AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
The benefits accruing to systems upon a decentralization of their structures of command and control are oft-remarked and well-evidenced. The diminishments visited upon systems by a centralization of their structures of command and control are, as well, oft-remarked and well-evidenced.
Modern man, shot-through as he is with dazzlement before opportunities inhering in globally-networked communications, yet lives with the ineluctable and irreducible characteristics of systems such as the system of globally-networked communications and its centers of command and control. Man is a system of systems and lives and labors entirely and unavoidably inside systems of systems.
The effects of decentralizing and centralizing structures of command and control for the systems man is and exists within command his scrutiny and stewardship because they affect his happiness. The fact of systems is unavoidable and therefore justifiably may be assumed. But the operations of systems and the consequences thereof vary in response to application of will, scrutiny, decision, execution, and maintenance. In other words, command and control.
It is known that the US posture conceived by George Kennan for facing down The Soviet Union — aggressive Containment, ever tightening encirclement contemplating annihilation of the hegemon — was not adopted by POTUSs until Ronald Reagan executed some of it, though not all of it or cleanly. POTUSs, including Reagan, did attempt a US posture for facing The Soviet Union — collegial containment, ever flexible accommodation, contemplating anything from decorous presence to forced regime change, inside an hegemon — that relied, and still relies, almost totally on unilateral deployment of US assets (e.g., NATO) at every single curve of the globe (COCOMs) paralleled by omni-local, omni-present, omni-interest surveillance (17 US spy agencies plus Five Eyes).
Thus emerges the prospect Americans rightly find sickening: endless expenditure of US assets — time, money energy, aka, diplomacy, finance, war-fighting — in wars large and small, none meant to be won and all meant to appease the greed of politicians, silk-suited sutlers, their investors, and a very large, indiscriminate, self-referencing, criminally-stupid, and self-sequestering intelligence community.
Grandpa admonished me always to speak well of others or remain silent. I have done that just now with respect to persons just referenced.
Whether executed as facing down or merely facing an hegemon, Kennan’s Containment Doctrine is both inherently weak and geopolitically dated: weak because (1) it stood Americans to an unfair expenditure of their wealth and therefore undercut its own longevity and viability and (2) it concentrated deployment of assets (American) and thereby centralized structures of command and control — after all, why would Europeans defend themselves when Americans undertook the task unasked and gave away their fair trade rights into the bargain, and, why should Americans allow their military personnel to come under European command when they, Americans, pay, effectively, Europeans’ defense and trade bills?; dated because The Soviet Union has been replaced by Russia, self-conceived, again, as Christian Mother Russia, not Communist vision.
Kennan’s doctrine was weak also in not contemplating a military coup de main well this side of strangulation of The Soviet Union by the regular approaches of diplomatic, financial, and war-fighting containment, aka envelopment, encirclement. Containment Doctrine summons, essentially, siege warfare against a fixed object. Because of its multi-layered and nearly-globalized communications, WWI already showed siege warfare as a forlorn hope.
Kennan’s doctrine was obsolete at inception. Probably that is why it was not executed as conceived. ln context of globally-networked communications, i.e., today, a commendation of containment, aka siege warfare, would be a confession of insanity.
Who is/are today’s hegemon(s) and what intend they? There are three and they intend the same thing, but ultimately for themselves alone: be in position to make everyone else do their bidding, be the globe’s centralized total-command and-control authority. It is always the same. Details change with circumstances but never the motive or the end in view. The three are: Chinese Communists, Euro-American Socialists, and Salafi-Shiite Jihadis.
Socialists and Jihadis are not at a fixed place. Chinese Communists are at a fixed place. Only Chinese Communists, however, have untrammeled control of a sovereign nation state with its diplomatic, financial, and war-fighting assets. The aim of all three of these hegemons, however, is the same: eliminate all sovereignties, meaning all authorities, except their own.
Personal and national sovereignties, insofar as others than they enjoy them, are the core enemies of geopolitical hegemons, their stake-in-the-heart, so to speak. We see and hear today, in broad, clear views and tones, revulsion in Chinese Communists, Euro-American Socialists, and Salafi-Shiite Jihadis at just the thought of personal and national sovereignties. So that is their weakness, the hinge of their lines at which heavy attack should be directed and can succeed, unless one wants to be hegemon-ized by those three aspirants and possibly in succession.
The remedy is conceptual. From that follow details both intangible and tangible.
Build chains of personal and national sovereignties instead of providing foreign, centralized (USA) covers of national defense. Let the nations mind their own matters, form inter-locking attack positions against hegemons to protect their own personal and national sovereignties. Hegemons threatens everyone. Let everyone put shoulder to wheel to engineer for, attack, and annihilate hegemons. Decentralize deployment of the assets of statecraft generally: diplomacy, finance, war-fighting. Individual and national sovereignties are the best alliance and the best treaty a nation/people can make. Self-reliance.
The very thing hegemons, aka globalists, want to eliminate — national sovereignties — is the very thing the whole world needs to keep the peace: sovereign nation states. No wonder hegemons hate them. Hegemons’ actual love is suffering induced by economic chaos: everything gray, nothing built up and out, the antithesis of economics. Strength in globally-networked communications today and futurely rests on Three Brothers Doctrine.
Linked economies cannot bring peace. Linked sovereign nations can bring peace and do, and in their train they bring strong economies, on account of their solicitude for personal and national sovereignties.
Principals of privately held businesses can and upon occasion do make business decisions congruent with requirements of personal and national sovereignty. Principals of publicly held businesses rarely do that, and the older the company they steward, the less likely they are to care at all beyond money-flow for themselves and acquaintances. However, stewards of the national welfare, if cycled through regularly from the full generality of the population, more often than not will so care and will have been prepared, also, to steward a nation’s affairs wisely for sovereign personal and national happiness.
Economies are the cart. The horse is personal and national sovereignty. Ask not to change the world. Ask to build your country.
Update 1: Vaclav Klaus: National Sovereignty and the Unsolvable Problem of the EU
Update 2: Do Suit-Wearing Jihadis Own The FBI?
Update 3: Sundance: Pelosi Rejects U.S. Sovereignty – U.S. Immigration Subject to Laws of “A Global Society”
Update 4: VDH: A Western Globalized Phenomenon That Citizenship Doesn’t Mean Much Anymore
Update 5: Spengler: A Modest Proposal: Cut the Intelligence Budget and Use the Money to Build Our Own 5G Systems
Update 6: Martin Petty: US to push security strategy as Chinese maneuvers rattle South China Sea
Update 7: Jesuit Chief: No Country Has The Right To Turn Away Migrants
Update 8: Contemplating Positions On Chinese Flanks
Βασιλεία του Θεού