National Security And National Sovereignty: #1

Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

I think there has been made a cleavage conceptually between national security and national sovereignty. I hear an implied assumption from D.C. chirpers and Poison Ivy League faculty that USA can be secure politically and economically — and with luck militarily — without being a sovereign nation. I think they are full of it to think that, but because they do, and given their position of command and control, I think the question of sovereignty now precedes the question of security.

Do you want a sovereign nation or not? I think wanting a secure nation but not a sovereign one is right up there with cocaine-fired debauchery as a point of pride to bring home to one’s family. Can you be secure without being sovereign? I think traditionally security has been seen to rest on sovereignty, that sovereignty is the prius of security. Now that is not true? You fight for independence (sovereignty) and then you fight to protect your independence (security). Independence is the prius of interdependence, is it not?

TWANLOCs do not see things that way. They want to dissolve sovereignty (fundamentally transform [a nation]) and preserve security. They assert that security rests on interdependence, not independence. Americans appear to have said, “No,” to that vision for collectivizing their lives. But the relationship between sovereignty and security appeals to me as a worthwhile topic for inquiry, even prior to the study of grand national strategic objective.

I think this is the contention at issue today. Everyone wants security. But not everyone wants sovereignty. And the present command and control structure says security must be had without sovereignty via interdependence whereas the populace generally says, “No,” security must be had with sovereignty via independence. I think that is a hefty and mortal fight despite its being sub rosa mostly.

Update I: How Eisenhower Solved The Illegal Border Crossing From Mexico

Update 2: Why Elites Think Pro America Is So Last Century

Update 3: Muslim Brotherhood-Aligned Leaders Hosted At State Department. Related.

Update 4: On 27 January 2015, Marine GEN (Ret.) James N. Mattis addressed the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on the subject A New American Grand Strategy. At Hoover Institution, who published an adapted version of General Mattis’ address, I commented — with edits here — as follows:

Not that it matters, but, I both appreciate and despond over General Mattis’ address here. Appreciate because (1) as a genuine warrior he says what he sees and eloquently and (2) his heart is unalloyed courage and compassion. Despond because (1) his address reflects lack of situational awareness — half his auditors at least regard the nation state, including USA, as obsolete and perishing — and (2) his address, although latterly specifying or implying serious tactical weaknesses of current operations, transits the periphery of his title: grand national strategy.

It is rare for a military leader to grasp and execute the several strands — principally diplomatic, economic and military, but others as well — of grand national strategy sufficiently to create a rational grand national strategic *objective* that is also inspirational. It is rare for anyone to be able to do that. General David Petraeus has that ability, which is why the Anti-American, Globalist-partisan US Justice [so-called] Department is persecuting/prosecuting him. Asking Congress or a bureaucracy to develop that ability and execute with it compares with asking a herd of cats to organize an expedition to summit Annapurna. Distilling and serving a happy grand national strategic *objective* is a personal, leadership thing few can do, but some definitely can and do accomplish. Their thoughts merit discovery and attendance.

The cynosure of a nation is not her grand national strategy. It is her grand national strategic *objective.* Given what we see now, project and anticipate — always expecting the unexpected, as General Mattis mentions, thankfully, in his address — where and what do we want to be as a nation three, five, ten, etc. years hence? What is our objective? What do we really, truly — as a nation — want for and of ourself to be, to do, to think? What is our inner necessity as a nation? What are we on this earth to accomplish as a national presence? And why do members of Congress not live in the states from which they were selected for office?

Related: On 04 March 2015 Marine GEN (Ret.) James N. Mattis wrote for Hoover Institution under title Using Military Force Against ISIS. I commented:

I am content that GEN (Ret.) Mattis’ thinking, clear and compelling, be expressed in public. Thank you, General! Our countrymen are working their way towards how they will think and what they will do when they are quit of the hag riding their back. And they will be that. This exercise in preparation for the restoration of national sovereignty and wealth flowing from national moral and intellectual strength is what should be happening and what is happening. I am content.

Update 5: GEN (R) Petraeus: The Islamic State Is Not Our Biggest Problem In Iraq

Update 6: Richard Fernandez: That Old Time Religion

Update 7: Scott Johnson at Power Line quotes and comments thereon a law-learned correspondent in re incalculable damage done by Hillary Clinton to US national security. All of which is true, of course, but I saw another facet in the subject and commented as follows:

Scott, your correspondent assumes Hillary recognizes a country to secure. She does not. That’s the point of the entire world governance/globalist elite, isn’t it?: there is no national sovereignty, only personal viability in a global community. Get yours, they say to themselves.

Your correspondent’s point works in a law-based system of national sovereignty. But this now is a rules-based system of global governance by hyper-privileged elites — they attend the same cocktail parties everywhere on the globe — in their private global community. So they think. They can do as they wish because there is no authority superior to themselves, no nation deserving much less demanding security.

Their thinking — global governance (by themselves alone, because they mean so well), no national sovereignty — drives the Arab/Pan-African invasion of Europe, the Indo-Chinese/Pan-South American invasion of North America and such as the Obergefell-vs-Hodges decision. We make the rules, you obey them, and we don’t want or have national sovereignties obstructing our wishes for having lots of fun for ourselves while we talk about doing lots of good for you others.

If your correspondent wants to help, ask him or her to preach the reality of USA national sovereignty and all it implies in whatever is their orbit. These elegant globalists wield great power, as is known, but their foundation remains a cloud, a dream. Their power derives from their generation of deluding fictions. Ask your correspondent to make that point in his or her circle of contacts, to say again and again what is true, that national sovereignty is here to stay and will not be swept away.

Related: Glenn Reynolds quotes, approvingly, a jerk at Walter Russell Mead’s American Interest moaning that Hungary’s new emergency laws, to address invasion of that country by the Middle Eastern horde, trample on several basic liberal values. Reynolds concurred in this language: I’m afraid so. Against which I commented, Tut. To the jerk at American Interest I commented:

… laws that trample on several basic liberal values ….

No, you smug, fat, safely-padded, hand-wringing jackwagon, it’s not about liberal values, it’s about national and cultural sovereignty. Trying to make a sovereignty issue a values issue is classic fasco-commie subversion by misdirection. I knew American-Interest is sanctimonious fasco-commie, but this really self-exposes the muckers.

Update 8: Global Country Of World Peace

Update 9: Jonah Goldberg: The Wisdom And Folly In Albert Jay Nock’s Anti-Statism

Update 10: Rush Limbaugh on what’s actually happening

Update 11: The Muslim Brotherhood In America: A Course In 10 Parts

Update 12: This statement by a Trump advisor is accurate:

On Monday’s Breitbart News Daily, Donald Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller said this election represents “binary choice” that boils down to a decision of “nation-state versus globalism.”

Also this is true: two globalist cartels are extant, temporarily allied: Secular oligarchs and Salafist Jihadists. Both are puritanical hegemons. Puritanism is the bane of humanity. It is a mental weakness driving an adamantine morality, which is to say, conjuring the Devil.

Update 13: I read this and try to think of something meaningful to write. Nothing is there, except there being nothing there. So I have to write, nothing is there. Which is actually something (nothing) not discussable. Perhaps I approach Samadhi.

I do think this: that ValJar is setting up Hillary for Michelle and ValJar. Hillary’s email was unmasked by the White House. All know who that is. And the only reason she would even bother is, she has no intention of leaving the White House until, as she has said, she turns the lights out there. I assume she means in order to move to another house, one with a portfolio having global jurisdiction.

She has said over and again, So much remains to be done. And means it for sure. Namely, to abolish USA national sovereignty and establish global governance by unelected technocrats, wise-guys. She shares that objective with very many high and mighty all over the globe and especially in USA (both R&D) and EU.

Power Line team and commentators speak nary a word about this secular globalist phenomenon, this barely concealed and eagerly anticipated agitation for sedition. John’s post on H1B sub-free labor a while back came closest, I think, to unmasking the phenomenon. Illegal immigration is noted, but not for what it is: sedition of USA and all other national sovereignties. One should be a conservative globalist, working an end to nation states, only on conservative principles rather than leftie ones, I guess. Exegeting the political philosophy inside that posture would make a dandy doctoral thesis. Maybe even a great stump speech.

Update 14: Comey, as a person and official, makes me feel comfortable. I sense some titanic struggle is occurring just under the veneer of D.C.’s glittering facade.

It feels like some estimable chunk of officialdom wants to help keep the USA as a functioning, independent nation state while an essentially rabble of misanthropes wants to help each other hide the fact from voters — all voters — that they want to govern (they mean rule, but they do chaos) a full globe on which North America is merely a region — and they want that engineered into sub-regional urban hives centrally controlled from their global bureaucratic hub.

In that picture I see Comey trying to help keep the USA as a functioning, independent nation state. He looks to me like a fighter pilot with legal training. An estimable combination.

I think the way you protect people is you grow their independence.

Update 15: Murphy’s Law: The Realities Of Defense Spending

Update 16: At trial is national sovereignty. Very much so.

Update 17: The low-skilled and modestly-skilled workforce is supplied by H1b here and its comparable in Europe. Legal and above board. (Avoiding for the nounce the question of meet, right and salutary.) Although even those legal paths, here and in Europe, are merely a bridge to massive automation.

So the illegal influx, fostered by globalists in addition to H1b, is not about pumping the work force. And Murray’s Q about hiring Euro youth to fill the work force is an oblivious non sequitur.

Why, then, do globalists want an illegal influx? It doesn’t benefit them. It isn’t meant to. Why, then? I’m not sure. I don’t think like they think. It seems to me, I would say, that globalists are a seething brew of one part megalomania and one part cussedness: giddy control freaks wrapped in spiteful hedonism. Basically, your modern iteration of the ever-petulant anti-Christian. And they are angry at their parents.

Update 18: The notion that refugees and immigrants should be admitted to a sovereign nation without caveat or demurrer is conjured by two essentials of Liberation Theology, itself a successful KGB subversion operation: precarity and what lately is called weaponized empathy (classically: scrupulosity). Both are perversions of Christian doctrine (aka experience) with the end in view of disabling Christian civilization by eliminating citizens’ ability to tell truth from fiction and thereby defend themselves. Moslems, Salafist and Shiite, have taken advantage of the KGB’s success removing from so many Europeans and Americans their ability to discern what is in their interest. Socialists have gone insane from self-induced terror upon learning that more than a few Europeans and Americans retain the ability to think clearly enough to defend themselves. The answer, as always, is hearty laughter.

Update 19: The Pope is with the Deep State, hard left and here

Update 20: But: Who Killed The Left?

Glenn Reynolds: Having won all the battles, the Left is losing the culture war.

Richard Fernandez: Because, God.

Update 21: Conservatives Need A Remedial Course In Sovereignty

Update 22: Why Trump’s U.N. Speech Was A Triumph

Update 23: Spengler: The Bells Of Barcelona Toll For Europe

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA