The Hostage

     Israel, of course:

     Iran fired as many as 15 ballistic missiles into Iraq, targeting U.S. military and coalition forces early Wednesday, officials said, in a major retaliation by the rogue regime after the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week.

     Ten missiles hit Al-Assad Air Base, one missile hit a military base in Erbil and four missiles failed to hit their targets, according to a U.S. military spokesman for Central Command, responsible for American forces in the Middle East. The attacks unfolded in two waves, each about an hour apart.

     Initial assessments showed "no U.S. casualties," a U.S. military official in Baghdad told Fox News....

     Iran’s Revolutionary Guard then warned the U.S. and its regional allies against retaliating over the missile attack in Iraq.

     The Guard issued the warning via a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency: “We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted.” The Guard in the warning also threatened Israel.

     I added the emphasis.

     The Iranian government, as mad as it is, cannot harm the United States except by firing missiles at American military bases in Iraq – and it appears that those missile attacks, while they’ve done property damage, have not reaped any lives. Whether President Trump will respond to those strikes with force remains to be seen, though the zero casualty count lessens the probability. But what the Iranian announcement tells us is at least as significant geopolitically.

     Iran might or might not have a nuclear weapon; in that regard a regime that does business with North Korea is beyond confident assessment. But it does have a large army and the ability to launch ballistic weapons it most certainly does have against Israel, America’s Middle Eastern ally and client state:

     Iran possesses missiles capable of reaching Israel’s population centers. Moreover, the states geographically between Iran and Israel would not prevent Iranian ground forces from advancing against Israel from the west. Thus Iran’s threat to strike Israel in “retaliation” for an American response is credible from a geographic standpoint. But is it likely?

     I can’t decide. On the one hand, Israel is a nuclear power that could obliterate Iran’s government and the greater part of its population, and the Iranian theocrats know it. On the other hand, the Iranian theocrats are irrationally evil (or “chaotic amoral” in gamer’s terms) and cannot be relied upon to act in the objectively best interests of Iran. On the gripping hand, Washington would surely attempt to restrain the Israeli government from “drastic” measures. So any calculation of “probable” responses to further Iranian provocations must be performed under a cloud.

     One thing seems certain: Iranian tactics that get Iran’s rulers what they want will be repeated. Hearken to Charlie Martin:

     Looking back over the last 10 years, we've seen the Obama administration ignoring Iranian provocation to get the "nuclear deal," sending them billions of dollars in cash — and releasing this same Soleimani from previous sanctions, something John Kerry tried to explain by saying it wasn't this Soleimani, but another guy of the same name (which was a lie, by the way), and then ignoring blatant violations of the agreement they were so proud of making, while Iran continued to attack the Iraqi government and kill civilians.

     When you reward a behavior, you get more of it. And we have: since the Obama deal, Iran has increased its military budget using the money the Obama deal supplied; support for terrorism has actually increased.

     Of course, this is what we'd expect: we keep rewarding the Iranian government, they keep doing what gets them rewarded.

     So far, this “should” be “obvious.” But this is less “obvious:”

     A lot of the responses, so far, have been sanctions. Sanctions sound like a great idea: sanction a country and its people suffer, and they pressure the government to mend its ways.

     Unfortunately, that doesn't help much with an authoritarian theocracy that is willing to gun down 1500 protestors. "Hey, you can make our people suffer, but we kill them! Top that!"

     As Skinner found out, negative reinforcement is not as effective as positive reinforcement. To work at all, negative reinforcement has to be negative — it has to hurt, or at least be unpleasant.

     Charlie doesn’t lean on that point hard enough, so I’ll do it for him:

Negative reinforcement must be
MUCH HARSHER
Than the positive reinforcement it seeks to negate.

     (Can you say “disproportionate?” I knew you could.)

     President Trump is not in the mold of other post-World War II presidents. He sincerely values the integrity and security of Israel. He’s not in thrall to his “foreign policy experts.” Moreover, he believes in simple remedies for simple diseases. There’s no simpler disease than violence between nation-states. The remedy is a response with overwhelming force: enough force so that those who can learn must draw the lesson, and those who cannot are all dead.

     This could prove to be the big test of Trump’s first term. Watch this space.

Something That All Writers Will Want to Read

It's a column from The Passive Voice, regarding the Indie Market, and how Amazon's model is killing them.

Many authors, after a hopeful start, have found their sales are slumping, and Amazon is no longer their best option for an outlet. TPV explains the strategies that have contributed to that slump.

Video Recommendation: “Midsomer Murders”

     I don’t watch much television, as I regard the formulaic crap the broadcast networks (and most of the cable systems) are pumping out as...well, formulaic crap: unoriginal and unappealing. However, the C.S.O. likes an hour or two of it in the evening after a working day. Unfortunately, she too regards the offerings on “regular” TV as unappealing. Its principal value to her is that it bores her to sleep.

     However, we’re Amazon Prime members, and so have access to the Prime Video offerings, some of which have been excellent. Much of the promotion goes to Amazon Originals such as the ongoing “Bosch” series derived from the novels of Michael Connelly, the “Electric Dreams” productions based on stories by the late Philip K. Dick, and the recent “Carnival Row” fantasy series that stars Orlando Bloom and Cara Delevinge. But Prime Video also provides access to properties from other sources. Recently we stumbled upon “Midsomer Murders,” from the British production house Filmrise, and have been delighted by it.

     The series concerns Detective Chief Inspector Tom Barnaby’s investigations of murders (surprise) in various villages in England’s fictional Midsomer County (surprise, surprise). In general, while the investigative aspect allows Filmrise to categorize the show as a “mystery,” it deviates from the usual patterns for mystery fiction in many ways. Those deviations are largely to its benefit, imbuing it with unusual color, pathos, and charm.

     Each episode features a murder...or two, or three, or four, or (in one exceptional case) five. There are occasionally “extra corpses” on stage, just to muddle the affair further. Every episode is staged in a typical English country village: typical, that is, except that there’s a lot of bloodshed going on, considering the modest populations involved. The many facets of village life are always at center stage: the intimacies, the resentments, the dependencies, the struggles over position and prestige, and the memories of the villagers, which in a “tight” social space such as an English country village can be very long indeed.

     Mind you, these are not mysteries for the “armchair sleuth,” who hopes to solve the case along with (or before) DCI Barnaby. As a rule the viewer doesn’t get enough information to solve them. But we find them involving and highly entertaining even so, because of the deft treatment of relationships and the struggles they invariably involve. In this regard, the alternately awkward and humorous interplay between DCI Barnaby and the much younger, somewhat callow Detective Sergeant Gavin Troy add to the show’s delights. The depictions of Barnaby’s own family life – seemingly the only happy family in Midsomer County – are still more icing on the cake.

     Amazon Prime isn’t the only source for the “Midsomer Murders.” Some episodes can also be found via IMDb TV, on YouTube. If you’ve been looking for something interesting and decidedly un-formulaic, give them a try.

Corporate Alliance of the Month Tactic

Ed Driscoll does a PJ Media column on Nike, and other corporations that have sided with the 'Woke" crowd.

In it, he suggests - jokingly, I assume - that the Alt-Right start wearing Nike products in their public get-togethers.

That idea is GENIUS!

I'm going to suggest that the remainder of January be dedicated to Nike, that Oh-So-Woke company that decided to make the Betsy Ross flag a Hate Symbol. So, for the rest of the month, every day, wear something with the Nike symbol on it, and post a picture of yourself on social media, referencing this post.

It only took a short time to demonize the companies that used American flags, when this tactic was used on The Deplorables. Let's put Alinsky's Rules for Radicals into play:

Rule 4 - Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Rule 5 - Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

Rule 6 - A good tactic is one your people enjoy. 

The great part is that this will not go on too long - it's limited to a month (however, the damage may well last for a LOT longer).

Surely, with the speed of the Internet, we can manage to put a dent into Nike's profits - which is completely harmless, as no sacrifice on the corporation's part is too great to satisfy the SJW peeps. Double points for also including an OK sign into the photo.

In the comments, let's put suggestions for NEXT month's Attack on the Corporate SJWs!

• Disney?
• Netflix?
• ESPN?

War And Its Law

     Amid all the caterwauling from the Left about how awful it was that President Trump dared to execute Qassem Soleimani, the most fatuous emissions probably came from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who called the strike “unauthorized,” and therefore illegal:

     The Administration has conducted tonight’s strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran. Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress.

     As it happens, there was authorization that covered the strike, though Pelosi, being rather addled at this point in her degeneration, has probably forgotten it:

     Barack Obama’s former DHS Secretary told Chuck Todd on ‘Meet the Press’ that Qassem Soleimani was a “lawful military objective” and the President had “ample domestic legal authority to take him out.”

     Former Secretary Jeh Johnson leaves open the possibility that the terror general wasn’t a terrorist, but even then, he states he was a “lawful military target.”

     Soleimani and his Quds Forces were declared terrorists by the United States in 2007 and Barack Obama never sought to change the designation.

     So much for that. But beyond that, there is this: Iran has been at war with the United States, by declaration of its parliament, since 1979. During declared war, any recognized combatant anywhere is a lawful military target under the law of war as it’s been understood since the Treaties of Westphalia. Moreover, under those same understandings, which have been codified in the Geneva Conventions, one who makes war on non-combatants is a war criminal eligible for a battlefield execution – and Qassem Soleimani had provably done that on more than one occasion.

     But these observations invite further thought, specifically about the law of war and the principles behind it.

---

     Tom Kratman’s excellent novel A Desert Called Peace, which opens his Terra Nova / Carreraverse series, contains a great deal of pithy commentary on war and its law. The following passage is particularly relevant to the events of the week behind us:

     "As you probably know, there is, over on the continent of Taurus, a fairly new court, the Cosmopolitan Criminal Court, or CCC. This court purports to have universal jurisdiction over certain crimes, much as any nation's courts have jurisdiction over piracy at sea. Without going into the merits of this 'universal jurisdiction' here, let me ask you what the CCC could have done to you, or to the Sumeris, that was one whit worse than what was done here today? The answer, as I am sure you are all aware, is precisely nothing. Courts are for civilized circumstances where people can be deterred by punishment. There is nothing any court can do to anyone, and even what it could do it cannot do very quickly, that even begins to approach what we do to each other in war, routinely. The CCC, or any similar court, is toothless as far as furthering its stated purpose. It might be effective, mind you, at its true purpose which is undermining national sovereignty and the ability of the civilized world to defend itself from barbarism. That, however, is the subject for another day.
     "What is important for this day is that the law of war—customary, statutory, or common—cannot be enforced by any court, ever. Because we live in an anarchic system of sovereign states, and because the stakes in war are so high, the only thing that can enforce the law of war is the law of war itself. To do this it has one recourse: reprisal. Reprisal, which I am sure you are familiar with because Tribune Puente-Pequeño, your law of war instructor, told you about it— I've heard him, is a war crime, or conduct that would ordinarily be a war crime, but which becomes legal and legitimate in order to counter or deter an enemy from violating the law of war. It is all we have, all the world has, to make the law of war work.
     "Thus, I ordered you to reprise for the murder of our men. Thus," and here Carrera stopped for a moment and pointed skyward where three Turbo-Finch Avengers were winging it northward, "I have ordered leaflets prepared, in Arabic, to be dropped ahead of our forces, to let the enemy know what we have done and to explain to him the laws which he must follow in the future if he wishes to avoid a repetition. Thus," and his finger pointed at the pressies, still standing in clueless (which Carrera was certain was their natural state) shock (at being treated with open contempt), "I had those . . . people brought here so that they, too, can spread the word. Let everyone know that if you commit a crime against the Legio del Cid then punishment will be immediate and frightful."

     Perfect from first to last. Note especially Carrera’s observation that “we live in an anarchic system of sovereign states.” I’ve made the same comment:

     The States of Earth exist in an anarchic relation to one another. Each has its own regional code of law, which might differ markedly from all the others. Despite several thrusts at the matter over the centuries, there is no “super-State” to enforce a uniform code of law over them all. More, they view one another as competitors in many different areas; their populations and institutions are often in sharp economic competition with one another. Thus, they are often at odds. They resolve important disputes among them through negotiation or warfare.

     As war is a phenomenon that occurs between or among sovereign states – the key word here being sovereign — there is no alternative to warfare when negotiation fails. In the midst of a war already in progress, war itself is the enforcement mechanism for the law that remains.

     It simply cannot be otherwise.

---

     War, speaking in Westphalian terms, is an organized attempt by one state to impose its will on another through violence. In that regard it can seem distinct from what we call “terrorism,” which often appears divorced from the intentions or actions of any state. Yet the distinction is illusory. An organized force that declares itself, by word or by deed, to be above the penal laws that prevail in a given jurisdiction has declared itself, de facto, to be a sovereignty, and therefore unaccountable to the laws promulgated by others. Under circumstances entirely confined to the territory of the United States, we tend to treat persons who commit terrorist acts as simple criminals. When apprehended, they’re referred to the justice system. When such a force acts beyond our shores, we cannot take that approach. We must regard the actors just as we would a hostile sovereignty, and act accordingly: i.e., according to the laws of war.

     Let the execution of Qassem Soleimani, not the Obamunist kowtowing to and appeasement of those who hate us and wish us ill, serve as the pattern for future dealings with them. Either they will “get the lesson” or they will die – and in either case Americans’ interests will be properly served.

Qassem Soleimani and the issue of American troop deaths.

For more perspective on the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in these times of rampant hysteria and world-class propaganda, consider this from Craig Murray:

The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

. . . Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.^[1]

The 600 U.S. troop casualties nonsense is masterfully taken apart by Mr. Murray and I am loathe to quote him at length. Please go to his site and see how he deals with Pentagon numerology and the realities of combat casualties when a foreign army invades another country.

On top of which he also, he properly questions how anyone knows that Qassem Soleimani "had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion" a mere 16 years ago. As he succinctly states, "to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense."

Mr. Murray also takes apart the application of the Bethlehem Doctrine, the supposed right to pre-emptive self-defense that Secretary Mike "Energizer Bunny" Pompeo invoked. "Imminent" attack appears to encompass attacks planned for Thanksgiving or thereabtous, not to mention other inconvenient aspest of that "doctrine."

Notes
^[1] "Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani." By Craig Murray, 1/4/20.

The Most Fearsome Weapon

     If you’re a government – and please, Gentle Reader, for your soul’s sake, don’t be one! – your most imperative need is for weapons. Indeed, you seek revenue more to support the purchase of weapons than for any other need. But weapons come in many varieties. Those preferred by a government will differ from those preferred by a private citizen. It behooves the private citizen to understand why this is so.

     The first reason that comes to mind is the military aspect of a government: its need to arm its troops in preparation to defend the country. Oddly, the sort of weaponry soldiers need isn’t that different from what a private citizen would prefer...well, until you get to the shoulder-fired rockets and such, anyway. Rifles and handguns serve the needs of the soldier and the citizen equally well.

     The second reason is the deterrence of crime and the operation of the justice system: in other words, the police. Yet here again, the policeman and the citizen tend toward the same sort of weaponry for the most part: largely handguns. So far, government’s weaponry preferences and those of the citizenry appear to be a decent match.

     But after those two considerations, the mind of the decent American tends to hit a stumbling block. What other reasons does a government have for seeking weapons? If we can determine those, they will lead us to the kind of weapons the government will seek. The right tools for the job, and all that.

     Incidentally, in case you were wondering, this piece is about the execution of Qassem Soleimani and the reactions to it on the Left. You’ll see the connection soon enough.

---

     The State is based on threat. – Robert Anton Wilson

     The dynamic of governments is to grow. – David Friedman

     A government’s most important weapon is not a material item that a man can hold in his hands. Indeed, it’s the exact opposite. Its principal function is to inhibit the use of material weapons against the government itself. That weapon is fear.

     A government actively desires that other governments fear what it can do. That fear – specifically, fear of the consequences of a test of arms against nation X – deters other governments from attempting to impose their wills on nation X by force or threat. While that deterrence holds, nation X can remain in being, exercise its prerogatives, and keep its cannons shiny rather that soil them with actual use.

     Beyond that, a government desires that those under its jurisdiction fear to offend it. That of course includes fear of the consequences of rebelling against it. As long as the citizenry is kept adequately fearful of what might follow a serious act of defiance, the government can maintain itself in power over the citizenry, with all that implies.

     Fears useful to the government don’t end with fear of the government itself. First, each government will do what it can to get its citizens to fear other governments – and to value “their” government as an indispensable defense against the others. Second, a government that seeks additional power over its people will find it useful to get them to fear one another – and to look to the government for protection. But third, and arguably more important in our time, governments can exploit the fear of “non-state actors” – terrorists – to get their citizens to accept measures they would never have deemed acceptable in an earlier era.

     This is not to say that terrorists are a chimera we ought not to fear. They most certainly should be feared – and fought. But beware the politician who demands additional power over you — through surveillance, disarmament, increased taxation, or other measures – as a way of “protecting” you against terrorism.

     Beware even more of the politician who opposes taking the fight to the terrorists, when and where it becomes possible.

---

     No figure is more derided by students of the pre-World War II years than Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain’s attempts to purchase peace from the Third Reich through appeasement seem to us today to have been foolish, foreseeable failures that would only encourage further Nazi rapacity. But be aware that in Chamberlain’s time majority sentiment approved of his actions. He was roundly and soundly applauded for his negotiations with Hitler’s government at Munich in 1938, which led to the Munich Agreement.

     In retrospect, the unlimited voracity of the Nazis is clear. Indeed, it became clear less than a year after the Munich Agreement was negotiated and signed. We of today tell ourselves that we know better than to appease a tyrant. But there are those in the corridors of power who seek to persuade us that in dealing with the Nazis of our time – Islamic terrorists – Chamberlain’s approach would be “safer.”

     I hardly need to present a forest of links. You can read about the would-be appeasers on many sites. Indeed, you probably already have. Many are Democrats in federal offices. Some are NeverTrumpers. There are many in the entertainment industry, where pseudo-pacifist sentiment is rampant. And perhaps some of them sincerely believe that Americans would be safer were we to let the Iranians have whatever they want in the Middle East, including de facto dominance of the government of Iraq. But sincerity is not a trait easily found among politicians on the Left.

     The Democrats who seek to castigate President Trump for his strike against Iranian terrorist fomenter and organizer Qassem Soleimani are doing so for purely political reasons. Terrorism isn’t exactly something they like, but they hope to exploit the fear of terrorism, if suitably excited, as a political weapon. They hope to regain federal dominance in November, and exciting increased fear among ordinary Americans of “what Iran might do to us” is one of their tactics toward that end.

     I prefer President Trump’s approach: Promise the Iranians, the premier state sponsors of terrorism in our time, that any harm they inflict on Americans or American interests will be repaid swiftly and tenfold. Even if the consequences should include more terrorism in the near term, consistency in Trump’s fashion will ultimately convince the Iranian theocrats that they’re up against an opponent they cannot defeat – an opponent ready, willing, and able to destroy their nation entirely. It will be their task to appease us out of doing so.

     The Left, which values power and nothing else, doesn’t like the idea that we might fear less. They want more fear, the better to rationalize and institute the Total Surveillance And Total Control State for which they yearn. All persons, communications, and movements would be monitored. Privately owned armament would be outlawed; after all, we don’t want guns to get into the hands of terrorists! And of course there would be a massive increase in taxation. The listeners on the phones, the watchers in the towers, and the monitors of “social media” have to be paid, don’t y’know.

     Listen to the ones with a public platform. Their attempts to engender fear among us are undisguised. But whom ought we to fear more? President Trump, who has resolved to answer the use of force with greatly superior American force, and thus compel the ayatollahs and their minions to sue for peace? Or the mouthpieces of the Left, who would have us do nothing because “we don’t want to make them angry?”

Impurities

     [A short story for you today, in celebration of President Trump’s forceful and entirely appropriate response to recent Iranian provocations, especially the assaults on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Trump might not be Stephen Graham Sumner, but he’s likely to be as close as we’re going to get for the foreseeable future.

     This tale is a portion of my novel Statesman. -- FWP]

---

     "Mr. President," the static-flecked voice from the speakerphone said, "my people cannot endure much more of this bloodletting. We have lost --"
     "Two thousand three hundred forty-six citizens in the past two years alone," Stephen Sumner said. "I know it well, Natan. But the ink on the peace accords is barely dry. Do you propose to topple the government of Palestine before its first birthday, while it's still struggling to get control over its people?"
     Secret Service agent Geoff Nolan kept his face expressionless. He'd mastered that, and every other discipline of his exacting trade, except for one: the art of not hearing what was said by the president of the United States and the potentates with whom he conversed.
     "Mr. President, we both know that abu Sirkas's regime has no intention of stopping the attacks. Mossad could show you documentary evidence that the terror squads are drawing on the Palestinian state treasury, and receive funds from eleven other states besides."
     A scowl flickered across the president's face. He rose from his desk and went to stand before the broad bay window of the Oval Office.
     "That's as may be, Natan. I know your evidence is good, but for Israel to make war on Palestine at this time would engender massive casualties, backlash from world opinion, and a strong reaction against your advocates in America. I cannot support you in this under current conditions. I advise you to do what you can with your less publicized tools and methods."
     Nolan's ears pricked up involuntarily.
     It sounds like he's counseling the prime minister of Israel to dispatch an assassination squad, the way they did after Munich. How many people would be howling for his scalp if they could hear this conversation, as I'm hearing it now?
     Sumner had risen to the presidency on the strength of his ardent constitutionalism. He'd preached the importance of strict limits on the powers of government, of absolute adherence to the rule of law especially by its hired minions, across the length and breadth of America. Huge audiences, crushed by ever-rising taxes, baffled by incomprehensible laws, and outraged by unaccountable legislators and regulators, had thrilled to the message. His victory had eclipsed all but George Washington's unanimous election in 1788.
     Now it appeared that his convictions were somewhat flexible. At least, when it would not be he who had to answer for the consequences.
     There are no saints in high office, Geoffrey boy. Leave your idealism at home with Nadia.
     Nolan's hand went automatically to the crucifix that was always in his hip pocket.
     Lord Jesus, guide me in this as in all things. Though these be Caesar's things, affairs of state in which You refused to involve Yourself, surely there's a right and a wrong to it. Help me to know the difference.
     The conversation ended. Sumner spent a moment more staring out at the gorgeous White House lawn, then strode to the mantel and took down the epee mounted above it. He struck a garde position, held it for a moment, and launched into an elaborate sequence of strokes and feints that carried him all the way across the Oval Office.
     Nolan watched with an appreciative eye. Sumner would turn fifty-five in two weeks. Yet with his sword in hand, he moved with the fluidity of a far younger man. His every motion was micrometer-exact and as precisely timed as a metronome. The president noted his attention, put up the sword, and grinned.
     "The boss is a little strange, eh, Geoff?"
     "Not at all, sir." Nolan struggled to keep his face smooth. "A lot of people like the grace of fencing."
     The president nodded. "There's a purity to it. When the gong sounds, there's just you, and the sword, and your opponent. The rules are simple and clear, and the objective is right there in front of you."
     "Not much like statecraft, then, Mr. President?"
     The grin slipped from Sumner's face. He looked a moment at the sword in his hand, returned it to its place above the mantel and resumed his seat at his desk.
     "No, not much at all."

#

     Though the entire Secret Service competed for the supreme prestige of guarding the president's person, there was little love for the daily debrief that each agent so honored had to endure. All such debriefs were conducted by Agent-In-Charge Ryan McFarlane, the commander of the detail.
     McFarlane was a legend in federal law enforcement. He'd entered the Secret Service from the FBI, where a string of takedowns of major espionage and drug rings had raised him to national prominence. He'd disdained all publicity, but the regularity and size of his successes kept his name on everyone's lips nonetheless. It didn't hurt that he was tall, blond, classically handsome, and built like Captain America. The president himself had solicited McFarlane's application, twenty years earlier.
     But the highest ranking, most decorated agent in the Service was not an affable man. He had no friends on the job. His smile was rarer than an admission of error from a politician. Nothing was known about his private life, except that he was a widower without children and lived alone. An agent on whom his eye fixed was hard pressed not to shiver.
     "You neither saw nor heard anything that could be construed as a threat to the president's person?" McFarlane said.
     "Nothing, sir." Nolan kept his voice level.
     "And you neither saw nor heard anything that might later be used against the president in the performance of his duties?"
     "Uh, no, sir."
     A jot of extra intensity entered McFarlane's already bright blue eyes. "Why the hesitation, Nolan?"
     Nolan cursed himself beneath his breath and tried to organize a response.
     "I'm waiting, Agent." McFarlane had risen from his chair and stood with his arms crossed over his chest.
     The little interview room suddenly seemed like the inside of a freezer.
     "Well, sir, you know an agent can't help hearing what's said in his presence."
     McFarlane's icy stare was unchanged.
     "The president doesn't always talk straight, sir. Sometimes there are...ways to interpret his words that would reflect badly on him."
     "Politically?" McFarlane said.
     "Yes, sir."
     A quantum of tension drained from the Agent-In-Charge's features. He pursed his lips and stuck his hands in his pockets.
     "Did you vote for him, Nolan?"
     "Uh, yes, sir."
     "But he's not the first man you've voted for, is he?"
     "No, sir."
     "And those others? Were they calendar saints, whose every word meant exactly what it appeared to mean, and nothing else?"
     Nolan's mouth tightened. "No, sir."
     McFarlane nodded. "Of course they weren't. Nor will any other man be who rises to the Oval Office. We don't involve ourselves in politics, Agent. The people choose according to their own lights. Whoever they choose, we're oathbound to protect."
     Nolan could not repress a shrug. "You asked, sir."
     McFarlane shook his head. "I asked whether you saw or heard anything that could be used against the president in the performance of his duties. Things that could be used to put him under duress. Not matters of policy that his opponents would use to campaign against him. Our job is to protect him from violence and coercion, not to ensure his re-election. Got that straight now?"
     "Yes, sir."
     McFarlane stared down at him a moment longer, then sat and folded his hands before him. A grin played at the corners of his mouth.
     "It's a hard job, Nolan. Acquiring the right kind of detachment is one of the hardest parts. You're doing well. Keep at it. Dismissed."

#

     The bombing of Geneva's famous Weiss Associates Building, home to the most prestigious retail diamond merchants in Europe, woke the news centers of the Eastern Seaboard at precisely 2 AM. At the time of the explosion, more than three hundred persons were in the building, more than two-thirds of them affluent shoppers from around the world.
     The explosion, later reckoned to be an atomized-fuel blast, shot chunks of structural steel through the walls of buildings hundreds of yards away. The firestorm that followed the explosion completely defeated Geneva's firefighting corps. They watched, impotent, as the five-storey jewelry emporium was reduced to a mound of ash. There were no survivors, and nearly no recognizable remains.
     Geoff Nolan was on duty outside the presidential bedroom when the news hit. A mass of politicos and agents, led by Ryan McFarlane, surged down the hall toward him, a sight that nearly made him pull his sidearm and drop into combat position.
     First Lady Adrienne Sumner had been scheduled to be in Geneva at the time of the blast. McFarlane had attempted to contact her detail and assure himself of her safety, but without success.
     It was Nolan's task to awaken the president.
     Stephen Sumner emerged from his bedroom in a maroon silk robe. He was pale, but grimly composed. He gestured at once for his Secretary of Defense and pulled the man out of the knot of cabinet officials that awaited the president's orders. Their exchange was seven words long; Nolan heard it all.
     "You know what to do," Sumner said.
     "Yes, sir."
     The secretary hurried off. Sumner retreated to dress. McFarlane issued orders for a high-alert, imminent-threat deployment of the Service's twelve hundred agents.
     The orders McFarlane gave to Nolan were simple and clear: "Don't let him out of your sight, son."
     "Yes, sir."
     The First Lady's Secret Service detachment commander rang in six minutes later. Twenty-three minutes after that, the wire services came alive with the news that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for the attack.

#

     The Secret Service wasn't the only federal organ to receive special tasking orders that day.
     The commanders of twelve separate special-operations detachments in bases in Eastern Europe and the Indian Ocean received go-orders so cryptic that not even their communications chiefs could make them out. All of them mobilized at once. Aircraft seemed to drop magically from the sky to accept squad after squad of heavily armed Delta Force commandos, whom they whisked off into the darkness. SEALs and Marines, loaded for bear and for underwater infiltrations, boarded submarines that left the docks without fanfare and went to flank speed the moment they reached open water.
     Each detachment had as its target a palace in a capital in the Muslim Middle East. Their strike orders were time-synchronized.
     Four hours after the Weiss Building exploded, those twelve teams struck their targets as one.
     The guards who walked the parapets and corridors of twelve palaces heard only the barest breath of passing air as death closed upon them from the shadows. The Americans killed without mercy until they reached the persons whose names stood at the tops of their order sheets: twelve sleeping heads of state, who'd gone to their beds serenely confident that the thugs surrounding them would be proof against any intrusion.
     All twelve received a rude awakening.
     American soldiers jerked them roughly from their covers, stripped them of whatever they wore, and secured them in plastic hand- and ankle-cuffs that were impossible to pick or break. Black hoods were pulled over their heads. The unspeaking Americans frog-marched them through the carnage to destinations unknown, leaving only corpses and silence behind them.

#

     Nolan stood his Oval Office post in an agony of anticipation. Sumner had seated himself at his desk, made a single phone call, and then sat back with his hands steepled against his chest. Nolan watched him sit that way, unmoving, for four hours, until the sun had risen and the soft buzz of the phone notified him of an incoming call.
     Sumner pressed the ANSWER key and said, "Yes?"
     "Full compliance, sir."
     "Thank you." The president disconnected. His eyes went to Nolan's face.
     "Would you like to know what's happened here tonight, Geoff?"
     The question threw Nolan off balance. "Uh, yes, sir."
     "History. You've been a witness to history. You can be a witness to still more of it, if you're amenable. Sleepy?"
     "Yes, sir."
     "Then go get some rest." Sumner rose and stretched. "But set your alarm to wake you in six hours. I'll expect you back here then."
     "Uh, Mr. President, Agent McFarlane told me not to let you out of my sight."
     Sumner nodded. "I'm sure he did. But for a change, I'm perfectly safe. Just now, I'm probably the safest man in the world. You'll find out why in six hours. So be off with you. I'll handle McFarlane. You catch some sleep."
     Nolan did as instructed.

#

     When Nolan returned to the Oval Office, the president rose from his desk and said only, "Come with me."
     They hurried down the corridors to an elevator that Nolan had never seen used. It plunged them deep into the subterranean security levels, where the president might be expected to go in the event of a nuclear attack. But when they debarked, it was to board a curious looking subway, a single-car affair that looked more like a spaceship than a thing that traveled underground on rails. There was no one there waiting for them.
     Sumner pulled open the engineer's cabin, stepped inside, and beckoned Nolan to follow him. He put his hands to the futuristic control board as if it were something he did each day. Nolan regarded the multicolored array of touch-panels and plasma displays uncertainly.
     "Relax, Geoff. You weren't expected to know about this. McFarlane does. We're headed for a facility only a few people have heard about."
     The president took hold of a joystick and drew one finger along a green plasma panel, and the little train accelerated smoothly and silently down the track. Blue steel arches, like the ribs of some gigantic prehistoric beast, flashed past them as they sped down the dim tunnel.
     "You disapprove of me, don't you, Geoff?"
     "Sir?"
     The president kept his eyes on the track unspooling before them. "You think I've betrayed my convictions." He grinned at the windshield. "Your deadpan isn't nearly as good as you think it is."
     Nolan fumbled for words. "Mr. President, if you want to replace me --"
     "Nothing of the sort, Geoff. It's part of the reason I like having you around. You're a measure of, well, a lot of things. And no one on the detail doubts your skills."
     Sumner canted his joystick to the left, and the little train cambered smoothly through a descending curve. A spot of light appeared in the distance. It grew slowly larger and brighter.
     "There's no manual for how I'm supposed to fulfill the oath I took. The Constitution describes the duties of the president fairly well, but it never gets to the 'how' of the thing. What am I allowed to do for the sake of 'preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'? Since no means are specified, should I assume I'm allowed to use any means at all?"
     "Uh, sir," Nolan faltered, "you're a little outside my field."
     "Which field, Geoff? Criminal justice, or protecting the president?"
     Nolan kept his mouth shut.
     "We've been at war for a lot of years now. Damned few people have been aware of it. But the enemy is real, he's numerous, and he hates this country and its ideals more than a decent American could imagine. And I am charged with stopping him."
     The spot of light was now plainly the mouth of the tunnel. Sumner drew his finger across the throttle again, and the train decelerated to a smooth halt. The right wall of the tunnel gave way to a concrete platform on which stood a squad of Marines, rifles at port arms.
     When they debarked, a Marine lieutenant approached, snapped to attention, and saluted. Sumner returned it.
     "Is everything ready, Lieutenant?"
     "As you specified, sir."
     Sumner nodded and made for a nearby escalator, with Nolan right behind him.

#

     The room to which Sumner brought him was nearly a hundred feet square, high-ceilinged and as brightly lit as an operating theater. Yet it was empty of everything but people: Marines in BDUs, and twelve naked middle-aged captives, hands bound behind them, their swarthy faces uniformly filled with fear. At each captive's elbow stood a Marine with a nightstick. Another dozen Marines armed with M-16s flanked the group.
     The captives' faces were quite recognizable. They'd been splashed across the country by innumerable newscasts and newspapers. Nolan paled as the implications struck home.
     The walls were dotted with capped fittings, evenly spaced. They might have been for wiring harnesses, or for hoses; Nolan couldn't tell.
     The floor was smooth, seamless concrete. It had been smoothed more carefully than any concrete Nolan had seen before, giving it a texture near to porcelain. Its sole feature was a large sewer drain at the room's center. When his eyes lit on it, Nolan noticed that the floor was slightly pitched, perhaps half a foot lower at the drain than at the walls.
     It was clear what the room had been designed for.
     Sumner sauntered up to the captives and looked each in the eyes. Each one's expression went from terror to wonder, and then to outrage, as he recognized his host. They started to scream in a melange of Middle Eastern tongues.
     Sumner let it go on for a few seconds, then drew a deep breath and shouted a single word, in a parade-ground blare that would have made any drill sergeant proud.
     "QUIET!"
     The gabble ceased at once.
     "You all speak English. You recognize me, and you recognize one another. But you do not yet recognize that the world has changed.
     "That is why you're here. That is why I'm here with you. Before you leave this place, you will know the change, and you will bow before it."
     One of the captives spat a stream of obscenities. Sumner nodded to the Marine at the captive's side. The soldier cracked his baton across the gibbering man's midsection, doubling him over and sending him to his knees. Sumner waited while the Marine hauled the captive back to his feet.
     "Do not presume on my benevolence, gentlemen," Sumner said. "It should be obvious by now that I have none. None for you, at any rate.
     "All of you are heads of Muslim states. All of you are complicit in the funding and operation of terrorist gangs. All of you have blood on your hands, probably more than anyone will ever know. So I have had you brought to me."
     Sumner's voice was level and unstressed, but Nolan could see the special gleam in his eye, the glaze over his features, that presaged a dramatic action.
     What could be more dramatic than kidnapping twelve heads of state?
     "My operatives killed everyone around you. Their count was eleven hundred sixty-seven fatalities. That was by my order. I wanted there to be enough carnage to drive the lesson home. But the lesson is not yet complete.
     "In a few hours you will be going home. The same infiltration teams that snatched you will be tasked to return you, in full darkness and by the same methods. Whoever is in your palaces when you return will die. What happens after that will be for you to decide.
     "I have had you brought here to hear a sentence of death. At the next terrorist act by any group that has received even one dollar's worth of assistance from any of you, that sentence will fall. Do not doubt that I will have it carried out."
     The silence was so perfect that Nolan found himself listening for his own heartbeat. Sumner's gaze raked across the faces of the captives.
     "But the sentence will not be for you. It will be your families who will die, from your next of kin all the way out to your grandparents, your grandchildren, and your second and third cousins. You will be left entirely without relatives.
     "If that lesson fails to produce the effect I want, and another Muslim commits another terrorist act, I will have you brought to me again. But we won't convene here. You will go to my War Room, where we'll watch the saturation nuclear bombing of all twelve of your countries. I will leave you as the sole remnants of your people, your languages, and your cultures. Then I will return you to them. You will rule over nations of corpses and radioactive rubble, to survive as best you can."
     Sumner smiled. "Do you have any questions?"
     One of the captives in the front row croaked a single word. It might have been "oil."
     Sumner nodded. "Oil, yes. A very important commodity, doubt it not. But America has its own, and Europe and Asia can learn to do without it. Anything else?"
     "Why?" the same captive said.
     Sumner cocked his head. "Because I'm sick of you, your posturing, your fanaticism, and your savagery. Because you've killed enough, and hated enough, and brutalized enough to damn your entire civilization. Why else? Or did you mean why now?" Sumner breathed deeply, and suddenly seemed to double in size. "Because my wife was in Geneva last night, and when that bomb went off no one knew where she was. Do you need more explanation than that, Mr. Prime Minister?"
     Silence.
     "Very well. You will now be returned to your palaces. Have a nice day." Sumner strode at once for the door, with Nolan behind him.

#

     McFarlane's gaze was less challenging than usual.
     "What upset you most about the episode, Nolan? The specifics of it, or the fact that you were compelled to watch it?"
     Nolan grinned ruefully. "I wasn't compelled, sir. The president asked me if I'd like to watch history being made. Of course I said yes. I just wasn't prepared for what came next."
     McFarlane rose, hands in his pockets, and looked over Nolan's head into the far corner of the room. His expression was distant.
     "How did you feel about 'what came next'?"
     Nolan clamped his lips together and bowed his head.
     "Agent Nolan?"
     "It doesn't seem right, sir. It was an act of war at the very least. And to kill all those people deliberately, just to send a message! Can the president have that kind of authority?"
     McFarlane didn't answer at once. He shuffled out from behind the little table and paced as best he could in the confines of the interview room.
     "Not only can he, he does. Yes, the strikes were acts of war, absolutely. Undisguised, undecorated, and unapologized for. But in for a penny, in for a pound, Nolan. The president is commander-in-chief, remember? He'd decided we were already at war with those states, and he wanted to force their immediate capitulation. The only way to do it was to terrify their leaders so thoroughly that they'd submit to him without further fighting."
     "Do you think it worked, sir?"
     McFarlane produced one of his rare grins. "Ask me in about two years."
     The commander of the Secret Service reseated himself and steepled his hands on the table between them.
     "No president has ever had to face the terrors we live with today, Nolan. There's no rulebook for this sort of conflict. Stephen Sumner has to make up his own tactics. Worse, he has to make up his own rules. God help us all if he blows it, but he has no choice about trying."
     "Sir..." Nolan hesitated.
     "Spill it, Nolan."
     "He wouldn't have done it except for his wife."
     As soon as he said it, Nolan felt a deep shame. McFarlane looked steadily into his eyes. The younger man struggled to bear it.
     "I could have guessed that would trouble you, son. But does it trouble you enough not to want to do this job? Have you thought at all about why the president wanted you to see those twelve tyrants brought to him in chains and humiliated in his presence?"
     Nolan's eyes widened. "It wasn't just because my name was at the top of the duty roster?"
     McFarlane shook his head. "Not at all, son. He thinks you might have what it takes to command the detail." A grin. "In about twenty years."
     The room went briefly silent. Nolan fingered the crucifix in his pocket.
     "To be a top agent," McFarlane said, "you can't be perturbed by the impurities in the men you protect. You have to be able to accept them. Not just ignore them, but accept that they're part of what makes a man strong enough to wield the powers of the presidency. Like the impurities in weapons-grade steel. It would be ordinary soft iron without its carbon and molybdenum fractions. Useless." His eyes flicked to Nolan's hip pocket. "What are you fiddling with, Agent?"
     Nolan's face reddened. Reluctantly, he pulled the little crucifix from his pocket and laid it on the table. McFarlane regarded it somberly.
     "Do you always carry that with you?"
     Nolan nodded.
     McFarlane reached into his own pocket, pulled out a slightly larger crucifix, and laid it on the table next to Geoff Nolan's. The younger man stared at it in silence.
     "Surprised, Nolan?"
     "Uh, a little, sir."
     "The president gave that to me. I'm never without it."
     "President Coleman?"
     McFarlane shook his head. "President Sumner."

==<O>==

Copyright © 2011 Francis W. Porretto. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.

Iran is not the chief sponsor of terror.

The war party is hot to trot on waging war on Iran. Some appreciation appears to exist in American military thinking of (1) the vulnerability of Saudi oil facilities, Reaper drones, shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, and carrier task forces as well of (2) Iranian and Hezbollah missile arsenals, S-400 capabilities, and the inconvenient presence of Russian forces in Syria. Just possibly this appreciation is operating to damp down the urge for all-out war with Iran.

But none of that seems to have transited any nerve synapses in the numb presidential skull, from which very recently issued the order to attack the armed forces of the sovereign state of Iraq. Sort of one of those act of war dealy bobs.

This stupid escalation in the context of a stabilizing situation in Iraq and Syria will now go through the usual filter of anti-Iran hysteria and bloviation on "terror" for the immediate future, almost certainly in the context of what will be adjudged to be irrational, vicious, and downright naughty retaliation by enraged Iranians and Iraqis. As the nonsense about Iran as the chief sponsor of terror in the world will be flogged like a rented mule by administration spokesmen and shameless shills on the sound stages of CNN and the rest of the scum-sucking media outlets, let me at least contribute these skeptical views on that here:

Self-delusion and denial with regards to Iran's alleged status as the leading sponsor of international terrorism are rampant in Washington and among the punditry. It is crazy, it is dishonest and it is wrong. This is not my opinion. I can do math. I can count. If Iran was actually continuing to act like it did 30 years ago, when it was a major sponsor of terrorism, then we would be able to point to those attacks.

Here are the statistics for 2018.^[1]

Mr. Johnson runs the numbers.

See also the 12/21/17 memo from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

The depiction of Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” is not supported by the facts. While Iran is guilty of having used terrorism as a national policy tool, the Iran of 2017 is not the Iran of 1981. In the early days of the Islamic Republic, Iranian operatives routinely carried out car bombings, kidnappings and assassinations of dissidents and of American citizens. That has not been the case for many years. Despite frequent claims by U.S. officials that Iran is engaged in terrorism, we simply note that the incidents recorded annually in the U.S. Department of State’s Patterns of Global Terrorism rarely identifies a terrorist incident as an act by or on behalf of Iran.^[2]

And for one last bit of perspective on this sick focus on "terror" who but U.S. officials can forget that it has been the Saudis, Qataris, Turks, and the U.S. and its NATO lickspittles who have waged an illegal war on the sovereign state of Syria and caused thereby the death of over 500,000 civilians? Oh. That! But, but Iranian terror.

What terror?

Notes
^[1] "Iran Is Not a Major Sponsor of Terrorism, Not Even Close." By Larry C. Johnson, Sic Semper Tyrannis, 5/16/19.
^[2] "Is Iran the 'World’s Leading Sponsor of Terrorism?'" By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 12/21/17.

Ready And Able...But Willing?

     Never before has there been as much “official force” in America as there is today. It comes in many forms:

• active-duty military;
• military reserves (i.e., National Guard);
• federal law enforcement agencies;
• state police;
• local police;
• lots of federal, state, and local government employees who go about their daily business armed.

     Some of these are “obvious;” others are not. For an example of the unobvious kind, were you aware that field agents of the U.S. Department of Agriculture routinely go armed? How about those of the Environmental Protection Agency? It’s true, in both cases.

     It happened quietly, as with most threatening moves by governments. To have done it noisily, with nationwide announcements that “Henceforward, agents of the Department of XXX will routinely go armed on their daily rounds” would have queered the deal. Americans would have demanded an explanation – and in all probability we would not have accepted whatever we were offered.

     Yet here we are. Moreover, it could have been foreseen, for a simple reason: there’s far more law in America than ever before. Law engenders law enforcement – emphasis on force.

     The fundamental fact about law is that it is meaningless unless enforced. I’ve written before about the pernicious nature of an unenforced law:

     An unenforced law is among the most insidious of all political things. First, it weakens respect for all law. Second, it muddies the predictability of events. Third and perhaps worst, it gives the politicians a rationale for moving against anyone unwise enough to act as if the law had been repealed.

     It’s dangerous for other reasons, too:

     In essence, the law as it genuinely affects the lives of Americans is that subset of the de jure laws – i.e., the laws passed by Congress or the state or local legislature – which is effectively enforced: the law de facto. Why, after all, would anyone care overly much about unenforced laws?

     (In point of fact, there is a reason to concern oneself about an unenforced law: it’s available to be used against those the political elite dislikes. Consider that before arbitrarily dismissing unenforced laws such as Andrew Cuomo’s “SAFE Act.” However, in practice only those laws that are actively enforced are pertinent to the private citizen...at least, as long as he keeps his head down.)

     So when we see a government moving to enact a law aimed at persons who’ve already announced their unwillingness to comply with it, there is reason for more than academic concern.

---

     The unwillingness of Virginia’s gun owners to comply with the anti-gun laws the Democrat-dominated state government has proposed (and is overwhelmingly likely to enact) is on open display. All but a handful of Virginia’s counties have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries prepared to defy any such laws. Yet Governor Ralph Northam and Virginia’s Democrat legislators appear unwilling to back away from their anti-gunnery. Thus the stage is set for a confrontation.

     Something like this occurred in New York State at the time Governor Andrew Cuomo rammed the “SAFE Act” through the state legislature. Not one sheriff in the state was willing to enforce the terms of that law. The law has gone unenforced...yet it remains on New York’s books. It remains available for selective enforcement, should the mandarins of the Empire State decide to use it:

     At its base, law -- legislated law, not natural law, religious law, or any other sort -- is a statement of intent. If this happens, these shall be the consequences. While law is sufficiently widely and deeply respected, it also functions as a way to predict what will follow from certain well-defined actions taken in relevant contexts. But when that respect has attenuated below the required threshold, such predictions become worthless. Non-enforcement against privileged persons and selective enforcement according to political priorities render the words of the law meaningless. The Rule of Law becomes meaningless as well.

     What shall we make of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection?” Can there be such a thing when laws go unenforced but remain nominally “in force?” Suppose for a moment that such a law has been “in force” for decades but has never been enforced. Would you call it harmless? I wouldn’t.

     I have a dear friend, a shooting enthusiast with a lot of guns, including several the Northam proposals target, who lives in Virginia. Would you counsel her to relax? Would you do so after ten years of non-enforcement? How about twenty?

     The unwillingness of today’s myrmidons does not guarantee a continuity of that attitude among their successors.

---

     The joker in Virginia’s deck is this: Suppose Northam mobilizes the Virginia National Guard and directs its commanders to enforce his new anti-gun laws. Suppose, moreover, that the commanders comply, and that the troops offer no significant resistance to their orders. Alternately, suppose Virginia’s state police are dispatched to effectuate the law. What then?

     Have some thoughts from Matt Bracken:

     [E]ven if the Virginia governor was given the go-ahead by the SCOTUS, and even if the present demographic shift in Virginia (based on mass immigration) continues to favor the Democrats in future elections, if any significant percentage of Virginians consider gun confiscation raids to be unconstitutional and worth resisting, make no mistake, there will be armed resistance. Many millions of Americans, including Virginians, consider mandatory gun registration (much less confiscation!) to be a necessary first step on the path to socialist tyranny, boxcars, gulags, and worse. If and when widespread gun confiscation begins, even under the cover of so-called “red flag” laws, or following the refusal of Virginians to comply with gun registration mandates, there will be a civil war.

     Bracken sounds quite certain, doesn’t he? If he’s correct, it would be the start of a conflagration guaranteed to spread across the lower 48 states. It would have the effect of pitching the lower-density population regions against the more urbanized ones. Under those conditions, the defenders of the right to keep and bear arms would have a considerable advantage:

     The geography and topography of much of Virginia means that convoys of police cars and SUVs on gun confiscation missions will be forced to travel through labyrinthine terrain on their way to and from their objectives. After a few bloody (and all-too predictable) gun raid outcomes along the lines of Ruby Ridge or Waco, at least some Virginians will not simply wait for another law enforcement (LE) convoy to arrive unmolested on their street for the next set-piece gun confiscation raid. These LE convoys will be readily identifiable far in advance of their gun raid objectives, and in the event that this constitutional struggle over the Second Amendment turns kinetic, these confiscation convoys will be taken under accurate long-range fire from hidden marksmen on the way to or returning from their objectives.

     Bracken is talking specifically about Virginia and Virginians, but his analysis generalizes to many other parts of the nation. Moreover:

     I’m simply not aware of any previous civil war where tens of thousands of aggrieved citizens began the struggle armed with rifles capable of making 500 yard and greater precision shots. This is an equation changer. Gun raids will not be possible for long if law enforcement convoys are taken under accurate fire en-route to and from gun confiscation operations, and roadside car-search checkpoint duty becomes a suicide mission. Never forget what happened to the British redcoats on the famous 1775 gun confiscation raids at Concord and Lexington, and perhaps more importantly, remember what happened to them during their retreat to Boston.

     Should both sides exhibit equal willingness to fight, I cannot gainsay Bracken’s analysis. However, the balance of that critical factor can only be known once it’s been demonstrated.

---

     The ultimate determinant of any possible confrontation is willingness: the willingness of the attacker to press the issue versus the willingness of the defender to stand fast. Wars great and small are won not by body counts or bomb damage assessments, but by breaking the enemy’s will. If the Virginia Democrats conclude that their probing bayonet has met steel, whether before or after any attempts at enforcement, the defenders of Virginians’ Second Amendment rights will prevail. But should those defenders’ will to resist slacken – should they decide that they’re unwilling to court (more) bloodshed – the anti-gunners will win. And there is a middle case that ultimately might prove more troublesome than the “extremes:” the anti-gunners might refrain from active enforcement, but the anti-gun laws remain in force de jure, to trouble and intimidate Virginians present and future through targeted investigations and selective enforcement.

     Keep your eye on the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So, Gender Change is Real, But...

...believing in the reality of transubstantiation is ridiculous?

Matt Walsh makes a good point. The same people who claim that a person can magically change their gender, are also the same people who ridicule belief in "sky gods" and other Christian-based concepts.

However, they NEVER ridicule Muslim beliefs. That would be WRONG.

2020, Trump, and Exposing the Hate

With the New Year comes new thorny political problems. Back in 2016, I did not begin the year as a Trump supporter. As a loud-mouthed NYC real estate tycoon, he was never my preferred presidential personality. Nor was my view particularly rare.

Nonetheless, I pulled the lever for him in the general, enjoyed the schadenfreude of Leftist meltdown, and thought his election was one of the greatest Hail Mary passes in the history of politics. Trump has failed in many of his campaign policy goals. For example, the wall is not big, beautiful, and paid for by Mexico - though some work has been done on it. Ann Coulter has certainly complained about this. Trump's record on guns appears wishy-washy. On the other hand, his judicial appointments have been good.

However, he has nonetheless done us one great service: he has exposed the hatred the political Left has for the Right. The Leftist meltdown, the Derangement Syndrome, has reached heights never seen in my lifetime. Lefty friends have abandoned me and called me a Nazi because of my tepid - and very conditional - support for Trump. Media Orange Man Bad segments run 24/7. People screamed when he was inaugurated. Protests filled with rage and hate were common. A friend of mine was assaulted by three SJWs (and fought them off) while on vacation in DC.

And it never really toned down. Nor is it likely to in the near future.

2020 is going to be a very important year. If Trump wins, the meltdown is likely to go into high gear. If he's successfully convicted in the Senate (unlikely), Trump supporters are likely to view it as a coup, with all the possible (and bad) alternatives that implies. A Trump defeat in 2020 will almost certainly result in a massive Leftist backlash that would make the Obama years look like the Reagan years.

There is no viable alternative I can see that results in a toning down of the rhetoric, in a healing of the divide. There are many in which in gets much worse. The noise in Virginia over 2nd Amendment rights may be the canary in the coal mine. It's hard to tell.

And so while I continue to hope for a peaceful and reasonable solution to the current madness in American politics, I don't really expect one, and I expect things will continue to get worse. Social Justice madness has now convicted J.K. Rowling of wrongthink - and until quite recently, Harry Potter was the favored metaphor for American politics. Trump, of course, was Voldemort.

Does that mean they will read another series of books, perhaps?

Social Justice never sleeps, and is aggressive in its pursuit of feeling offended by something. Does anybody believe 2020 will be the year it dies a most timely and justified death?

No. Me neither.

Keep your ammo dry, my friends. It's going to be an interesting run this year, whatever else might happen.

Figure And Ground

     An engineer facing a communications related problem must resolve one distinction before all else: what is “signal” versus what is “noise.” In layman’s terms, “signal” is your attempt to say something to your interlocutor or vice versa. “Noise” is anything and everything that competes with the “signal” and therefore must be excluded from your attention. Of course, context matters. In a conversation in a crowded, noisy restaurant, “signal” is your voice or that of your interlocutor, whereas “noise” is any other sound, including other diners’ conversations, that the two of you are straining to ignore. If you can’t distinguish them, you can’t communicate.

     There’s a related phenomenon in visual depiction: what is “figure” versus what is “ground.” Consider the most famous painting of the Renaissance era: Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa:”

     The conventional interpretation of this portrait is that the “figure” is the woman depicted “front and center,” whereas the “ground” is the landscape depicted behind her. Much attention has been given to the woman’s subtle smile and the details Da Vinci captured in her expression. But were you aware that scholars of the fine arts devote as much attention, if not more, to the backdrop, and the delicacy with which Da Vinci captured its colors and shadings? To such critics the “ground” matters quite as much as the “figure” – and why shouldn’t it?

     That having been said, have a couple of deliberate attempts to confuse the viewer’s eye by making the “figure” and “ground” interchangeable at will:

     The first of these is by noted graphic artist Scott Kim. The second is from that inveterate composer of visual conundrums, Maurits C. Escher. Both eliminate any depicted “preference” for “figure” over “ground,” such that it becomes a matter of what the viewer chooses to see rather than any assertion by the artist.

     Mind you, these are not items you’re likely to have framed and hung on your living room wall. They’re essentially puzzles, or more accurately solutions to a puzzle: how to eliminate any conception of “ground” from a composition. They’re clever and thought-provoking, but very few persons would prize them as decor items.

     “What the hell is he driving at?” I hear you mutter. Well, it’s mainly about fiction: a phenomenon some of my indie colleagues have noticed as they pump out their stuff.

---

     Every now and then a reader of my fiction will ask why I haven’t tried to produce anything in some sub-genre he favors. In the usual case, my answer is that “it’s been done,” sometimes with a sotto voce “to death” at the end. I dislike to have my name associated with anything formulaic or commonplace; I prefer to be thought of as a writer who boldly goes where no writer has gone before.

     Yet there is this about those “it’s been done” subcategories: They sell like beer at a ballgame in August. Why else would Harlequin be carting bucks to the bank in wheelbarrows? A popular subcategory can make a writer very well to do -- if he can get himself recognized among his competitors. Of course as always, the most important word in that previous sentence is if, but if the premise be fulfilled, the consequence is undeniable.

     (Agents and publishers are well aware of this. I once had an agent who was forever after me to “Write a nice romance, Fran.” Her love of the genre was at least partly because a romance that “catches on” will sell in big numbers. She couldn’t fathom why I kept demurring.)

     With regard to indie versus traditional publication, Sarah Hoyt mentioned an important aspect of this phenomenon:

     I’ve met young, (thirty something) indie authors making a living after 1 year. I’ve looked at and read their (usually fairly short) books, and there is no magic sauce. They read like very young-in-writing authors, who will get better in time. Some of them are eminently readable but I have to turn off the part of my back brain that groans and goes “oh, hey, I used to do that.”

     …. So, what gives?....

     This morning I realized why your traditional career might give you a little boost (or a significant boost) in indie, but it won’t be at the same level starting out. And why even those who have dual careers need to start out again in indie, even while they’re still doing fine (and are sometimes megasellers) in traditional. And also why traditional publishers think the indie market doesn’t really matter and fail to understand the significance of ebooks.

     Are you ready for this? Once you see it, you can’t unsee it: it is because traditional and indie play to fundamentally different sets of readers.

     But what, pray tell, differentiates those sets of readers? Who are the readers gobbling up the emissions of those young-but-successful indie writers and what’s their secret? Sarah will tell you:

     They go by many names from super readers to compulsive readers. To call us — yes, I’m confessing — by our real name, we’re story addicts. The threshold to be one is RIDICULOUSLY low: 3 books a month. I have no clue what they call people who in slow times average three books a week, and when on vacation or otherwise not busy can do that a day, but I know we exist, and I know I’m not alone. (Right, I’m not alone? Right?) We’re the people who sneak a book into the pocket of our formal clothes and panic because you can’t figure out how to sneak a book into your wedding dress. We exist, and we won’t live in the shadows anymore. I mean… ahem… whatever.

     And why should the most financially successful indie writers have hit it big with those “super readers?”

     You see, Indie by its nature, the fact that books are cheap (and a lot of us lunatics are subscribed to Kindle lending library, too) and that they are varied, but mostly THAT THEY’RE IN SERIES and series that are published two to three months apart for new installments, caters to the 5% who buy 80% of the books.

     COMPLETELY different market from traditional. And one about which I can speak authoritatively because, again, I AM THAT market, or a typical member of it.

     If you write anything remotely readable and non offensive in one of our genres or subgenres, (we can now be picky) we will find you and we will read you.

     Now, this is not a uniform characteristic of the “super reader.” I should know; I’m one such. On average I read a novel a day. (Yes, all the way to the end.) The last time I spent an entire week on a single book, the book was Kristin Lavransdatter. But I’m averse to the interminable series, especially if it falls into one of the “it’s been done” subcategories, even though such a series would satisfy my reading addiction better than any standalone novel.

     The reason is the “figure versus ground” phenomenon.

---

     Within a single story, we may think of the “figure” as the cast of characters and their actions as the story progresses. The setting, and some of the events to which the characters must respond, constitute the “ground.” One approach to a genre / subgenre categorization is to think of it as those characteristics of the “ground” that may (or must) appear in stories in that category. For example, within the genre of fantasy we have the subgenres of medieval fantasy and “urban” fantasy. A story of the former sort is set in a largely nontechnological milieu and will involve magic and / or non-human creatures some of whom have special powers. In contrast, an “urban” fantasy will be set in a milieu that resembles present-day human society. It may involve magic, and it probably will involve paranatural creatures: e.g., vampires, werewolves, zombies. The stories common to those two subcategories differ considerably from one another in style and tone.

     Each subcategory has a large number of dedicated readers. Those readers will read anything in their preferred subcategory if:

• It’s not too expensive;
• It doesn’t offend their sensibilities;
• It’s competently executed: i.e., not too many glaring errors.

     God bless and keep those readers! They’re getting what they want and helping a bunch of indie writers pay the bills. What could be objectionable about that? Nothing I can think of. But I’m not one of them. My immediate reaction to a new book in either of those categories is “it’s been done.”

     The “ground” against which those stories are told is simply too well-trodden for me.

---

     I don’t write in those too-well-trodden categories for a related reason: Stories in them tend to be less than memorable. The problems characters face in those categories tend to be as well-trodden as the categories themselves. Now and then an innovator will come up with something novel within the category – John Conroe’s “Demon Accords” series is an example – but that possibility attracts me less as a writer than a field with plenty of unplowed ground. I want to write stories the reader will remember for a long time – hopefully not in a “Why did I waste my time and money on Porretto’s crap?” fashion.

     All the same and beyond all dispute, the big revenues are going to the hyper-prolific writers whose works are aimed at a popular subcategory and its addicts. If revenue is his goal, the indie writer should do as those hyper-prolific writers do:

• Choose a popular subcategory to write within;
• Invent a few protagonists who can move from one novel to another;
• Pump ‘em out as fast as possible: thousands of reading addicts are counting on you!

     There’s nothing ethically wrong with this. It’s just one more trade-off. You’ll make money – always assuming you can get noticed in the first place – but your stories won’t stand out or create long-term remembrance in your readers.

     It’s just not for me.

---

     This piece arose in large part because of the difficulty I’m having completing my novel under construction. I’m a perfectionist; I want every word to be exactly the right one, and every sentence to ring with a rhythm that compels the reader to press onward. That costs a lot of time and effort. Add to it an absolute commitment that this tale shall be one never before told, and you’ve got a formula for slow production.

     So I manage to write about one novel a year. And I don’t make much money. Those are the downsides. But the choice was and is a conscious one. It derives from my scale of priorities, which I have no power to alter. At the top of that scale stands this mandate:

The Ground shall be fresh and fallow;
The Figure shall be new and memorable.

     You pays your money and you takes your choice.

The culture of lies.

The history of the West is littered with eccentric genius that was widely despised during its lifetime, just as they [Socrates, Diogenes] were. The culture of lies that envelops the West today exists only because the majority of men flee from the truth like the Devil from Holy Water. One certainly can’t hope to win the approval of such people by telling the truth or living by it.

The necessity for diversity the most virulent.

Notes
^[1] Comment of Dr. Robert Morgan on "Mishima’s Guide to the Samurai Ethos." By Guillaume Durocher, The Unz Review, 12/24/19.

The Power Of Crisis

     If everything’s a crisis, where’s the crisis? -- Arthur Herzog

     Think about that word: crisis. Think about the times in your own life when you became persuaded that you were facing a crisis. What sort of emotions and motivational predispositions went along with that sense? “The wheels are coming off, lives are at stake, there’s no time to lose, we’ve got to act now!” Right? Pretty serious stuff, eh what?

     Activists’ promotion of a crisis is aimed at inducing exactly those reactions in their targets. Of course, there are requirements for the successful promotion of a crisis. In recent years very few candidate-crises have been promoted by persons or agencies that could meet those requirements objectively. Nevertheless, crisis-shouting has so much power that there will always be some persons – some innately gullible; others avid for a feeling of importance or significance; still others merely desirous of a little excitement – who will respond affirmatively to the cries.

     Crisis-shouting is a major weapon in the arsenal of the power-seeker. Why else would we have been bombarded with propaganda about world-hunger “crises,” environmental “crises,” homelessness “crises,” energy “crises,” inequality “crises,” global-warming “crises?” Those and many other supposed problems were all to be addressed with big-government solutions. The consistency among the activists’ demands is impossible to overlook.

     As it happens, there’s a new book on the subject:

     Why does government keep growing? Drawing on Mancur Olson’s Rise and Decline of Nations and Robert Higgs’ Crisis and Leviathan, we show how the negativity effect is exploited by journalists, politicians, academics, lobbyists and activists — the merchants of bad, as we call these doomsayers — to scare people into adopting policies that benefit politicians, bureaucrats and special interests while hurting everyone else. Whether you’re absorbing today’s bad news or contemplating the future of humanity, we suggest starting with three assumptions:

• The world will always seem to be in crisis.
• The crisis is never as bad it sounds.
• The solution could easily make things worse.

     And it will be my first physical-volume purchase of this Year of Our Lord 2020.

---

     The true crisis – i.e., a state of affairs wherein a great many lives really are at stake, and immediate action is imperative if they’re to be saved – is self-announcing. Its characteristics tend to indicate the nature of an effective, life-preserving response. Therefore, neither the crisis nor the proper solution has any need for promotion or promoters. But that’s insufficient to meet the needs of those who yearn for power, or to feel important.

     In this regard a look back at world conditions two years ago is instructive:

     Consider the U.S. just three decades ago. Our annual homicide rate was 8.5 per 100,000. Eleven percent of us fell below the poverty line (as measured by consumption). And we spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 34.5 million tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere.

     Fast forward to the most recent numbers available today. The homicide rate is 5.3 (a blip up from 4.4 in 2014). Three percent of us fall below the consumption poverty line. And we emit four million tons of sulfur dioxide and 20.6 million tons of particulates, despite generating more wealth and driving more miles.

     Globally, the 30-year scorecard also favors the present. In 1988, 23 wars raged, killing people at a rate of 3.4 per 100,000; today it’s 12 wars killing 1.2 per 100,000. The number of nuclear weapons has fallen from 60,780 to 10,325. In 1988, the world had just 45 democracies, embracing two billion people; today it has 103, embracing 4.1 billion. That year saw 46 oil spills; 2016, just five. And 37% of the population lived in extreme poverty, barely able to feed themselves, compared with 9.6% today. True, 2016 was a bad year for terrorism in Western Europe, with 238 deaths. But 1988 was even worse, with 440.

     The headway made around the turn of the millennium is not a fluke. It’s a continuation of a process set in motion by the Enlightenment in the late 18th century that has brought improvements in every measure of human flourishing.

     Things are so good, and getting better so relentlessly, that the crisis-shouters are tearing their hair out. They’re in urgent need of a crisis, and there aren’t any handy! How on Earth are they to grab for more power over us, or elevate their tawdry little existences to some degree of existential significance? Something has to go wrong, and at once!

     It makes me so sad that I’ve been walking around laughing uncontrollably.

---

     All right: yes, there is one crisis to be addressed with dispatch. It affects virtually every English speaking human being. Its prevalence is such that virtually every day I’m tempted to hurl a book across my living room with a scream that “Adverbs never killed anyone!”

     It’s the “on a XXX basis” crisis.

     You’ve surely read or heard this particular verbal fad in recent days. “On a regular basis.” “On a daily basis.” “On a constant basis.” Great God in heaven, people! Use the BLEEP!ing adverb without encrusting it that way: “Regularly.” “Constantly.” “Daily.” It won’t hurt you; indeed, the improvement in the concision of your spoken or written English will be to your benefit. “Forcible writing is concise.” (Will Strunk of The Elements of Style) “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” (George Orwell) Save your syllables and your breath for when you really need them – and as I’ve been feeling an ever stronger desire to strangle someone for saying “on a daily basis” or something analogous, that need might not be far off.

     Once that crisis has been successfully dealt with, I’m certain that Utopia will be on the horizon.

     Happy New Year!