Debunking Two American Myths

Authored by The Saker,

There are two myths which are deeply imprinted in the minds of most US Americans which are extremely dangerous and which can result in a war with Russia.

• The first myth is the myth of the US military superiority.


• The second myth is the myth about the US invulnerability.

I believe that it is therefore crucial to debunk these myths before they end up costing us millions of lives and untold suffering.

In my latest piece for the Unz Review I discussed the reasons why the US armed forces are nowhere nearly as advanced as the US propaganda machine would have us believe. And even though the article was a discussion of Russian military technologies I only gave one example, in passing, of Russian military technologies by comparing the T-50 PAKFA to the US F-35 (if you want to truly get a feel for the F-35 disaster, please read this and this). First, I am generally reluctant to focus on weapons systems because I strongly believe that, in the vast majority of real-world wars, tactics are far more important than technologies. Second, Andrei Martyanov, an expert on Russian military issues and naval warfare, has recently written two excellent pieces on Russian military technologies (see here and here) which gave many more examples (check out Martyanov’s blog). Having read some of the comments posted under Martyanov’s and my articles, I think that it is important, crucial, in fact, to drive home the message to those who still are thoroughly trained by the propaganda machine to instantly dismiss any notion of US vulnerability or, even more so, technological inferiority. I am under no illusion about the capability of those who still watch the idiot box to be woken out of their lethargic stupor by the warnings of Paul Craig Roberts, William Engdal, Dmitrii Orlov, Andrei Martyanov or myself. But I also think that we have to keep trying, because the war party (the Neocon Uniparty) is apparently trying really hard to trigger a conflict with Russia. So what I propose to do today is to connect the notions of “war with Russia” and “immediate and personal suffering” by showing that if Russia is attacked two of the most sacred symbols of the USA, aircraft carriers and the US mainland itself, would be immediately attacked and destroyed.

The aircraft carriers myth

I have to confess that even during the Cold War I always saw US aircraft carriers as sitting ducks which the Soviets would have rather easily destroyed. I formed that opinion on the basis of my study of Soviet anti-carrier tactics and on the basis of conversations with friends (fellow students) who actually served on US aircraft carriers.

I wish I had the time and space to go into a detailed description of what a Cold War era Soviet attack on a US aircraft carrier battle group would typically look like, but all I will say is that it would involved swarms of heavy air and sea launched missiles coming from different directions, some skimming the waves, others dropping down from very high altitude, all at tremendous speeds, combined with more underwater-launched missiles and even torpedoes. All of these missiles would be “intelligent” and networked with each other: they would be sharing sensor data, allocating targets (to avoid duplication), using countermeasures, receiving course corrections, etc. These missiles would be launched at standoff distances by supersonic bombers or by submerged submarines. The targeting would involve space-based satellites and advanced naval reconnaissance technologies. My USN friends were acutely aware of all this and they were laughing at their own official US propaganda (Reagan was in power then) which claimed that the USN would “bring the war to the Russians” by forward deploying carriers. In direct contrast, my friends all told me that the first thing the USN would do is immediately flush all the carriers away from the North Atlantic and into the much safer waters south of the so-called GUIK gap. So here is the ugly truth: carriers are designed to enforce the rule of the AngloZionist Empire on small and basically defenseless nations (like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq). Nobody in the USN, at least not in the late 1980s, seriously considered forward deploying aircraft carrier battlegroups near the Kola Peninsula to “bring the war to the Russians”. That was pure propaganda. The public did not know that, but USN personnel all knew the truth.

[Sidebar: if the topic of carrier survivability is of interest to you, please check out this Russian article translated by a member of our community which is a pretty typical example of how the Russian don’t believe for one second that US carriers are such hard targets to destroy]

What was true then is even more true today and I can’t imagine anybody at the Pentagon seriously making plans to attack Russia with carrier based aviation. But even if the USN has no intention of using its carriers against Russia, that does not mean that the Russians cannot actively seek out US carriers and destroy them, even very far from Russia. After all, even if they are completely outdated for a war between superpowers, carriers still represent fantastically expensive targets whose symbolic value remains immense. The truth is that US carriers are the most lucrative target any enemy could hope for: (relatively) small, (relatively) easy to destroy, distributed in many locations around the globe – US carriers are almost “pieces of the USA, only much closer”.

Introducing the Zircon 3M22 hypersonic missile

First, some basic data about this missile (from English and Russian Wikipedia):

• Low level range: 135 to 270 nautical miles (155 to 311mi; 250 to 500km).


• High level range: 400nmi (460mi; 740km) in a semi-ballistic trajectory.


• Max range: 540nmi (620mi; 1,000km)


• Max altitude: 40km (130’000 feet)


• Average range is around 400km (250mi; 220nmi)/450 km.


• Speed: Mach 5–Mach 6 (3,806–4,567mph; 6,125–7,350km/h; 1.7015–2.0417km/s).


• Max speed: Mach 8 (6,090mph; 9,800km/h; 2.7223km/s) during a test.


• Warhead: 300-400kg (high explosive or nuclear)


• Shape: low-RCS with radar absorbing coating.


• Cost per missile: 1-2 million dollars (depending on configuration)

All this is already very impressive, but here comes the single most important fact about this missile: it can be launched from pretty much *any* platform: cruisers, of course, but also frigates and even small corvettes. It can be launched by nuclear and diesel-electric attack submarines. It can also be launched from long range bombers (Tu-160), medium-range bombers (Tu-22m3), medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft (SU-34) and even, according to some reports, from multi-role air superiority fighter (SU-35). Finally, this missile can also be shore-based. In fact, this missile can be launched from any platform capable of launching the now famous Kalibr cruise missile and that means that even a merchant marine or fishing ship could carry a container with the Zircon missile hidden inside. In plain English what this means is the following:

1. Russia has a missile which cannot be stopped or spoofed by any of the current and foreseeable USN anti-missile weapons systems.


2. This missile can be deployed *anywhere* in the world on *any* platform.

Let me repeat this again: pretty much any Russian ship and pretty much any Russian aircraft from now on will have the potential capability of sinking a US aircraft carrier. In the past, such capabilities were limited to specific ships (Slava class), submarines (Oscar class) or aircraft (Backfires). The Soviets had a large but limited supply of such platforms and they were limited on where they could deploy them. This era is now over. From now on a swarm of Zircon 3M22 could appear anywhere on the planet at any moment and with no warning time (5000 miles per hour incoming speed does not leave the target anything remotely comparable to even a short reaction time). In fact, the attack could be so rapid that it might not even leave the target the time needed to indicate that it is under attack.

None of the above is a big secret, by the way. Just place “zircon missile” in your favorite search engine and you will get a lot of hits (131’000 on Google; 190’000 on Bing). In fact, a lot of specialists have declared that the Zircon marks the end of the aircraft carrier as a platform of modern warfare. These claims are widely exaggerated. As I have written above, aircraft carriers are ideal tools to terrify, threaten, bully and otherwise attack small, defenseless countries. Even medium-sized countries would have a very hard time dealing with an attack coming from US aircraft carriers. So I personally think that as long as the world continues to use the US dollar and, therefore, as long as the US economy continues to reply on creating money out of thin air and spending it like there is no tomorrow, aircraft carriers still have a bright, if morally repulsive, future ahead of them. And, of course, the USN will not use carriers to threaten Russia. Again, the US press has been rather open about the carrier-killing potential of the Zircon, but what it rarely (never?) mentions are the political and strategic consequence from the deployment of the Zircon: from now on Russia will have an easy and very high value US target she can destroy anytime she wants. You can think of the US carrier fleet like 10 US hostages which the Russians can shoot at any time. And what is crucial is this: an attack on a US carrier would not be an attack on the US homeland, nor would it be a nuclear attack, but the psychological shock resulting from such an attack could well be comparable to a (limited) nuclear strike on the US homeland.

This, on one hand, will greatly inhibit the Russian willingness to strike at US carriers as this would expose Russia to very severe retaliatory measures (possibly including nuclear strikes). On the other hand, however, in terms of “escalation dominance” this state of affairs gives a major advantage to Russia as the US does not have any Russian targets with an actual and symbolic value similar to the one of a US carrier.

There is another aspect of this issue which is often ignored. Western analysts often speak of a Russian strategy of “deterrence by denial” and “Anti-Access Area Denial” (A2AD). Mostly this is the kind of language which gets you a promotion and a pay raise in US and NATO think tanks. Still, there is a grain of truth to the fact that advanced Russian missiles are now providing Russia with a very cheap way to threaten even fantastically expensive US assets. Worse, Russia is willing (eager, in fact) to export these (relatively cheap) missiles to other countries. I find it amusing to see how US politicians are in a state of constant hysteria about the risk of nuclear proliferation, but fail to realize that conventional anti-ship missiles are a formidable, and much more likely, threat. Sure, there are missile export limiting treaties, such as the MTCR, but they only apply to missile with a range of over 300km. With modern ballistic and cruise missiles becoming smaller, deadlier and easier to conceal and with ranges which are (relatively) easy to extend, treaties such as the MTCR are becoming increasingly outdated.

The bottom line is this: as long as deterrences holds, attacking US carriers makes no sense whatsoever for Russia; however, as soon as deterrence fails, attacking US carriers, anywhere on the planet, gives Russia an extremely flexible and powerful escalation dominance capability which the US cannot counter in kind.

Striking at the Holy of Holies – the US “homeland”

If you thought that discussing striking US carriers was bad, here we are going to enter full “Dr Strangelove” territory and discuss something which US Americans find absolutely unthinkable: attacks on the US homeland.

True, for the rest of mankind, any war by definition includes the very real possibility of attacks on your own towns, cities and people. But for US Americans who are used to mete out violence and death far away from their own peaceful towns and cities, the notion of a devastating strike against the US homeland is pretty much unthinkable. On 9/11 the loss of 3000 innocent people placed the vast majority of US Americans into a total state of shock which resulted in a massive over-reaction at all levels (which was, of course, exactly the purpose of this false flag operation by the US and Israeli deep states). Just as with carriers, the dangers of a US over-reaction should serve as a deterrent to any attacks on the US homeland. But, just as with the carriers, that is only true as long as deterrence holds. If the Russian territory becomes the object of a US attack this would clearly indicate that deterrence has failed and that the Russian armed forces should now switch from a deterrence mode to a war-fighting mode.

At this point, the US American over-reaction to begin attacked or taking casualties could, paradoxically, result in a last-minute wake-up call indicating to everybody that what will come next will be truly devastating.

Introducing the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)

Though officially very little is know about the Sarmat and the Yu-71, the reality is that the Internet has been full of educated guesses which give us a pretty clear idea of what kind of systems we are dealing here.

You can think of the RS-28 Sarmat as a successor of the already formidable RS-36 Voevoda (SS-18 Satan in US classification) missile: it is a heavy, very powerful, intercontinental ballistic missile with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (warheads):

• Weight: 100 tons


• Payload: 10 tons


• Warheads: 10 to 15


• Hypersonic glide vehicles: 3-24 (that’s the Yu-71 we will discuss below)


• Range: 10’000km


• Guidance: Inertial , satellite, astrocelestial


• Trajectory: FOBS-capable

That last line, about being FOBS-capable, is crucial as it means that, unlike most Soviet/Russian ICMBs, the Sarmat does not have to fly over the North Pole to strike at the United States. In fact, the Sarmat could fly over the South Pole or, for that matter, in any direction and still reach any target in the USA. Right there this capability is, by itself, is more than enough to defeat any current and foreseeable US anti-ballistic missile technology. But it gets better, or worse, depending on your perspective: the Sarmat’s reentry vehicles/warhards are capable of flying in low orbit, maneuver, and then suddenly plunge towards their targets. The only way to defeat such an attack would be to protect the USA by a 360⁰ coverage capable ABM system, something which the USA is decades away from deploying. And just to add to these already formidable characteristics, each Sarmat can carry up to 3-24 (depending on who you ask) Yu-71 hypersonic glide vehicles.

Introducing The Yu-71 (aka “Object 4202) hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)

Yet again, this is hardly a topic not covered in the media and you can find numerous articles describing what a hypersonic glide vehicle is and how it can be used. (the best article I could find in English was by Global Security, it is entitled “Objekt 4202 / Yu-71 / Yu-74”).

Here is a summary of what we think we know about this HGV:

• Max Speed: from Mach 5, according to Scott Ritter, to Mach 9, according to a quasi official Russian source, to Mach 15, acccording to Sputnik, to Mach 20 (that’s 7 kilometer per second, or 25’200kh/h, or 15’000mph), according to Global Security. Whatever the true speed, it will be fantastic and far, far beyond the kind of speeds current or foreseeable US anti-missile systems could hope to engage.


• Hypermaneuverability: Russian sources describe the Yu-71 as “???????????????? ??????????” or “hypermaneuverable warhead”. What that exactly means in turns of sustained Gs does not really matter as this is not about air-to-air combat, but about the ability to perform sudden course changes making it close to impossible for anti-missile systems to calculate an engagement solution.


• Warhead: nuclear and conventional/kinetic.

That last line is very interesting. What it means is that considering the speeds attained by the Yu-71 HGV it is not necessary to equip it with a conventional (high explosive) or nuclear warheard. The kinetic energy generated by its high speed is sufficient to create an explosion similar to what a large conventional or small nuclear warhead could generate.

Bringing it all together now

Did you notice the similarities between the Zircon missile and the Sarmat+Yu-71 combo?

In both cases we have:

1. an attack which can come from any direction


2. speed of attack and maneuver capabilities which make interception impossible


3. the capability for Russia to destroy a very high value US target in a very short time

It is amazing to see that while US decision makers were talking about their Prompt Global Strike program, the Russians actually developed their own version of this capability, much faster than the USA and at a fraction of the cost.

These are all ideal ways to “bring the war home” and to encourage a country which enjoyed total impunity for its policies to being seriously thinking about the consequences of messing around with the wrong people.

To make things even more potentially dangerous for the USA, the very same geography which protected the USA for so long is now becoming a major vulnerability. Currently 39% of the US population lives in counties directly on the shoreline. In fact, the population density of coastal shoreline counties is over six times greater than the corresponding inland counties (source). In 2010 the US Census Bureau produced a fascinating report entitled “Coastline Population Trends in the United States: 1960 to 2008” which shows that the coastal counties provide an “intense concentration of economic and social activity”. In fact, a very large number of US cities, industrial centers and economic hugs are located near the USA coastline making them all *ideal* targets for Russian conventional cruise missile strikes which could be launched from very long distances (including over open water). And we are not talking about some future, hypothetical, cruise missile, we are talking about the very same Kalibr cruise missiles the Russians have been using against the Takfiris in Syria. Check out this very well made video which explains how Kalibr cruise missiles can be hidden pretty much anywhere and used with devastating effect on military and/or civilian targets:

The reality is that the US homeland is extremely vulnerable to any kind of attack. This is only in part due to recent Russian advances in military technology. For example, the “just on time” manufacturing or delivery practices which are aimed to minimize costs and inventory are, from a strategic/military point of view, extremely dangerous as it take very little disruption (for example in the distribution network) to create catastrophic consequences. Likewise, the high concentration of some industries in specific areas of the United States (oil in the Mexican Gulf) only serve to further weaken the ability of the United State to take any kind of punishment in case of war.

Most TV watching Americans will dismiss all of the above by saying that “anybody come mess with us and we will kick their ass” or something equally sophisticated. And there is some truth to that. But what this mindset also indicate is a complete mental inability to operate in a scenario when deterrence has failed and the “other guy” is coming for you. That mindset is the prerogative of civilians. Those tasked with the defense of their country simply cannot think that way and have to look beyond the “threshold of deterrence”. They will be the one asked to fix the bloody mess once the civilians screw-up. Georges Clemenceau reportedly once said that “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men”. I believe that the exact opposite is true, that war is too serious a matter to entrust to civilians, especially the US Neocons (the vast majority of whom have never spent any time in uniform) and who always make it sound like the next war will be easy, safe and painless. Remember Ken Adleman and his famous Iraqi “cakewalk”? The very same kind of scum is in power today and they want us to believe that the next war will also be a cakewalk or that being on a high speed collision course with Russia is something the USA can afford and should therefore engage in. The combined effect of the myth of US military superiority with the myth about the US invulnerability result in a US American sense of detachment, or even impunity, which is not at all supported by fact. I just fervently hope that the people of the USA will not find out how mistaken they are the hard way.

In the meantime, the Russian Chief of General Staff, General Gerasimov, has announced that Russia had completed what he called a “non-nuclear deterrence system” based on the Iskander-M, Kalibr and X-101 missiles. According to General Gerasimov, the Russian armed forces now have enough high-precision weapon systems to strike at any target within a 4000km range. Furthermore, Gerasimov declared that the number of platforms capable of launching such missiles has increased twelve times while the number of high precision cruise missiles has increased by a factor 30. General Gerasimov also explained that the combined capabilities of the Kalibr cruise missile, the Bastion mobile coastal defense missile system and the S-400 air defense system made it possible for Russia to fully control the airspace and surface of the Baltic, Barents, Black and Mediterranean seas (talk about A2AD!). Gerasimov concluded his briefing by saying “the development of high-precision weapons has made it possible to place the main burden of strategic deterrence from nuclear to non-nuclear forces”.

To fully evaluate the implications of what Gerasimov said please consider this: deterrence is, by definition, the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences. So what Gerasimov is really saying is that Russia has enough conventional, non-nuclear, capabilities to inflict unacceptable consequences upon the USA. This is something absolutely new, a fundamental game changer. Most importantly, that is the official declaration by a senior Russian official that the USA does not have any technological superiority and that the USA is vulnerable to a devastating counter-attack, even a conventional one. In one short sentence General Gerasimov has put to rest the two most important myths of US geostrategic theory.

Keep in mind that, unlike their US counterparts, the Russians typically like to under-evaluate Russian military capabilities. You will find the Russia media bragging about how “totally awesome and best in the world” Russian weapons systems are, but military personnel in Russia still has a corporate culture of secrecy and under-reporting your real capabilities to the enemy. Furthermore, while junior officers can say pretty much anything they want, senior officers are held to very strict rules and they have to carefully weigh every word they say, especially acting officers. So when the Chief of Staff officially declares that Russia now has a conventional strategic deterrence capability – you can take that to the bank. It’s real.

Alas, the western media is still stuck in the “full idiot” mode we saw during the transit of the Russian aircraft carrier from the North Atlantic to the Mediterranean: on one hand, the Admiral Kuznetsov was presented as a rusty old bucket while on the other NATO forces constantly shadowed it as if it was about to strike London. Likewise, US politicians present Russia as a “gas station” while, at the same time, stating that this “gas station” has the capability to decide who lives in the White House. This kind of reporting is not only unhelpful but outright dangerous. One one hand the “the Russians are backward brutes” fosters an arrogant and cocky attitude. On the other hand, constantly speaking about fake Russian threats results in a very dangerous case of “cry wolf” in which all possible Russian threats (including very real ones) are dismissed as pure propaganda.

The reality is, of course, very different and simple in a binary way: Russia represents absolutely no threat to the United States or anybody else (including the three Baltic statelets). But if some western politician decides that he is smarter and stronger than Napoleon or Hitler and that he will finally bring the Russians to their knees, then he and his country will be destroyed. It is really that simple.

Macron Approval Rating Crashes Twice As Fast As Trump's

It appears that Trump is no longer the president with the fastest plunge in his approval rating: that honor has now fallen to France"s Emanuel Macron, who since his dramatic victory in the May 7 presidential election, has seen his popularity plummet, and according to a a new poll conducted by Ifop for Le Journal du Dimanche, most French voters are now dissatisfied with Emmanuel Macron’s performance, a dramatic decline for the president who basked in a landslide election victory less than four months ago.

The poll showed Macron’s “dissatisfaction rating” soaring to 57%, from 43% in July. At the same time, those satisfied with Macron tumbled from 54% in July (and 62% at election) to just 40% in August, a stunning 22% drop over three months...  which is twice as fast as Donald Trump"s fall from grace. According to Gallup, on Inauguration Day, 45% of Americans said they approved of Trump and since then, the number has declined by 11% to 34%, which again is only half as bad as Macron popularity plunge. The Ifop poll also showed the cumulative drop in Macron’s popularity ratings since May was far bigger than that of previous Socialist president Francois Hollande over the same period, who is best known for achieving the lowest approval record of any recent French president on record. As such, one wonders how Macron"s approval rating in a few short years can even be positive.

Quoted by Reuters, French government spokesman Christophe Castaner said the ruling party was going through a "tricky time", but added that displeasing some people was a price worth paying if the government wanted to push through reforms. The only problem is the government will most likely not be able to push through reforms, even as Macron"s approval continues its sharp descent. Cartaner also told BFM TV that “yes, we are encountering difficulties, but you cannot just spend your time only looking at polls when you’re in government. We are there to transform the country. Our country needs us to take risks, and we are taking risks." Spoken like a true megalomaniac.

As for Macron -  who is currently midway through a schedule of official visits to various European capitals and who most recently got into a violent feud with Poland when he criticized the Warsaw government for its "non-European ideals" to which Polish PM Beata Syzdlo slammed "arrogant" Macron saying "you won"t rule Europe" - has suffered a number of setbacks since being elected, including tough debates in parliament over labor reform, a standoff with the military and cuts to housing assistance. Then, just last week, Macron became the target of social media scorn and humor, while political opponents criticized the president when it emerged he spent €26,000 ($31,000) on makeup during his first 100 days in office and his office also backed down on plans to give his wife a formal, paid role after a public backlash.

In any case, the latest polling is terrible news for the young new president who was expected to inspire his country with hope and confidence yet appears to be doing just the opposite: Bernard Sananes, head of French polling company Elabe, said the latest survey could encourage Macron’s political opponents, after his party won a commanding majority in parliament.

“It could mean, for the government, that the opposition mobilizes itself again,” Sananes told BFM TV.

It wasn"t just Macron: the poll also showed a steep drop in approval for Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, with 47% expressing satisfaction with him - down 9% from last month.

As Reuters adds, Macron - France"s youngest leader since Napoleon - faces a big test next month when the far-left CGT trade union leads a rally to protest against plans to deregulate the jobs market. "Now is the key time, with the labor executive orders to be presented," said Francois Savary, chief investment officer at Geneva-based investment firm Prime Partners, who has an "underweight" position on French equities.

Pat Buchanan Asks "In This Second American Civil War - Whose Side Are You On?"

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Townhall.com,

"They had found a leader, Robert E. Lee -- and what a leader! ... No military leader since Napoleon has aroused such enthusiastic devotion among troops as did Lee when he reviewed them on his horse Traveller."

So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial "The Oxford History of the American People" in 1965.

First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.

This veneration of Lee, wrote Richard Weaver, "appears in the saying attributed to a Confederate soldier, "The rest of us may have ... descended from monkeys, but it took a God to make Marse Robert.""

Growing up after World War II, this was accepted history.

Yet, on the militant left today, the name Lee evokes raw hatred and howls of "racist and traitor." A clamor has arisen to have all statues of him and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen pulled down from their pedestals and put in museums or tossed onto trash piles.

What has changed since 1965?

It is not history. There have been no great new discoveries about Lee.

What has changed is America herself. She is not the same country. We have passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.

And the politicians are in panic.

Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson on Richmond"s Monument Avenue "parts of our heritage."

After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as "flashpoints for hatred, division, and violence."

Who hates the statues, Terry? Who"s going to cause the violence?

Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

McAuliffe is echoed by Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in November to succeed McAuliffe. GOP nominee Ed Gillespie wants Monument Avenue left alone.

The election is the place to decide this, but the left will not wait.

In Durham, North Carolina, our Taliban smashed the statue of a Confederate soldier. Near the entrance of Duke University Chapel, a statue of Lee has been defaced, the nose broken off.

Wednesday at dawn, Baltimore carried out a cultural cleansing by taking down statues of Lee and Maryland Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote the Dred Scott decision and opposed Lincoln"s suspension of the right of habeas corpus.

Like ISIS, which smashed the storied ruins of Palmyra, and the al-Qaida rebels who ravaged the fabled Saharan city of Timbuktu, the new barbarism has come to America. This is going to become a blazing issue, not only between but within the parties.

For there are 10 Confederates in Statuary Hall in the Capitol, among them Lee, Georgia"s Alexander Stephens, vice president to Jefferson Davis, and Davis himself. The Black Caucus wants them gone.

Mount Rushmore-sized carvings of Lee, Jackson and Davis are on Stone Mountain, Georgia. Are they to be blasted off?

There are countless universities, colleges and high schools like Washington & Lee named for Confederate statesmen and soldiers. Across the Potomac from D.C. are Jefferson Davis Highway and Leesburg Pike to Leesburg itself, 25 miles north. Are all highways, streets, towns and counties named for Confederates to be renamed? What about Fort Bragg?

On every Civil War battlefield, there are monuments to the Southern fallen. Gettysburg has hundreds of memorials, statues and markers. But if, as the left insists we accept, the Confederates were traitors trying to tear America apart to preserve an evil system, upon what ground do Democrats stand to resist the radical left"s demands?

What do we do with those battlefields where Confederates were victorious: Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville?

"Where does this all end?" President Trump asked.

It doesn"t.

Not until America"s histories and biographies are burned and new texts written to Nazify Lee, Jackson, Davis and all the rest, will a newly indoctrinated generation of Americans accede to this demand to tear down and destroy what their fathers cherished.

And once all the Confederates are gone, one must begin with the explorers, and then the slave owners like Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who seceded from slave-free Britain. White supremacists all.

Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay of Kentucky and John Calhoun must swiftly follow.

Then there are all those segregationists. From 1865 to 1965, virtually all of the great Southern senators were white supremacists.

In the first half of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson and FDR carried all 11 states of a rigidly segregationist South all six times they ran, and FDR rewarded Dixie by putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.

While easy for Republicans to wash their hands of such odious elements as Nazis in Charlottesville, will they take up the defense of the monuments and statues that have defined our history, or capitulate to the icon-smashers?

In this Second American Civil War, whose side are you on?

Can Germany Be Made Great Again?

Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man.com,

When Germany Was Great!

Ever since the start of the deliberately conceived “migrant crisis,” orchestrated by NWO elites, the news out of Germany has been, to say the least, horrific. Right before the eyes of the world, a country is being demographically destroyed through a coercive plan of mass migration.  The intended consequences of this – financial strain, widespread crime and property destruction, the breakdown of German culture – will continue to worsen if things are not turned around.

 

The Holy Roman Empire in 1789 AD. At the time, Germany was a patchwork of countless independent principalities, duchies, city states, bishoprics and other statelets. This was a glorious time, as citizens could very easily vote with their feet if they were unhappy with their rulers. Keep in mind, there were no such things as “passports” or “border controls” at the time. No-one even thought about such things – it would have been considered an inane notion. And although almost every statelet minted its own coins (displaying its own coat of arms and a portrait of its ruler), money was actually standardized across the entire region since the Middle Ages. Most of Germany used silver coins, which were minted according to standardized weights and sizes (gold coins were also used, but silver was more prevalent in day-to-day commerce). Thus all coins were accepted across the region, regardless of which principality or duchy had issued them. There were no tariffs either and no restrictions on cross-border investment. There was even a mechanism for reining in fiscally highly incompetent or plain crazy rulers through a supra-national arbitration body that only sprang into action upon special request (when such requests were deemed reasonable). Taxes as a rule didn’t exceed a level of 10%, as any attempt to impose higher taxes would lead to an exodus of people from the territory concerned. Not everything was perfect of course, but let us just note that despite a lack of democracy, there was no lack of freedom. Check out some of our previous articles on this topic for additional color: “Secession – An Alternative View” and “Are Nation States Beginning to Splinter?” [PT] – click to enlarge.

Those in opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled with the usual epithets by the mass media: “far right,” “neo-Nazis”, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists”. Because of this and other factors, no mass movement has coalesced as of yet to truly challenge the German political establishment.

Indications of a possible reversal of German fortunes, however, have come from a recent poll of Bavarians. A survey conducted by YouGov, a market research company, found that 32% of Bavarians agreed with the statement that Bavaria “should be independent from Germany.”  The percentage of secession-minded Bavarians has increased from 25% in a poll conducted in 2011. Of the around 2000 people surveyed between June 24 and July 5, most supporters of  independence come from the southern portions of the country.

Whether Bavarians or their fellow German separatists realize it or not, the only “political” solution to the migrant crisis is secession.  This is not only true for Germany, but for all Western nation states swamped with unwanted migrants.  Once free from the domination of the national government (and just as important the EU), each jurisdiction could make its own immigration policy and would be better able to control population influx at the local level.

Civilization and Prosperity Flourish in Small Political Territories 

Historically, Germany’s past has much more in common with a decentralized political landscape than with a unitary state.  From the disintegration of the Roman Empire until Napoleon wantonly abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Germany was an amalgam of different political units – kingdoms, duchies, confederacies, free cities, etc.  With no grand central state, there was considerable freedom and economic growth as each sovereign entity was largely able to conduct its affairs on its own terms.

Decentralized political power is also conducive for the advancement of culture.  Music, the highest art form, found some of its greatest expression from the German peoples.  Monumental figures of Western music were financed in large measure by German princes, kings and emperors.  Johann Sebastian Bach’s sublime Brandenburg concertos were underwritten, so to speak, by Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg, while Beethoven received support from Archduke Rudolph.  Mozart was funded by no lesser figure than the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.

Famous composers and their patrons – from left to right: Johann Sebastian Bach and his financier Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ludwig van Beethoven and his patron Archduke Rudolph of Austria, the Archbishop of Olomouc (who died in 1831 at age 43 just one year after Beethoven passed away – not to be confused with the later Archduke Rudolf, the crown prince who killed himself and his lover Baroness Vetsera at the Mayerling hunting lodge in 1889); Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his biggest fan and supporter Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Great artists, outstanding intellectuals and scientists were as a rule supported by members of the elites at the time, who either paid them stipends or commissioned specific works. It is worth noting that the achievements of these artists and intellectuals have generally stood the test of time, which seems highly unlikely to happen with most of the dreck funded by the State in modern times. [PT]

Political decentralization provides an important mechanism as a check on state power.  A multitude of governments prevents individual state aggrandizement as oppressed populations can “vote with their feet” and move to safer and less repressive regimes.  A unitary state, or just a few, throughout the world would negate such an advantage.

Naturally, if nation states are a constant threat to the liberties and economic well being of their citizens, global organizations and states are that much more of a danger and should always and everywhere be opposed.  The European Union, largely based on the principles of the US Constitution, has pressured nations under its sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they refuse to contribute their fair share.

The empirical evidence with regard to political decentralization and economic growth is overwhelming.  Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limits on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states, since there would be ample opportunities for producers to set up shop in areas more conducive to their efforts.

A truly depressing record: today only five countries in the world are considered economically free according to the Heritage Economic Freedom Index (another 28 are in the “mostly free” category). Not even one country has a perfect score of 100. You will notice that the top five include only one large territory, namely Australia – which just about makes the cut with a score of 81 points; moreover, it is a sparsely populated place with a population of only ~24 million people. The two territories considered most free are city states, and the next two are tiny countries. For some reason Heritage didn’t rank a number of smaller countries and city states such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Monaco. If it had, they would be in the top five, replacing the countries currently ranked 3 to 5. The countries with high economic freedom scores are the most prosperous places on the planet, which is of course no coincidence. Citizens of other countries who are not part of the political elites and their politically well-connected cronies must of course wonder why these success stories are not emulated everywhere in the world. They should also ask themselves what is worth more to them: that their rulers are able to “throw their weight around on the international stage” (one of the reasons for which people in Europe are supposed to support the socialist superstate wet dreams of the EU’s political and bureaucratic elites), or their personal freedom. It is worth noting that several of the countries with high economic freedom scores are not considered sufficiently democratic; in other words, the ability of citizens to choose which gang of criminals waving a flag should boss them around and rob them for the next several years is limited. We happen to think it’s more important that those in power do as little bossing around as possible. In fact, people should not even worry about who is going to sit on the throne, they should focus on simply abolishing the throne instead. Unfortunately it is quite difficult to deprogram the serfs, but one can always hope. We are actually convinced that Statism will wither away at some point in the future and be replaced by societies based on voluntarism. [PT]

This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and less restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.

If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migrant crisis before the country is completely dismembered demographically, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots.  Let Bavaria lead the way!

How Decentralizing Institutions Will Unite the Left and Right

Via The Daily Bell

“Big government is the problem!”

“No, big business is the problem!”

What if their coexistence on such a large scale is the real problem? They each rely on the other for power. A corporation is a government creation, with legal definitions which protect it from market forces. And government laws and regulations are largely designed by corporate special interests.

It is a vicious cycle which arguably fits the definition of fascism. The government doesn’t own the means of production, but it regulates industry to the point that it might as well. A corporation can work through the government to make any law or regulation it wants which will give them an unfair advantage or kill a competitor. The government even directly hands corporations money in the form of bailouts, subsidies, and grants!

At this point, it is impossible to disentangle big business and big government. So when we talk decentralizing institutions, it is not just the government which needs to be split up.

Of course, many on the left seem to think the government is the institution needed to reign in big business. This is an absurd contradiction; government is what made big business the cronyistic monster it is today.

Likewise, we cannot expect the market to reign in government. Current market conditions prove the easiest way to turn a “profit” is by cozying up to the government, not by pitting your business against it.

But the left and right should agree that having a choice is better than being forced according to the whims of the majority. Or has the left learned nothing from the election of Donald Trump?

There is a dangerous meme on the left that government can solve all problems if the right people are in power. They claim the people control the government by voting, and that over the long run, the majority will do the right thing–as long as the left has control over public education, the media, and free speech.

But the right also believes a dangerous meme that business will always be properly regulated by market forces. But just like the voters, the consumers will not always steer industry in the proper direction. The main difference is that you can withdraw your support from business… in theory.

The marriage between government and industry makes voting at the ballot box or with your dollar a dubious solution. But the smaller and more decentralized institutions get–whether business or government structures–the easier they are to control.

Local business and local government will always be more responsive to voters and customers. The key is being able to withdraw support in favor of an actual alternative choice.

Unity Through Decentralization

The internet has centralized society more than ever before. Yet this unity did not occur by way of conquering armies and imperial empires. The internet provided a platform for natural order to emerge out of chaos. It is a place for voluntary interactions.

The internet–and technologies based on it such as the blockchain–provides the unity needed for modern communication, coordination, and economic transactions. The ease of forming voluntary groups allows decentralization of power to be a real possibility.

Kirkpatrick Sale is one leftist arguing for decentralization of government and industry. He recently released a book called Human Scale Revisited. This is an updated and slimmed down version of his 1980 book Human Scale.

The heart of Human Scale, then and now, is Sale’s judgment that “to save our planet and its civilizations…we must work toward a decentralization of institutions, the devolution of power, and the dismantling of all large scale systems that have created or perpetuated the current crisis. In their place, smaller more controllable, more efficient, more sensitive, people-sized units, rooted in local environments and guided by local citizens. That is the human-scale alternative.”

The more decentralized government gets, the more decentralized business will become. People have more control over smaller governments. People are less likely to support bailouts and subsidies for “special” companies when they can’t imagine that someone 14 states away is paying for it.

Already we have some degree of control over how large companies can get. I grow a solid percentage of the food I eat. I make my own soap, deodorant, and toothpaste. I gladly shop at thrift stores and flea markets. Local beer, and family owned restaurants are the highlights of my nights out.

The point of failure is that the government can still steal our money and hand it to failing car companies, crooked investment banks, and manipulative oil companies. They can still bar entry into the restaurant and beer industry. They can threaten me if I buy, sell, or trade goods such as raw milk with my neighbors.

Decentralize the seat of government, and the people can choose to not associate with governments which do such things.

If 50 countries stand where the United States once stood, we would have actual options and true competition. It is easy to move states to live under a better government–I already did it, from Massachusetts to Florida. But the benefits are still marginal with the overlords in DC.

Precedent

For 800 years, “surviving ups and downs and feasts and famines, [Lucca] was one of the most prosperous places on the entire Italian peninsula, not to mention the entire European continent.” That came to an end with Napoleonic imperialism, but its experience produced “Lucca’s Law”: “Territories will be richer when small and self-sufficient than when large and dependent.”

Perhaps in the age of communication, where anyone can be a journalist with their phone and good timing, we can hold war lords and pillagers accountable for their actions. Could early exposure of their crimes stop the next Napoleon, Hitler, or Mao? Small territories could remain free if the ever more connected people of Earth have lost their appetite for bloodshed.

Or maybe I am naive, and this period of relative, yet unprecedented, peace on Earth is only the calm before the storm. Tell me what you think in the comments.

Will Whole Foods Be Amazon's Waterloo?

Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

Although the Battle of Waterloo means different things to different people, one of the more widely held meanings it’s come to represent is something along the lines of a battle that one side held certain of victory, only to not only be beaten, but then lose everything they had fought for to begin with. This is what ended Napoleon, but it wasn’t for that he had no plan. On the contrary, he just believed his plan wouldn’t fail. That plan was: isolate, and annihilate, each army separately. (e.g., the Allied and Prussian armies.)

If you interchange “armies” for “business sectors”, Amazon’s strategy over the last few years seems much aligned. i.e., War against big-box retail, then all retail, media, spacecraft, and now – retail food shopping. I am of the opinion Amazon™, much like Napoleon, are going to find this battlefield has far more challenges that may end up costing them far more dearly, than they ever bargained for. Here’s why…

Unbeknownst to most, when it comes to the perishable food segment, the regulations and more (i.e., meat, dairy, et cetera) that allow what we American’s take for granted when it comes not only to variety, but for the safety and assured wholesomeness that our food supply is – it’s unlike anything most retailers outside of the industry have ever encountered. Let alone understand.

The ones whom find it the most difficult to acclimate to; are those who are all ready in the retail business (think: department store mentality) and believe it’s all just a case of applying what they know, or what they perceive as “what they know”; and switch it out using a shelf full of, let’s say toys, for a shelf full of steaks, as an example.

Many believe the only difference (an assumed difference) is that one shelf is refrigerated, yet, all the rest is the same. i.e., You have a product, a price, a label, a way to accept money for it, and a place to store back-stock. Sounds easy-peasy right? And that’s the problem, it sounds like it. But it’s anything but in the real world.

The reasons why I know this to be true is because this was the industry I made my marks in. i.e., The meat industry. And when it comes to what Amazon is going to have to contend with going forward I can speak directly to that because (using a hypothetical) when Amazon will be looking to make “deals” or “set up a supplier”, I would be the one on the other-side of the table they would need to negotiate through. And yes, I’ve actually done it, at that level. So I know intimately what I’m talking about, which is why I’m making this case.

This isn’t going to be the first time some retail behemoth decided they were going to get into the “food” market and show the industry a thing or two on how “they” believed the complex should run. It’s been done before, only to have their management sent packing arse-in-hand, shell-shocked, and mumbling for days, “WTF just happened there? Don’t they understand who we are?!” I’m referring to Walmart™ and their initial foray into groceries.

At about the turn of Y2K Walmart entered into the “supermarket” business with gusto. At the time they were gaining quite the reputation for negotiating (more like strong arming or bullying) food suppliers. (think “prepared” like: canned, or boxed product, sodas, etc., etc.) And when they were through – they set their crosshairs on the fresh meat suppliers. (think: steak, chicken, et cetera.) And it was here where they heard what seemed for the first time in response to their: “You’ll do it our way, and at our price, or no way!” demands. That response?

“Take a hike, a don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Oh, and welcome to the meat business.”

The meat industry was the only industry that (at least to my knowledge) sent Walmart reeling with no way for recourse other than to deal on meat industry terms and pricing. In other words Walmart’s “size” or “buying power” wasn’t a dominating factor that could gain leverage for discount. In fact – it could actually work against them, something considered unfathomable to its product buyers. I’ll give you a quick example to help clarify.

If a company wants to purchase 1mm widgets they can find a factory that already has supply with excess inventory if needed (or can ramp up) and negotiate a price. Simple construct for this example. Now: want to buy 1mm pounds of meat?

If there’s some available on the spot market, fine. If not? What are you going to do – make it?

You can – but – that takes well over a year. And here’s the other key – 1mm pounds how often? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? And if you begin buying all the “spot” available? Guess what? Prices may go up for you – and not your competition. For your competition may already be locked into long-term contracts. And what can be even more baffling to the uninformed is this: All your competitors will have it, as in product – and you won’t. Maybe at any price.

Again, it’s a different business. And in the end it took them (Walmart) years with a lot of painful trial and errors as to try to innovate pricing and suppliers for differentiation. Today, if you look at meat prices from their cases comparing to any other (in my opinion) they’re basically right in line with any other national retailer. You don’t see any “WOW!” type price discrepancies unless, it’s a sale item.

The above thumbnail sketch is important, because it will help explain why this, Whole Foods™/Amazon merger might come into resistance not only from the competition, or suppliers. But also – from its existing customer base.

Whole Foods (WF) has garnered the moniker “whole-paycheck” for as long as I can remember, and with good reason. As I stated, being in the food industry for most of my career, when I walk around any supermarket, it’s with a far different eye than most, especially when it comes down to pricing. And WF has never ceased to amaze me.

I am always stunned (again, all my opinion) at the prices being paid by its customers. But there’s a reason for this. And it’s not what most people think. The reason why people pay those exorbitant prices is because of what they deem as some form of “exclusivity” shopping there gives them. e.g., They are showing they can afford it.

Sure, some may say the ambience is better than most other national stores (although I would argue today, that’s far from true) and there’s certainly a different product selection than others. But that’s everywhere. But where the rubber-hits-the-road (i.e., the meat department) all I’ll say too that is: I go “WOW!!!” But not for the reasons WF would like. Which brings me to my point.

WF customers aren’t buying there because of some form of pricing structure that lends itself to discounting. In actuality – it’s the exact opposite.

There are now multiple competitors surrounding many a WF that offer the same type of “wholesomeness” implied by shopping there. One example that’s in my own area is called FreshThyme™ (FT), and I’ll use them to demonstrate my point using a friend of my wife.

Her friend shops WF, but within the last year FT opened here less than 2 miles away from her recently opened WF about a year prior. My wife took her around the store where she purchased similar items as her go-to store. But this time her bill was noticeably cheaper. And I mean much, as in even she was quite surprised. Did she switch? Has she been back there again? Answer: No. And here’s where you begin to understand where I’m going.

Why hasn’t she? Is it because she doesn’t “need” or care to save money? Again, the price differences were not nickel and dimes, but rather, dollars on many items. Was it the “2 miles away” that did it, because we’re all such creature of habit? The answer again is no, because she doesn’t even live in this town, she actually lives some 20 miles outside. But location is the key. And here’s why…

The new WF was built in what is known in my area as “Easton.” It is a very exclusive retailing area. To give you an idea, if you’re walking around the shops and suddenly you have an impulse to buy a Tesla™ after your dinner at Smith & Wollensky™, you can do just that by crossing the walkway. And if you want to celebrate that with some one-of-a-kind key ring? Tiffany™ is right there to accommodate you along with many others. All within a manageable stroll – even if you’re in heels.

Why this is important is this: You are not going to gain market share, or customers, via the discounting model. It just doesn’t work that way to this clientele. And that is an “Achilles heel” to any management team coming from a “race to the bottom” pricing model, which Amazon is. And that leads to the following for consideration.

What advantages does Amazon bring to the WF concept model? Pricing? Management? Logistics? I would argue they aren’t relevant. And actually, the mindset of current senior management at both companies are in for a culture shock that will surely be epic. Imagine the meetings that will be discussed (as in shouting matches) on why reducing prices doesn’t work, or not spending money for a key display in an effort to cut costs, not understanding (or listening to reasoning) that reducing the display purely for “cost” might reduce actual sales.

I’ve seen it happen, and I know how they turn out. All I’ll say is this: not good.

Walmart was a different animal, for they already had brick and mortar stores – adding on a grocery store to existing models was (for lack of a better term) a natural fit. But it has been anything but the slam dunk many first envisioned. Especially Walmart itself.

WF is different, for it is a stand alone market. It has to fight to get (let alone retain) every customer into its store for a specific purchase. There’s no “We’ve got TV’s, and furnishings over here, toys over there. Oh, and now you can shop for groceries also!” e.g., There is no other reason to go to WF than to buy at WF. And they don’t go there because it’s cheaper than the competition, far from it.

If the culture of Amazon doesn’t mesh properly with the now management of WF the resulting missteps that may send customers once loyal elsewhere to shop alternatives (and they’re everywhere) could unfold faster than a next day delivery. And if you’re looking for further clues of where such missteps can happen, look no further than what is currently unfolding at the Washington Post™.

Again, this is the type of “culture shock” that typically takes place when an “outsider” comes in, and its management team (along with style) tries to impose what it now deems as “policy” going forward. More often that not the backlash that result over time begins to cripple the management of both. This WF deal could add to that already mixing cauldron.

Maybe the best indication of where this might all be going comes from none other than what is surely this whole war’s leading general. e.g., Rodney McMullen, CEO of Krogers™. To wit:

“Whole Foods is a ‘good fit’ for Amazon.”

I believe Wellington said something similar as he watched Napoleon deploy his troops. But that’s pure speculation.

The Passing Of The Pelosi Era

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

In the first round of the special election for the House seat in Georgia’s Sixth District, 30-year-old Jon Ossoff swept 48 percent. He more than doubled the vote of his closest GOP rival, Karen Handel.

A Peach State pickup for the Democrats and a huge humiliation for President Trump seemed at hand.

But in Tuesday’s final round, Ossoff, after the most costly House race in history, got 48 percent again, and lost. If Democratic donors are grabbing pitchforks, who can blame them?

And what was Karen Handel’s cutting issue?

Ossoff lived two miles outside the district and represented the values of the Democratic minority leader, whom he would vote to make the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

The Pelosi factor has been a drag on Democrats in all four of the special elections the party has lost since Trump’s November triumph.

Prediction: Democrats will not go into the 2018 Congressional elections with San Fran Nan as the party’s face and future. No way. As President Kennedy said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Post-Trump, it is hard to see Republicans returning to NAFTA-GATT free-trade globalism, open borders, mass immigration or Bushite crusades for democracy. A cold realism about America’s limited power and potential to change the world has settled in.

And just as Trump put Bush-Romney Republicanism into the dumpster in the 2016 primaries, Hillary Clinton’s defeat, followed by losses in four straight special elections, portend a passing of the guard in the Democratic Party.

So where is the party going?

Clearly, the energy and fire are on the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren left. Moreover, the crudity of party chair Tom Perez’s attacks on Trump and the GOP, being echoed now by Democratic members of Congress, suggest that the new stridency to rally the angry left is gaining converts.

Trump’s rough rhetoric, which brought out the alienated working class in the ten of thousands to his rallies, is being emulated by “progressives” — imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

Nor is this unusual. After narrow presidential defeats, major parties have often taken a hard turn back toward their base.

After Richard Nixon lost narrowly to JFK in 1960, the Republican right blamed his “me-too” campaign, rose up and nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. A choice, not an echo.

After Hubert Humphrey lost narrowly to Nixon in 1968, the Democratic Party took a sharp turn to the left in 1972 and nominated George McGovern.

A 21st-century variant of McGovernism seems be in the cards for Democrats today. The salient positions of the party have less to do with bread-and-butter issues than identity politics, issues of race, gender, morality, culture, ethnicity and class.

Same-sex marriage, abortion rights, sanctuary cities, Black Lives Matter, racist cops, La Raza, bathroom rights, tearing down Confederate statues, renaming streets, buildings and bridges to remove any association with slave-owners or segregationists, putting sacred tribal lands ahead of pipelines, and erasing the name of the Washington Redskins.

The Democrats’ economic agenda?

Free tuition for college kids, forgiveness of student loan debt, sticking it to Wall Street and the 1 percent, and bailing out Puerto Rico.

And impeachment — though a yearlong FBI investigation has failed to find any Trump-Kremlin collusion to dethrone Debbie Wasserman Schultz or expose the debate-question shenanigans of Donna Brazile.

And where are the Democratic successes since Obamacare?

The cities where crime is surging, Baltimore and Chicago, have been run for decades by Democrats. The worst-run state in the nation, Illinois, has long been dominated by Democratic legislators.

The crisis of the old order is apparent as well across the pond.

Jeremy Corbyn, a Bernie Sanders radical socialist, led his party to major gains in the recent parliamentary elections, as Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May saw her majority wiped out and faces the same seditionist grumbling as Nancy Pelosi.

Western elites are celebrating the victory of Emmanuel Macron, the “youngest French President since Napoleon,” who defeated Marine Le Pen by a ratio of almost 2-to-1 and whose new party, En Marche! (In Motion!), captured the Assembly. But the celebrating seems premature.

For the first time in the history of De Gaulle’s Fifth Republic, neither the center-left Socialists nor center-right Republicans, the parties that have ruled France for 60 years, made it into the finals in a presidential election.

And while the first round of that election saw the ruling Socialist Party’s candidate run fifth, with 6 percent, the votes of the rightist Le Pen and far left-Communist Jean-Luc Melenchon together topped 40 percent. It is the flanks of European politics that seem still to be hard and growing, and the center that seems shaky and imperiled.

Moreover, Macron faces daunting problems. Unemployment is nearly 10 percent, with youth unemployment twice that. Terrorist attacks from within Muslim communities continue to rise, as do the number of boats of Third Worlders migrating from across the Med.

Can anyone believe that, as these trends continue, Europeans will continue to back centrist policies and moderate politicians to deal with them?

Dream on. That is not the history of Europe.

It Won't Be Like The Jetsons

Via Eric Peters of EricPetersAutos.com,

What does it mean when people talk about self-driving cars? We really ought to be talking about programmed cars.

And about who does the programming.

The “self-driving” car doesn’t decide for itself how fast it goes or what route it takes – at least, it won’t until it becomes an autonomous thinking machine, an artificial intelligence. We are not quite there yet.

So, in the meanwhile, who decides?

And it is a who – a flesh-and-blood someone (or someones). Guess what? It’s not you. This whole “self driving” car thing is about taking you out of the driver’s seat. And putting someone else in control of “your” car.

That part stays the same. Nominal ownership. You will make the payments, pay the taxes and fees. You will still be responsible for all of that.

But who will control the car? And how will they control it?

The “who” will be the same people who already control the roads: The people who are the government. Clovers. Authoritarian Control Freaks. The same people who make the laws about how fast you’re allowed to drive, when (and whether) you’re allowed to pass, make a right on red or a U turn . . . every last little thing.

They will control your “self-driving” car.

And when they do, not only will you not be allowed to proceed at a speed faster than they decree – or make a U turn or a right on red . . .  or do anything they do not want you to do- it will be impossible to do so.

The car – controlled by them – will not do your bidding.

It will do theirs.

Can you imagine? I can – and it makes my teeth ache.

People have this idea that the “self driving” future will be fast and free. A techno-Libertopia of high-speed and high-efficiency. Cars zipping along at triple digit speeds in tight formation, travel times cut down to a fraction of what they are now.

In fact it will be the opposite.

It will be Least Common Denominator . . . universalized and encoded in the electro-mechanical DNA of “your” car. No longer will you bee free to mash the gas and thread the needle through a Clover Cluster, chuckling to yourself as you watch them recede in the rearview. There will be no “speeding,” no right on red.

You – that is, your car – will drive at exactly the pace of the Clover Cluster.

A slow pace.

No more burnouts; no more drifting. Nothing “aggressive.”

Acceleration will be metered in accordance with the Fear Factor of the Clover Cluster. Think of your mother-in-law.

Of your grandmother. In her ’87 Buick Le Sabre, hunched over the over the wheel, perpetually riding the brakes.

It will have to be one size fits all. Because the programming must be. No more wiggle room; no more driving the way you prefer. No more driving faster – or harder – than they allow.

Individuals vary, but the Clover Hive is just that – a hive. Napoleon chose it as the symbol of his authoritarian state for good reason. Everyone the same and expected to do the same, except the Queen. The analogy is excellent, too, because the people dictating programming policy will almost certainly be “moms” and others of the female persuasion – who esteem saaaaaaaafety above everything and for whom velocity is the sine qua non of not-safe.

Slower is always better.

It will be like taking the bus – only worse. The bus driver was still an autonomous individual; he had the option to exercise initiative; he could even do something technically illegal – but reasonable and even necessary to deal with a situation that would otherwise mean just sitting there, Because It’s The Law.

Imagine how it will be in your programmed-by-others car. Traffic has come to a dead stop because of an accident up ahead. You could drive on the shoulder – briefly – to reach that exit a few hundred yards away.

But the programmed-by-others car will veto that. It is, after all, illegal to drive on the shoulder – and the car’s programming won’t will permit the law to be violated. Leaving aside the Cloverific adulation of The Law, the lawyers would never allow it.

Can you imagine?

Well, your honor, I knew it wasn’t legal to drive on the shoulder but I was just the passenger.

Shrug.

So the cars will be programmed to never do anything that isn’t “safe” – as well as punctiliously, exactly legal. And what is legal will be strictly in accordance with what your near-sighted, fearful mother-in-law would approve of. What the termagants who control the levers and billy clubs of government decide is “safe.”

To believe otherwise, you must believe that in this one instance, the government will not use technology to further control us. That it will set us free, expand our liberty.

The one upside – maybe – is that we’ll be able to get soused before the trip and just pass out. Tell the car to wake us up when we get there.

Whenever that turns out to be.