all of us suspected that Kerry or someone like him might well try again. We wanted to see him finished off – at least politically.

But all the research and waiting were overtaken by events, and we turned our efforts back to supporting the troops and the war. During the fall of 2006, many veterans, including many alumni of the Swifties organized Boot Murtha! to campaign for the defeat of John Murtha because of his outrageous allegations against American troops in Iraq. They lost and Murtha was reelected, but it was close and vets understand that you cannot win every battle. I had only a peripheral cheerleading role, and I was dissatisfied with myself. Several friends were there. The important thing was that once again the Vets were there and speaking out. It was starting to turn into a habit or a trend. Everything has changed.

Then in February 2007 something else happened. The hard leftists of International ANSWER and Code Pink announced their plan to march on the Pentagon in March 2007, with 100,000 demonstrators, and to vandalize the Vietnam Wall. Veterans organized to meet and confront, and to defend Our Wall.

As matters turned out, they were able to produce only about 10,000 bums, while we were able to field about 30,000 patriots, the first time a self-organized voluntary group has been able to outnumber and stand down the commie protesters. This was the gathering which marked the birth of Gathering of Eagles; of which our own Eagles UP!, is an offshoot. Also present were Rolling Thunder, Run For the Wall, Move America Forward, Protest Warrior, and a number of other groups. Notice was served that the Far left no longer owned the streets, but had to expect to be challenged by Eagles in the future. Everything has changed.

Since then, there have been numerous repeat engagements. I am proud to claim hash marks for three missions into D.C., and wear my GoE-I armband on my right arm. Sadly time and budget have kept me from making any of the missions in Berkeley or elsewhere. But the significant thing is that The Eagles (of any denomination) are not a flash in the pan, but have become a feature of contemporary American politics. Probably the protracted campaign in Berkeley was important even beyond itself. The Eagles and friends were willing and able to operate on enemy territory and to maintain an on-going campaign. Everything has changed.

For the past thirty years, veterans have been not only suppressed by antiwar propaganda, but also by the need to earn a living, unlike the hired rent-a-crowds. We either had the time or the money, but not both at the same time. Now the Viet Nam generation is reaching retirement age and is able to take the time to make themselves heard.. Everything has changed.

The game is no longer Vets sending a few professional lobbyists to increase their benefits, but Vets standing to support their active duty successors. Vets standing for Future Vets. When in American History has that ever happened? The WW I generation did not so stand for the WW II troops. Nor did the WW II (supposedly Greatest) Generation stand for us in Viet Nam. But we have sworn the oath Never Again, and we stand for the Iraq and Afghan War troops. This is a sea change which bears omens for the future. And most heartening to me is to observe that at our stands in Washington and elsewhere, increasingly we are joined by young vets of the Gulf War and GWOT. They are learning the habit of supporting their friends once they return home.

Yet another cousin organization is the Patriot Guard Riders, who are pledged to guard and escort military and veteran dead at their funerals. Initially these bikers provided escort to shield the funerals of war dead from disruption by nut-case protesters. However, they have grown, and now provide honor escorts at funerals of old veterans as well, and also stand flag lines at send-offs and welcome homes for troops departing and returning. Though one need not be a Veteran to stand with PGR, most members and the leaders are. Then thee has been the rise of other organizations such as Soldiers Angels dedicated to coordinating support from the home front for troops in the field. No longer do Americans have to salve their conscience by sending a check to the USO or Red Cross.. They can support individual troops directly through new organizations typified by Soldiers Angels. Or people can come to websites such as Eagles UP! and The Talon. All these activities are made effective by the new communication channel, the internet. No longer do we have to await the government’s decision to organize troop support. We are now able to self-organize and spread our message amongst ourselves, for our troops, by ourselves.

No longer can the left attack our troops with no challenge. Everything has changed.

-Rurik

The most critical of the commanding heights is probably Healthcare. Education still permits options of private or home schooling, at least for a while longer. With transportation, the truly determined can bicycle, walk or stay home It controls only aspects of your life. Healthcare is becoming the lever which is all-encompassing, and which provides the excuse for meddling in every aspect of your life. And it has be the most demanding of all.

No matter how resolved you may be to avoid doctors, when disease or injury happens, you must submit to them. A painful swelling in the side or a kidney stone, and you hurry to the doctor. A sickened child is a hostage forcing you to do whatever is necessary.

You may consult the practitioner of alternative medicine for acne and minor aches and pains, but not for serious concerns. And because medicine has always been an arcane science requiring specialized training doctors are regarded as founts of knowledge and understanding on all sorts of life’s problems. Most of us tend to trust the doctor implicitly. Within limits of medicine, this is good, but there is sometimes a tendency to treat our doctors as oracles, and some of them will accept that role and try to guide our lives, particularly those who become public doctors working for the government or television news stations instead of working with individual patients.

Life is a trade-off between absolute health and safety and human pleasure. We all know friends who acknowledge that smoking is bad for them, but they enjoy it too much, even though it will cut some years off their lives. Others of us feel the same about fried or fatty foods, sweets, or the evening wine or beer. Still others want the wind in their hair when riding their motorcycles. Preventive medicine and environmental medicine are becoming problems, divorced from individual patients and their desires; they are wedded to the coercive power of the state. Unfortunately, preventive medicine has decided that health must be pursued at all costs, with no consideration of other values. So far, this push for health above all else is an annoyance. If your doctor is obnoxious and overbearing, you find a new doctor. That will not happen once a national health system is imposed. You will go to the clinic in your neighborhood and be seen by the doctor assigned. If you are defiant or uncooperative, you may be at risk of being discharged from treatment “against medical advice” and denied care for a period of time, or even permanently.

Formerly doctors understood their role was limited to advising the patient, and treating him only to the extent he would accept. More and more, the new generation of doctors take a “We know what’s best for you and what’s best for society” attitude. Once there is a national health care system, the doctor will no longer work for you but for the government. He will take care of you but with is first accountability to Uncle Sam.
Read the rest of this entry »

A second area of central interest to the Social Engineers is education and the schools. Thee are numerous reasons for this, some interlocked with other Socialist agendas. Obviously, control of education gives them the opportunity to select the information to be imparted, Roosevelt good, Coolidge bad, Nixon a thug, etc. But from the social engineering perspective, that is the least important aspect. How is the very young child conditioned and trained. Is he encouraged to be a self-reliant individual or to be secure only when with his group? Is he rewarded for conformity or independence? Is playing alone encouraged, or tolerated, or discouraged? What sort of social attitudes and inclinations will he acquire, bad prejudices or fashionable prejudices? Children should be taught always to think of the group and not “I”. From an early age they must learn that polar bears are cuddly an lovable, and always to be deeply worried about the state of the environment. All these social issues and more. If the proper attitudes can be implanted early, the effects may last a lifetime. Lenin once said “give me the children for twenty years, and socialism will never be reversed.

Notice also how the public schools increasingly are going beyond teaching of the basic “Three R’s” and even other academic subjects. Now schools have expanded into providing breakfasts for pupils,, though there is no mention of how generations before survived and prospered without school breakfast. Apparently breakfasts are provided not only for the few kids with families unable to feed, but to all. The bigger purpose is to remove one more area of life from parental influence. Acclimate the kids to institutional cuisine and approved eating habits. Parents are not likely to introduce their children to treats such as alfalfa muffins and wheat germ pudding. The schools must do it. Sports and other recreational activities also must be overseen and managed by the schools, or at least by an offshoot organization such as Little League. God forbid that a group of boys might organize a sandlot ball game on their own. Kids might choose to hang out with their friends, and somebody might be last chosen, or even left out. And double horror, some kid might decide he’d rather go home and read or build a model airplane instead of bouncing a basketball. Educators must condition kids to following the collective schedule. Thus school seeks to organize kids activities from breakfast to close of day. No Child left behind – not even for five minutes. If the schools so much as nod, the horrible parents will intrude and actually have some influence on their own kids! One day in the near future, kids, hopefully, will be collected just after birth, and raised by the state so our modern Rapunzels can get back to their ordained spinning tasks. Then we can get back to raising the sort of proletarians we want, like baby bees in a colony.

But shaping the young is not the only mission of the educationists. Nooo! Kids become tools with which to invade and control the whole family. Requiring the little tykes to press the green agenda at home not only reinforces the kids’ own dedication to the cause, but also uses them to bully and harass their parents into conforming. Parents can be maneuvered into participating in the kids’ home projects and also made complicit. How many parents have the stones to tell their fourth grader that “No, Daddy believes global warming is a hoax, and the polar bears are not going to all drown”? Just like when Timmy starts to pout and demand that the family can’t go to Wendy’s because they don’t have a clown.” The average parent will give in to avoid a scene, both for the burgers and for school. And one more bit of conditioning has taken place. This is the same reason that schools have traditionally sent kids out to collect “pennies for UNICEF” instead of candy on Halloween. It is unlikely that UNICEF has ever broken even on these campaigns, but it serves as a propagandizing activity in behalf of the One World Good People; and that’s what counts.

Then there is meddling, which schools seem to do increasingly often. “Jimmy, does your daddy smoke? Does he keep any bad guns in your home? Doesn’t that worry you? Where are they hidden?” Do your parents always watch their transfats? Does your daddy exercise every day? What does he thing about gay people? Who is your mommy going to vote for? Do your parents ever spank you? Do you have a pretty Obama sign in your window at home? Do you want one? “ And on and on. Of course, its all for the children, and all in their best interest. In everyone’s best interests. If even one nasty pervert molester is uncovered, all the snooping will be worthwhile. Unless he’s gay of course, and then we’ve discovered a kid who needs some extra tolerance training. Unless it’s a priest, in which case, it back on again as bad, regardless of gender. Does your daddy ever drink alcohol? Does he smoke funny-smelling cigarettes? Already you need to know your own kids, and how well you can trust them to keep family matters private.

One of the great heroes of the Soviet Union was Pavlik Morozov, a fourteen year old boy living in Ukraine in the early 1930s, during the Ukrainian famine. He denounced his parents to the NKVD for hoarding grain with which to feed the family. When the police gave the parents a one-way trip to the gulag, Pavlik was disciplined by his uncle using an axe. This led to further retaliation against the while village, and the martyred Pavlik was made an official national hero, with a statue which outlived the regime itself.

This is how the social engineers and educationists can work together. They bring the, well intentioned of course, power of the organized state to every home assuring that everyone’s life is live according to the plan.

Next, we will consider how health care can make your life worth living.

-Rurik

Something is happening. It seems as if there is an intensifying attack on the critical areas of a free society, attacks on different areas, complementary, and seemingly coordinated. Of course I do not suggest there is a conspiracy. Everyone knows that never in the history of Western civilization have revolutionaries ever conspired, and even to suggest as much puts one beyond the pale of respectable thought. Actually, if there were any such conspiratorial direction, their plans and results might turn out more effective. So let me just suggest that perhaps large numbers of people of similar ideas are working together to implement their common plan to implement radical socialism.

Actually, I am not certain that socialism is any more the proper term for what the good folk have in mind for us, at least not socialism in the classic text book sense. Worker control of the means of production is so passé. Income leveling, with increased pay for the common man and confiscatory taxation for the super rich? Don’t be silly. Even in Lenin’s day, Party members received not only special privileges and access, but also secret supplementary pay packets. Lenin, himself explained that leveling (uravnilovka) was a Marxist heresy and deviation – with all that implied. Socialism was about the state organization and control of the means of production and distribution. It is about control. And while retention of profits by the capitalist investor is called exploitation, when done by the state, it is called socialist accumulation, and is a good and progressive thing. Even if it is done at a rate much higher than previously extorted by the capitalist exploiter. As Madame Hillary told us a couple of campaigns ago, we will just squander any money we get our hands on, while they will spend it wisely in out behalf. For they know our wants better than we do. We will get what we need, and they will tell us what it is that we need. And also what we should want to watch on NPR, i.e. The Vagina Monologues and The Color Purple and not NASCAR or football - unless its the good Euroean football. So really, these people are not so much socialists as they are social engineers. In my field guide, socialists are the opponent, but social engineers are the enemy. With an old-style union steward, I could probably share an amiable couple of beers and end up agreeing to disagree. With one of the new breed socialists, perhaps Kos, I expect he would take away my beer for my own health, and by the time our discussion ended, one or the other of us would be field-dressed and stuffed with Code Pink leaflets. Historically, in the early 1920s, during the Proletkult period, Lenin’s Bolshies tried to institute a massive cultural restructure, but quickly gave up and moved along to the relatively more straightforward task of collectivization. Now American social engineers want to have another go at building the new socialist man.

A free people do not readily give up their freedom and submit to government control. This must be achieved by stages and by manipulation, though strictly for the masses’ own good of course. One of Lenin’s mistakes was to rely too much on bayonets and raw decrees, and to neglect a strategic plan. Lenin and Stalin spoke of capturing the “commanding heights” of industrial production. Our new social engineers seek to capture the commanding heights of social organization. Many of the political controversies of recent years are of strictly secondary importance. Winning on such an issue as Social Security abortion, or minimum wage may consolidate a particular point of conflict, but will offer no leverage or great strategic advantage for future clashes. Three important areas are the war for mass transportation, for domination of education, and for public healthcare.

We are told that the current fuel crisis is all about oil shortages. But that idea is debunked by the vast unutilized oil finds in the USA and elsewhere. We are told that we cannot touch that oil for fear of spoiling the natural beauty of the desert tundra in a small corner of ANWR or disturbing the breeding ground of the Alaskan mosquito. Nonsense. That oil has been left untouched because those making the decisions want a fuel scarcity and elevated prices in order to discourage private driving. Back in the 1990s, and even into the 1970s, those people spoke of a desire to see the price of oil raised and to see private driving curtailed. In addition to trying to raise the price of gasoline and make it less available through complicated programs mandating a wide variety of additives, they have also taken numerous other measures designed to handicap car drivers. Fuel tax revenues supposedly dedicated by law to road and bridge maintenance are regularly diverted to subsidize construction of urban rail projects and similar mass transit programs. Likewise the same for reluctance to build or widen existing roads. Special privileges and lanes are allocated for busses and other high occupancy vehicles. In some states, yearly emission checks for private cars are used for harassment. Speed traps and traffic light cameras serve not only to raise city revenues, but also to harass drivers. Ditto for random checkpoints for sobriety and seatbelt use. In some cities, they like to use extra wide, and extra long articulated busses which can cause safety problems for cars trying to use the same roads. While some of these measures can be defended on other grounds, together, they collude to present a clear message to drivers – take the bus or we’ll make your day impossible. Nor can this drive be justified by reference to pollution – ever noticed how much smelly pollution comes from your average city bus?

In fairness, parking can be a significant issue in some older cities, particularly on the East Coast and in Europe. And yes, in some cities (generally these same ones) some forms of mass transit do seem to work. I am quite familiar with the rail systems of New York, Washington, London, Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and these cities seem generally well served. But except for the two Russian cities, the cost is excessive tending toward confiscatory. And in the first three cities, there is always the real problem that a labor dispute, either for contractual or political reasons, can shut down the system, bringing the city to a halt. But if you live within walking distance of a station, it is practical. If you do not, then you have a problem. You may need to use a car to drive to your transit access node. Then you can swallow the costs of mass transit and of a car for added inconvenience. Of course that is a deficiency of all mass transit systems; you have to be going where they’re going. Often this means a complicated trip by train and bus, sometimes at additional expense, always at additional delay and hassle. Or if you need to travel at unusual hours, such as for a night shift, again you are at a severe handicap.

But of course, from a different perspective, these disadvantages are actually great advantages. The planners can determine where you can go, and where you cannot. And when. Transportation is not for getting you where you want to be, but where you’re supposed to be. If you work for a significant corporation, factory or government office, there will be transportation available at the appointed times. If it’s a small office, you should be carpooling with three or more other workers. And its really not social for you to work alone.

Another benefit is that traveling in a group is good for your attitude. If you are all alone every day on a long commute, you may start to think by yourself and get ideas. That’s bad. Or you may listen to a radio station, and that could be even worse. But if you are with three or four casual acquaintances who are assigned to your carpool, you will each serve as an inhibition on the others, no telling of politically incorrect jokes or listening to heretical ideas on the AM band. What if you heard Imus say something terribly inappropriate, and one of your riders were to laugh inappropriately? Like Japanese schoolgirls on vacation or Soviet sailors on shore leave, it is much better for citizens to travel in groups, lest someone might say or do something unthinkable. This is a part of our new reality in which everyone should be organized and every activity part of an official league. Just as stickball must be eliminated in favor of Little League. Apart from the group is danger, only within the group shall be certainty and safety.

Once travel, even for short distances becomes an expense and a major burden, people will need to move in and live closer to their place of work and where they shop. Gradually it will save the pristine countryside from the further spread of suburbanization. And it may even gradually roll back the suburbs. And that’s good. People can be kept under better control. If they can’t travel out to the countryside, groups like the Michigan Militia won’t be able to shoot or practice their militias, won’t be able to conspire their horrid resistance. People can live in closely packed little condos, and tightly-knit, carefully planned communities. No more wasteful and polluting barbecues. Integration and affirmative action will be able to proceed to their desired completion. True, it will mean visits to Disney World will be rare, but then Disney is tacky anyway. Citizens should use their free time for mandatory volunteer work for the community, giving something back as they say, and for consciousness raising sessions to remind them how good they have it, now that they no longer have to deal with road traffic and driving lessons, and such. See how much better life will be, how much warmer community will be once the social engineers have restored us to the immobility that nature intended.

Of course some reactionaries are already trying to point out that throughout most of America, cities are dispersed, and people need cars just to run errands such as shopping for daily necessities. Well, that’s poor planning, isn’t it. Give back to nature all those wasteful lawns and single-family bungalows, and go live in high-rises like nature intended. And that vast space we call flyover country isn’t really America, or inhabited by anyone who counts. And there’s too many of ‘em anyway. Let ‘em use our rationally designed mass transit, or bike or walk, or stay put. It’ll get them back into better condition, and that’ll be good for their health. And that shows how solving the transportation challenge will make life so much better in a variety of ways and mutually support other parts of our agenda and plan. Next we’ll consider a few of the other main areas of social restructure.

-Rurik

Last week I juxtaposed the Supreme Court’s extension of American civil liberties to terrorists at war with us, and the simultaneous deprivation of Fifth Amendment rights of soldiers defending us. I also made mention of Judge Stephen Breyer, who has openly championed deciding US cases on the basis of foreign laws. I could have also mentioned a whole series of other attempts to force the American government to recognize the sovereignty of international criminal courts. Belgian law, for example, asserts the right to try citizens of any country in the world in a Belgian court for crimes against Belgian law, allegedly committed in other countries, even if none of the parties involved has ever been in Belgium. Such is a clear declaration of Belgian global suzerainty. Not for nothing do traditional nationalists worry about grandiose European imperialism. I fear Our Betters are preparing us for abolition of national sovereignty. This leads to consideration of something even bigger, global empire aka a OneWorld Government. But isn’t that a really good thing? It’s been the dream of millenialists, and other cranks for generations. It is a central feature of the original Marxist plan. There will be a withering away of all the world’s governments and the rule of the entire globe by the socialist community. And All will be as One. What’s not to love about such a plan? The trouble with all immature and ill-thought dreams is that they invariably function quite differently in reality than imagination. I want to think about some of the negative aspects of The One State.
Read the rest of this entry »

Last week there were two federal court decisions, each of which was deeply offensive, but juxtaposed they reached a new level of outrage. The first decision was the most publicized. The Supreme Court decided by a vote of five to four that the terrorists being held at Guantanamo have the right of habeas corpus, and stated that they have the right to demand the federal government prove to a civilian court that they are unlawful warriors. As decision reverses a number f established constitutional precedents, including the Eisentrager case of 1943. They held that these prisoners should be able to have their cases heard in federal Circuit Court. This despite the fact that these individuals were captured on the battlefield, many of them not wearing uniforms or the other distinctive insignias as specified by the Geneva Convention. They should never have been given any rights after capture, just interrogation and execution, as has been the traditional fate of unlawful fighters. Instead, the President made the first of several grievous errors by declaring the captives would be given Prisoner of War Status. Then he allowed their rights as POWs to be further extended. Several of these supposed innocents who have been released have confirmed their terrorist status by reentering combat with several being killed. Now five men in black robes have unilaterally extended to these terrorists the rights of American citizens. What next? Will the same five Justices next decree that the Guantanamo prisoners are also entitled to Social Security and the right to vote in November?

The second case occurred the same day in Federal District Court in Riverside, California, where a Marine has been stripped of his Fifth Amendment rights. Sgt. Ryan Weemer has been accused of murder for the death of an Iraqi detainee during combat in fallujah in 2004. At this point his culpability is unclear. He could be guilty, but considering the recent experiences of the Haditha Eight, Lieutenant Pantano, and a number of other cases in which dubious accusations agains our warriors unraveled under review, presumptions of innocence would seem justified, and not only by law. But on this day Sgt. Weemer was summoned to testify before a Federal grand jury, presumably considering a related case involving a former member of Weemer’s squad. Speaking through his attorney, Sgt. Weemer told U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Larson that he would exercise his right not to testify for fear of possible self-incrimination. Judge Larson found him in contempt of court, and sentenced him to up to 18 months in jail, or until he testifies, or the grand jury is dismissed.
So there you have it. In the same day. The federal courts have extended constitutional protection to enemy combatants and stripped it from a U.S. Warrior.
Let us also remember that the same Supreme Courts Justices rendering that judgment include the Justices who have spoken in favor of deciding casework on the basis of foreign rather than United States law. And thus the distinction between America and the hellholes of the world is abolished. Perhaps we need to evaluate these miscreant judges according to the legal principles of Zimbabwe or Myanmar. And let’s begin by waterboarding the subversive usurpers, just to make a point.

-Rurik

For understandable reason, the September 11, attack on the Pentagon has received far less coverage than the destruction of the World Trade Center. New York was attacked first and suffered far more casualties, and was also right at the center of the American media empire so that events were filmed as they occurred. However, now there is a book telling the story of the attack on the Pentagon from the perspective of the firefighters who battled, and eventually extinguished the resulting fires.

FIREFIGHT, Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman, (Ballantine, 2008), is an important book. Anyone who has ever participated in disaster planning or an exercise will find much to learn and remember. Anyone who has ever experienced even a minor crisis will resonate to the description of the events on September 11. Anyone who wants to know what really happened must read this book. Truthers, dedicated to the notion that the pentagon was not attacked by an airplane, but by some nefarious US government plot will hate this book, but should be forced to read it. All the bizarre myths are refuted both by testimony and by photographs.

The story opens with a detailed description of the crash and makes clear why the Truthers saw now large pieces of wreckage. Such catastrophes are always a surprise, and always disrupt the early attempts to cope with the disaster. The first couple hundred pages remind us of this rule as they relate the disorganized attempts to save victims and stabilize the fire in the first hours. The great heroes are obviously the leaders and firefighters of the Arlington Fire Department, though there were quick reinforcements from neighboring departments. Sadly the first days’ efforts were hampered by the inevitable disorganization. No one was prepare and both engines and people arrived in haphazard fashion, and one of the major stories was the attempt of the Chiefs to establish order and arrange some sort of command structure to coordinate the fire fighting. Many individuals and truck arrived from surrounding districts unbidden and unexpected. Everyone wanted to help. Sadly some departments and individuals went is as freelancers who refused to coordinate with the Incident Chief. Other departments cooperated selflessly. Initially, there were also problems of coordination between the fire departments and other government agencies. One senior fireman had to physically prevent a determined four-star general from leading a group of unequipped soldiers into the midst of the fire in what would have been a suicidal rescue attempt. There were other military men who wanted to dash in to recover classified materials from the flames. The FBI insisted on treating the entire incident as a regular crime scene, and their attempts at safeguarding evidence initially were disruptive. Likewise, all the other agencies, from FEMA, to various security agencies, to the Red Cross. Each tried to pursue its own purposes, all too often at cross purposes. Of course, none of this was ill intention or stupidity, but the way organizations behave under stress. Eventually, by the end of the second day, the Fire Chiefs and their leading deputies managed to restore order and impose an agreed organization, but the first day was rough. Eventually, the fire was extinguished, with much help from innovative methods and management combining structure and flexibility. Then the task of recovering bodies and evidence could proceed. The discussion of the aircraft evidence recovered, and how it was recovered mainly by the breached C-Ring wall is more proof to dispirit any but the most fanatic Truther.

For those of us who have been spared close involvement with fires, this book provides a wealth of insight on the details of firefighting, the risks, the techniques, the problems which may emerge. Previously, all I knew was burly guys getting close to the flames and spurting water from their hoses, occasionally dashing in to carry out a victim. A job for heroic but dumb guys. Boy, was I ever wrong! Never again will I underestimate the brains required of a good firefighter. But let us not underestimate the heroic part of the job either. This book gives full credit, telling the tales of individuals as they labored to reverse the flames. Told from multiple perspectives, some individual accounts may seem inconsistent, but that is the reality of a complex crisis, and by the end of the book, the overview all makes sense. As I finished the book I reflected that only 125 people from the Pentagon were killed, along with the 64 people on Flight 77. Though this was a fire which everyone expected would claim the lives of several firefighters, thanks to skilled management no firefighters were killed, and their physical injuries were mainly from exhaustion and smoke.

This is a story to fill you with pride in our people , and to renew your anger at those who inflicted such terrible injury, and also at those who now try to spread lies and deception. It renews my dedication in the cause. But it also interests me in learning more about firefighting. Patrick Creed and Rick Newman have earned commendation for Firefight.

A tip o’ the boonie hat to Katie of Random House for the review copy.

-Rurik

It is a circus trial, with five clowns in center ring. Thursday June 5, was the opening of the trial at Guantanamo of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, and his companions Ramzi Binalshibh , Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Walid bin Attash and Mustapha al-Hawsawi for their part in the conspiracy culminating in the attacks of September 11, 2001. They have been implicated in other attacks as well.

We all remember Khalid, the disheveled, hairy guy captured in the dead of night in Pakistan in 2002. Now he looks much cleaned up, at least by Muslim standards in white garments and a long flowing beard. He appeared in obvious command of his four accomplices.

At yesterday’s session KSM, and his friends rejected the right of the US court to try them, and gave indication they would not cooperate in their own defense. He claimed he had been tortured. (Even though his head was still on his own shoulders and there was no sign of any panties on his head.) KSM did not confess his guilt for the attacks but proudly proclaimed it. He invited the court to sentence him to death, saying he has wanted to become a martyr for years. KSM is evil, but also proudly defiant and seemingly eager to use his trial as a propaganda platform. Evidently, the official defense counsel, Col. Steven David, intends to defend them, not only by trying to establish their innocence, but also to attack our right to try them. (And by implication his right to be there defending them). We have a problem.

If we execute these thugs, we give them what they want, and turn them into heroes in the eyes of their supporters. If we spare their lives we have a whole new set of problems, such as, where do we keep them for the next fort or more years, and under what conditions? Should we provide halal living conditions for these murdering enemies? How do we keep other Islamicists from staging new outrages in attempt to gain them their freedom? How do we deal with an ensuing half century of recurring legal appeals, until eventually some judge finds an excuse to release them, or a future president, sympathetic to Muslims, pardons them. Not long ago, our good German friends pardoned another Muslim terrorist whom they had convicted and sentenced to life in prison, rather than hand him over the the Americans who might execute him. “Ja, ve vill hold him in jail for the rest of his life, or until you forget about it, vhichefer kommt first.” Even if we sentence him to death, how many appeals will we provide him?

We should have foreseen these developments at the time KSM was captured. Many of us tried to argue that these people should be treated as illegal combatants, not entitled to Geneva Conventions or due process, but just interrogated and then shot out of hand. But a cabal of idiotic lawyers and craven diplomats and politicians decided to preen their own exalted sense of noblesse and prove to people who will not be convinced and who do not matter, just how good we are.

But too late. So how do we handle this circus? First of all, get those thugs back into proper prison garb, orange jumpsuits, and close-cropped hair and no beards. Emphasize to them and the world that they are regarded as felons. We also ought to end any other special Islamic privileges. We did not let the Nazis have special Aryan accommodations at Nuremberg, or permit Keitel and Jodl to wear their medals while in the dock. Their food should consist of Sheriff Joe Arpaio Cuisine – bologna sandwiches and water. You want halal? Well behave like humans. And let it get out to other Muslims that their diet has become pork-enhanced. Then, by all means give KSM the death sentence he says he wants, but remember the old practice of General Pershing campaigning in the Philippines against the Moros, and grease the bullets (or the needle) with pork lard. Give them death but not the martyrdom. This farce is not going to be entertaining, so end it quickly, along with the five clowns. And then make sure there are no re-runs scheduled.

-Rurik

So I’ve established that our oil, food and financial sectors are currently spiraling out of control. What to do about it? I believe that all three problems are interlocked, and though all need to be fixed, a serious positive development on any one of the three will have beneficial effects on the others. If the value of the dollar strengthens, that will automatically have a beneficial impact on how much oil we can buy for a dollar. Decreases in the price of grain and/or oil will strengthen the dollar. There is no reason we need to attack these problems sequentially; they can be addressed simultaneously.

Oil involves energy in general, and the wider sense. But we must also remember that petroleum is not only about fuel and lubricants. Plastic is also a petroleum derivative. So are a number of medicines. And probably a number of other products as well. Keep that in mind the next time some environmentally conscious idiot tries to tell you to “take plastic” instead of a paper bag. It is a good rule of thumb to assume that whenever anyone urges the “socially responsible” choice, they are wrong, either through naïve ignorance or malevolence. However, these other hydrocarbon products may come from other parts of the petroleum spectrum than what is refined into fuel and lubricant. So you don’t need to put Junior’s sippy cup into your gas tank. And of course there are various grades of petroleum, as you would know if you listen to the nightly business news – Light Sweet Crude, North Sea Brent, and others. No, I do not understand the differences in these substances; if I did I’d be too wealthy and busy to write this column myself.
Read the rest of this entry »