Author Archives: Bone Fish

Food Is A Weapon

(Ol’ Remus) As in all war, food would be weaponized in a Civil War II. We don’t have to go back to antiquity for examples, more recent events provide a long list, some of which are:

United States

 Sherman’s “scorched earth” campaign began on November 15th [1864] when he cut the last telegraph wire that linked him to his superiors in the North. He left Atlanta in flames and pointed his army south. No word would be heard from him for the next five weeks. Unbeknownst to his enemy, Sherman’s objective was the port of Savannah. His army of 65,000 cut a broad swath as it lumbered towards its destination. Plantations were burned, crops destroyed and stores of food pillaged.

Germany

 The War Orders given by the Admiralty on 26 August 1914 were clear enough. All food consigned to Germany through neutral ports was to be captured and all food consigned to Rotterdam was to be presumed consigned to Germany. The British were determined on the starvation policy, whether or not it was lawful.

 The average daily diet of 1,000 calories was insufficient to maintain a good standard of health, resulting by 1917 in widespread disorders caused by malnutrition such as scurvy, tuberculosis, and dysentery. In December 1918, the National Health Office in Berlin calculated that 763,000 persons had died as a result of the blockade by that time.

Ukraine

 By the fall of 1932 it became apparent that Ukraine’s grain harvest was going to miss Soviet planners’ target by 60 percent. Stalin then ordered what little they had be confiscated as punishment for not meeting quotas. The Ukrainian famine by one estimate claimed the lives of 3.9 million people, about 13 percent of the population. In June of 1933, at the height of the Holodomor, 28,000 men, women and children in Ukraine were dying of starvation each day.

Great Britain

 Britain imported 70% of its food; this required 20 million tons of shipping a year. Knowing this would lead the Axis powers into hoping to starve the British population into submission, by cutting off those food supply lines. By the end of 1940, 728,000 tons of food making its way to Britain had been lost, sunk by German submarine activity.

Netherlands

 In September 1944, trains in the Netherlands ground to a halt. Dutch railway workers were hoping that a strike could stop the transport of Nazi troops, helping the advancing Allied forces. But the Allied campaign failed, and the Nazis punished the Netherlands by blocking food supplies, plunging much of the country into famine. By the time the Netherlands was liberated in May 1945, more than 20,000 people had died of starvation.

Japan

 The problem was not just harvests and the cutting off imports, transportation problems developed. Fuel shortages made it increasingly difficult getting food from the countryside into the cities. Food Shortages had begun to appear in some parts of the country even before Pearl Harbor.  By 1944 theft of produce still in the fields led police to speak of a new class of “vegetable thieves” and the new crime of “field vandalizing”. The average calorie intake per person had by late 1945 declined to far less than deemed necessary even for an individual engaged in light work.

Berlin

Stalin’s blockade of Berlin from June 1948 through May 1949 was an attempt to starve West Berlin’s two million inhabitants into accepting Soviet rule. The city quickly devolved into near-famine. A largely American airlift rescued it and kept it alive.

The US has historically used food as part of carrot-and-stick diplomacy, or said differently, bribes. During the Second World War, Great Britain and the Soviet Union relied crucially on American food, assuring a measure of their dependency in power negotiations. Germany, and particularly Japan, were nearly US territories after the war, both would have starved without prompt delivery of American food in quantity.

Wars are generally about food. Ancient Rome imported its food and fought epic wars to develop new sources and keep the ones it had. Medieval fiefdoms were agricultural enterprises, raiding their neighbors was common. The westward expansion of America in the nineteenth century was about food and the means to move it, as was Japan’s expanding empire in the early twentieth century. Germany explicitly cited food production to justify its aggression in the east. Their rants about fighting Bolshevism was pep rally stuff, Nazism itself was excessively patriotic Marxism.

History and cold calculation suggest food would be a weapon in a Civil War II, one of many, but of prime importance long term. Civil wars have long gestations, go kinetic suddenly and get complicated in a hurry. We have no firm knowledge what would set it off, who would be actively involved or how it would end. But the outlines are repeated well enough to guide our preparations.

The ruling class already treats middle America as this century’s Untermensch. Nothing is off the table in a civil war. Seizing the nation’s food would be an obvious move. Expect them to deploy troops to secure big ag and the necessary transportation facilities, destroy anyone who got in their way and terrorize potential troublemakers. But there’s a limit to even the deep state’s resources. Prudent survivalists in the far hills wouldn’t warrant their attention, they’d be more likely to trade shots with desperados than find themselves in a firefight with regular forces.

Food is the indispensable survival prep. At minimum this means a secure long-term stash of high calorie food sufficient to outlast the initial violence and privation without relying on resupply. Call it a year, maybe two.

Preppers are kidding themselves about large, elaborate enclaves. Such communities with their gardens, livestock, solar powered utilities, weapons, comms, storehouses, workshops, tools and supplies would be fatally attractive. Training with light infantry tactics and weapons is understandable, but repelling serial attacks by gangs and other armed opportunists would include attrition, i.e., the worker bees would win battles but eventually too few would remain to run the place. And when it became unviable, so would they.

Such redoubts have their place when the meltdown eases, but in the initial phases, less is more.

Well placed and practiced survivalists could get by on a onesey-twosey basis. Two may survive where one wouldn’t. Three or four may be better, assuming an adequate reserve of food and supplies. With more than four the liabilities are likely to outweigh the advantages. It assumes the deepest of deep larders, extensive supplies and harmonious wisdom in all things. Unless each make an irreplaceable contribution of critical value it’s probably too big a footprint for this phase. Loosely allying with similar small groups for mutual benefit may be the better choice. Five or more is a crowd, a danger to itself.

Famine is a given in contemporary civil war. Those embedded in interior cities have no chance, so, next item. The ruling class would continue to work against middle America’s existence. As said above, they’d confiscate local stores of food on a continuing basis, seize major food producing areas intact and grab the needed transportation facilities. Make no mistake, their hirelings would be granted license for absolute ruthlessness. Free fire zones and minefields are not off the table. Skilled labor, if otherwise unwilling, would be arrested and compelled to work.

Feeding their base would guarantee the loyalty of supporters, inflict mass death on the deplorables by ‘no cost’ neglect and keep armed confrontation largely confined to flyover country. But note, as said here before, this is a precarious solution. The coastal megacities are fed from the outside by vulnerable arteries passing through what would be hostile territory. In the end, feeding them would stutter and fail. Even now they’re cauldrons of seething hatred, barely repressed, often organized. With real scarcity and hardship they’d fall on each other and tear the place apart.

Privation, disease, hunger, murderous chaos and high intensity combat would likely peak in the second year. This is the knothole which would separate the survivalists from dabblers and hopeful idealists. In the years that follow, when the maelstrom had largely exhausted itself and the situation clarified, those who made good use of their resources could be largely self supporting, coalescing into tribes, forming families with neighbors and partying like it was 1319.

Be a survivor. The who and what of a civil war would matter only occasionally. Food would matter every hour of every week. Stack food high, wide and deep where it’s secure from looters and confiscation. Backup your stash with an “iron rations” fallback stash. Stack seeds, garden tools, fishing and hunting gear to be prepared for self-resupply opportunities. Calories are life.

Source: Woodpile Report

Advertisements

Dallas Jury Decides Against Dad Seeking to Block 7-Year-Old Son from Gender Transition Drugs

A jury in Dallas, Texas, decided Monday against a father seeking to block his ex-wife’s plan to start their seven-year-old son on puberty blockers and ultimately cross-sex hormones in order to facilitate gender transition.

The jury decided James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician, has full authority to continue to “transition” James who is being renamed “Luna,” reported LifeSiteNews.

According to the report, a consensus of 11 of 12 jurors decided the current joint managing conservatorship over the twin sons of Georgulas and the boys’ father, Jeffrey Younger, should be replaced by sole managing conservatorship by Georgulas.

Judge Kim Cooks is expected to read her ruling on possession, child support, and other issues on Wednesday.

The battle between Younger and Georgulas intensified last year when James’ mother threatened Younger with a child abuse charge because he would not affirm their son is a transgender child.

Georgulas petitioned to modify the parent-child relationship while referring to James as a “gender expansive or transgender child” who “by choice, now goes by the name Luna.”

James’ mother sought to terminate Younger’s parental rights because James behaved as a boy when he was with his father. Georgulas also wanted Younger to pay for their son’s counseling with a therapist who will affirm his transgender identity and his need for transgender hormonal treatments, which may begin at age eight.

Georgulas had diagnosed James with “gender dysphoria,” a psychological disorder that is characterized by a child’s “persistent, consistent, and insistent” assertion of “their cross-gender statements and behaviors.”

However, when James has been with his father, he reportedly acts and behaves as a boy by his own choice.

The court prohibited Younger from dressing him as a boy or from sharing faith-based or biologically-based scientific teachings on sexuality, even though family friends who have observed James when he is in his father’s care reportedly affirm he dresses and behaves as a boy by his own choosing.

James’ “transition therapist” reportedly continued to identify him as “Luna” and to place him on track for gender transition.

According to the Texan, Younger and Georgulas were married in 2010 and decided to have children through in vitro fertilization (IVF).

“They requested male children through the IVF process that was successful, and their twin boys were born in 2012,” the Texas reported and added:

Because of a family tradition to name the male children with the initials “J.D.Y.,” and because of the biblical reference to the brothers of Jesus, Younger and Georgulas decided to name the children James and Jude. At the time, both parents were members of the Orthodox Church.

Georgulas has reportedly said James began to imitate female characters from Disney’s Frozen. He asked for a girls’ toy at McDonald’s and asked to wear dresses.

The mother reportedly said she contacted the GENecis clinic at Children’s Hospital Center. She was then referred o Rebekka Ouer for counseling, who recommended a process of “affirmation” and thought that a “social transition” for James should begin with the young child going to school dressed as a girl named “Luna.”

The battle reportedly escalated between the two parents when Younger learned Georgulas was “socially transitioning” James.

They’re Crawling With Demons…

Source: by Dr. Susan Berry | Breitbart

***

COURT ALLOWS CHEMICAL CASTRATION OF 7-YEAR-OLD BOY, FORCES FATHER TO TAKE CLASSES ON TRANSGENDERISM

IMAGE CREDITS: HTTPS://SAVEJAMES.COM/

The left’s war on children intensifies

Mitch McConnell Warns President Trump Not to Remove Troops from Syria, Or Else….

The back-story here is likely worse than the obvious.  In a tweet today Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announces his resolution warning President Trump not to remove troops from Syria or Afghanistan.

[Not coincidentally the two countries visited by Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff last weekend.]

 (Source)

Of course the obvious, albeit unwritten “or else” part, is Senator McConnell threatening to join with with Senator Lindsey Graham and support President Trump’s impeachment.

We cannot say we were not warned [ SEE HERE ] it was obvious immediately after the Democrats won the House in 2018 that McConnell was breathing a sigh of relief. 

[Also reminder, the SSCI doesn’t run an operation against the President and the Leader of the Senate without knowing about it…. just sayin’.]

Source: by Sundance | The Conservative Tree House

Who In Hell Do They Think They Are?

With William McRaven’s call to oust President Trump—maybe through impeachment, maybe through a coup—the military officer class joins the establishment in claiming a right to rule, regardless of the outcome of elections.

(Angelo CodevillaRetired Admiral William McRaven devoted the bulk of a New York Times op-ed to appropriating for himself the moral and hence political authority of generations of soldiers and sailors (pointedly, especially the female ones) who have sacrificed for America, for “the good and the right.” Then he gratuitously stated—citing no specifics, as if everyone already knows—that “President Trump seems to believe that all these qualities are unimportant or show weakness.”

McRaven concludes, “it is time for a new person in the Oval Office—Republican, Democrat or independent—the sooner, the better.” At the very least, McRaven called for impeachment ahead of an election, or perhaps for a coup, and pretended to do so on the military’s behalf. In fact, his was just one more voice from an establishment that has squandered the public’s trust, senses that it can no longer win elections honestly, and is pulling out all the stops.

It pretends to be trying to take down Donald Trump. In fact, it is trying to do something much bigger: Invalidate the votes of the “deplorables” who oppose them.

I suggest that the just response from self-respecting Americans to McRaven and others like him is: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

Consider the enormity of pretending to speak for past and present uniformed personnel. Given that the overwhelming majority of active-duty and retired armed service members voted for Trump in 2016, and that polls show they are likely to do so again, it’s a patent falsehood to insinuate the rank-and-file’s notion of “the good and the right” matches McRaven’s own.

McRaven’s essay merely, and dishonestly, adds to the united ruling class’s effort to attack Donald Trump outside of constitutional procedures by feeding the media’s production of innuendos.

Then consider a few of these notions of “good and right.” Following rules and the chain of command is high among them, especially for the military. Officers are supposed to obey superiors. That authority flows from the president. Why? Because only the president is elected by the whole people, and because the Constitution, which they are sworn to “uphold and defend,” says so. If officers cannot abide superiors, they are supposed to resign their commissions.

But McRaven and a host of senior officers do not resign. They subvert.

The Constitution prescribes all manner of procedures by which any and all who dissent from the president can counter him, including legislation, overriding vetoes, and impeachment. But McRaven’s essay merely, and dishonestly, adds to the united ruling class’s effort to attack Donald Trump outside of these constitutional procedures by feeding the media’s production of innuendos.

The Democratic Party pretends to be trying to impeach. But they know, since any Republican who joins them would be ending his career in elective politics (not, alas, in the establishment), that they have zero chance of removing Trump from office.

They hope, however, that the sheer weight of innuendos—regardless of how implausible—will turn the 2020 election because the media allows no contradiction. That is why they are conducting what they call an impeachment campaign via secret testimony, the content of which the public can know only through what the Democrats and the media say through selective leaking. This is the patent dishonesty to which the former admiral prostitutes himself.

Even as McRaven brays for removing the president, he pretends solicitude for “the republic.” But remember: the American republic is founded on the will of the people, expressed by elections. The foremost thing to keep in mind about what is happening in Washington is that it is, above all, an attempt to subordinate the will of the people, expressed in elections, to the will of the ruling class, expressed through its control of social and political institutions.

The American people’s proper and just reaction should be to remind the ruling class that as Alexander Hamilton said, “here, the people rule,” and hence pointedly to ask our would-be rulers what they have done that we should follow them?

McRaven really does speak for a substantial percentage of senior military officers. Their views are on display nightly on Fox News. It is time for the American people to realize that these, like their counterparts in the intelligence agencies, are no heroes.

If we ask what they have done for us that we should have confidence in them, we realize that these people have lost every war they have waged since 1945. Accommodating themselves to our corrupt ruling class, they have been happy enough to wage endless no-win wars which have killed as many Americans as did World War I. The current military dictionary has no entry for “victory.”

Most recently, thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan because senior officers did not object to the ruling class’s desire to use U.S. forces to settle foreign quarrels by operating in constantly replenished minefields. Living in minefields violates basic military common sense and ethics. But senior officers have prospered. Intertwined with the ruling class, they end their careers on defense contractors’ corporate boards and in villas on the golf course. Now, as part of the ruling class, they join in claiming a right to rule us deplorables regardless of elections. We can thank McRaven for making that clear.

This ex-draftee is inclined to salute them with the middle finger.

Source: by Angelo Codevilla | American Greatness

***

NYT: Screw You Filthy Deplorables And Your Pathetic Voting Delusions; We Are The Permanent Government And You Are Nothing But Tax Cattle

From left, Fiona Hill, Michael McKinley and Marie Yovanovitch.CreditCreditIllustration by The New York Times; photographs by Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times, Erin Schaff/The New York Times, Al Drago for The New York Times

Heroes, every one.

Mighty nice to provide names.

There is no living under the rule of these tax feeders.

You do understand, right?

President Trump on Kurds – We Never Agreed to Protect Kurds Forever

“We never agreed to protect the Kurds for the rest of their lives… Where is an agreement that said we have to stay in the Middle East for the rest of humanity for the rest of civilization to protect the Kurds?”

 

Mexican State Collapse

(h/t: WRSA) To Mexico. I think the questions raised by El Anti-Pozolero, below, might require more urgent attention than we seem to be able to muster these days. I cannot say whether he’s right: I haven’t set foot in Mexico in more than twenty years. But worthy of our thought? It sure looks that way from the news.

What vehicles in your area can be liberated for use as improv armored personnel carriers?

You will be attacked by people who want to destroy you.

Plan accordingly.

You may have read the news just a few days back: the Mexican military captured not one but two of El Chapo’s sons in the heart of Culiacán, the Sinaloan capital. One son freed himself—which is to say his entourage and retainers at hand overpowered and killed the soldiers at hand—and then, in a decisive riposte, seized the entire city center of Culiacán to compel the liberation of his brother. 

The forces that emerged were in the literal sense awesome and awful. Heavy weaponry that would be familiar on any Iraqi, Syrian, or Yemeni battlefield was brought to bear. More and worse: custom-built armored vehicles, designed and built to make a Sahel-warfare technical look like an amateur’s weekend kit job, were rolled out for their combat debut. Most critically, all this hardware was manned by men with qualities the Mexican Army largely lacks: training, tactical proficiency, and motivation. 

Then the coup de grace: as the Chapo sons’ forces engaged in direct combat with their own national military, kill squads went into action across Culiacán, slaughtering the families of soldiers engaged in the streets. 

Cowed and over matched—most crucially in the moral arena—the hapless band of soldiers still holding the second son finally received word from Mexico City, direct from President AMLO himself: surrender. Surrender and release the prisoner. 

It’s an absolutely extraordinary episode even by the grim and bizarre annals of what we mistakenly call the post-2006 Mexican Drug War. The Battle of Culiacán stands on a level above, say, the Ayotzinapa massacre, or the Zetas’ expulsion of the entire population of Ciudad Mier. Killing scores of innocents and brutalizing small towns is one thing: seizing regional capital cities and crushing the national armed forces in open fighting in broad daylight is something else. 

“Drug War” is a misnomer for reasons the Culiacán battle lays bare. This is not a mafia-type problem, nor one comprehensible within the framework of law enforcement and crime. This is something very much like an insurgency now—think of the eruption of armed resistance in Culiacán in 2019 as something like that in Sadr City in 2004—and also something completely like state collapse. The cartels may be the proximate drivers but they are symptoms. Underlying them is a miasma of official corruption, popular alienation, and localist resentments—and underlying all that is a low-trust civil society stripped of the mediating mechanisms that make peaceable democracy both feasible and attractive. 

Note as an aside that the cartels are not even necessarily drug-trafficking-specific entities. There have been ferocious and bloody cartel battles—against one another, against the state—for control of economic interests ranging from port operations to the avocado crop to lime exports. Illegal drugs supercharge their resources and ambitions, but absent them and that illegality they would simply assume another form. 

I want to pause here and be explicit: none of this is an argument that Mexicans are incapable of liberality and democracy. The millions of Mexicans in the United States illustrate the contrary quite well, and localist democratic structures in Mexico proper are often of the sort that would make a communitarian conservative’s heart swell with pride. What is argued here is that Culiacán illuminates that the Mexican state as constituted is incompetent to that end. 

Simply put, we can understand the past two centuries of Mexican history as a cyclic alternation between chaotic liberality and pluralism on the one hand, and orderly (if corrupt) autocracy on the other. The orderly and corrupt Porfiriato was followed by the horrors of civil war unleashed by Madero, followed in turn by the “perfect dictatorship” of the PRI, followed in turn by this century’s emergence of true Mexican multiparty democracy—and therefore the disintegration of the state we see now. 

This is important because Americans have not had to think seriously about this for nearly a century: there is a place on the map marked Mexico, but much of it is governed by something other than the Mexican state. That’s been true for years. 

The Battle of Culiacán, government surrender and all, made it open and explicit. 

What happens now, barring an exceedingly unlikely discovery of spine and competence by the government in Mexico City, is more and worse. The country is on a trajectory toward warlordism reminiscent of, say, 1930s China or its own 1910s. Some of those warlords will be the cartels. Some of them will be virtuous local forces genuinely on the side of order and justice—for example the autodefensa citizen militias of Michoacán. Some of them will be the official state, grasping for what it can. Some of them, given sufficient time, will be autonomous or even secessionist movements: look to Chiapas, Morelia, et al., for that. 

The lines between all these groups will be hazy and easily crossed. None will be mutually exclusive from the others. 

It is tragic and a pity, because Mexico has in fact mastered the forms if not the substance of democratic civics. It is a shame because much of the Mexican diaspora in the United States is transmitting back home ideas of natural rights and a virtuous armed citizenry—right at the moment we ourselves have stopped believing in those things. (This has been a significant driver of the autodefensa phenomenon.) It is a loss because, depending on how you measure it, México just this decade tipped into a majority middle-class society for the first time in its history. In regions like the Bajío, advanced manufacturing is taking root and a class of engineers is slowly changing the old ways. 

Nevertheless as any student of history will tell you, revolution happens not when things are bad, but when expectations are frustrated. 

 

So what does all this mean for the United States?

A century of relative peace along our southern border has left us complacent. We haven’t seriously thought about what it might mean if a nation of one hundred twenty million people with thousands of miles of land and coastal access to the United States went into collapse. We still tell ourselves a series of falsehoods about Mexico: that the immigration problem is about immigration, that the crime problem is about crime, that the Mexican state is the solution and not the problem, that they can handle their own affairs, that light-armor forces can overrun Culiacán and it isn’t our problem. 

From Culiacán, Sinaloa, to Nogales, Arizona, is one day’s drive. 

We know how we handled it last time México evaporated as a cohesive state, in 1910-1920. By late spring 1916, cross-border raiding got so bad that we mobilized the entire National Guard and called for volunteers. Most people remember the punitive expedition against the Villistas. Less remembered are the raids and counter-raids at places like San Ygnacio, Texas—and still less remembered is the time the United States Army was compelled to attack and occupy Mexican Nogales in 1918, and Ciudad Juárez in 1919. 

You may rightly ask whether we are capable of the same policy now—and if we are, whether we are competent to execute it. 

Mexico is not an enemy state, and the Mexicans are not an enemy people. Yet as Mexico falls apart, we need to ask ourselves questions normally reserved for objectively hostile nations. There is a war underway. It won’t stop at the border. 

It’s time to look south, and think. 

— El Anti-Pozolero is a pseudonym. 

Source: by Clair Berlinski