RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen,
Two antithetical grand national strategic frames of reference, Hillary and Angelo:
EMPATHY: Hillary here, here and here.
STRENGTH: Angelo here and in PDF here.
Thanks much to CRB, and of course, Angelo. Sane people have been saying a grand national strategic goal, strategy and tactics is needed, usually without attempting to articulate same, meaning, their calls are worthless. Angelo doesn’t call, he delivers. Bless him and bless the ground on which he walks.
Empathy is neither grand, national, strategic, tactical or a human-capable goal. It is spiritual and as such infused and a basis for a grand national strategic goal, strategy and tactics of strength, as Angelo notes in this line:
Restoring the years that the locust hath eaten, will require character and good fortune, even more than intellect, to an extent available only through divine grace.
Incidentally, he is right about Iran, even a nuclear/missile-capable one, which I suspect already exists. Note his tactic: hold the chiefs personally responsible and accommodate those willing to die for the cause.
Angelo’s main help in that essay, IMO, is on details of grand national strategic goal. strategy and tactics. Everything flows from that. If it is nonsense — Hillary’s and her class’s (D & R) international order/shared values — chaos ensues, as now. If it is sane — give them our limits and make them credible by arming appropriately and fighting only with intent to win — peace ensues, as in 1945 initially and until the State Department grasped the occupation of Europe and the Korean Peninsula.
Coincidentally, VDH deploys the same lowering cloud metaphor while offering, typically, no solutions by way of grand national strategic goal, strategy or tactics.
Update 1: An historian/correspondent writes regarding Angelo’s essay:
It is great, save for the following:
During the 1960s and ’70s our government also set the pattern for its response to terrorism. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and Cuba’s Fidel Castro pioneered modern terrorism, betting that they could use forces that they inspired, organized, and praised—but for which they denied responsibility—in order to bloody enemies and weaken resistance to their causes without suffering retaliation.
It was, in fact, the Irgun and Hagana that pioneered modern terrorism, including some of the most insidious techniques (e.g., exploding a small bomb, waiting for the first responders to arrive, and then exploding another one: King David Hotel); executing hostages; attacking military and civilian targets to cause fear (e.g., hanging two British NCOs who were kidnapped for the purpose; shooting 6 English paratroopers asleep in their beds); and ethnic cleansing as a propaganda of terror to stampede a population into leaving (e.g., Deir Yassin)
And the official British response was as whimpy as ours has been. The public response was more robust. A synagogue was burned in Derby and there were anti-Jewish riots in 1947 in England: for the first time since the 13th century.
But the Irgun and Hagana (Begin’s folks in particular) showed that one could bludgeon via terror a liberal democracy into retreat. All one needed was ruthlessness and will.
Update 2: 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 *goal* 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 *goal* 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 *goal.* 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 goal? 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 3: 15 March 2015: Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes Valerie Jarrett shoving the knife in Hillary and twisting it. I commented:
That this email, etc. business came from the White House was clear from the start. MSM do not run negative Democrat stories without orders from a Democrat White House. This NY Post story is more of same: Jarrett twisting the knife she already shoved inside Hillary. [Today is the ides of March.]
The purpose of this drama is, clear the decks for Michelle to occupy Oval Office.
Valerie said, of late, she will leave the White House when the lights go out. A curious expression until one considers that she means when she closes it. Meaning, she, Barry and Michelle plan to continue their “rule” — as consiglieri-”elect” Valerie put it in 2008 — but on an expanded scale, and from a different mansion, one they/cronies build over the next 10 years, while Michelle holds the White House, one appropriate for their global rule.
Val, Barry and Michelle have millions or at least hundreds of thousands of backers for that aim. They will turn out the lights in the White House when they have its globe-girdling successor built, because the White House represents a mere nation state, which they transcend and soon shall make all the rest. So they think. So they plan.
Update 4: Hillary Destroys Evidence [Updated], and here, and here
Update 5: Former Obama Intel Chief: Administration’s Iran Policy Is Willful Ignorance
Update 6: Paul A. Rahe: Political theater and coordinated disinformation are the order of the day.
Update 7: GEN (R) Petraeus: The Islamic State Is Not Our Biggest Problem In Iraq
Update 8: 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 9: Bill tried to cheer up Hillary this morning by reminding her that Nelson Mandela wasn’t elected president until after he had served 27 years in prison.
Update 10: Jonah Goldberg: The Rise Of House Clinton
Update 11: Hillary Clinton’s Moslem Brotherhood Connections Date From 1990s and include Grover Norquist.
Update 12: Judicial Watch, bless them, is on the case of Hillary
Update 13: Enough With The Hillary Cult
AMDG – VICTORY
