Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Soldiers

This is the US Air force in Japan, receiving their commander Donald Trump

These are freaking soldiers. Holding, to a man, holding their phones to record the speech. Like teenagers on a Justin Bieber concert. Like old housewives listening to Hillary Clinton. Fucking Soldiers of the Biggest Empire in the Fucking World. The occupation garrison in a very important vassal. Can’t even stand still like men and listen to their commander in chief.

Sad. Just sad. And Trump should be ashamed of himself for not telling them to put down their damn phones. Very sad.

Advertisements

59 responses to “Soldiers

  1. David Roman November 5, 2017 at 11:28

    Which raises the question: after two centuries in which multiple religious and ethnic factions tried to take over the Western Roman empire and restore its brand name to their own benefit, perhaps they realized around 476 AD that it was just too rotten to be of any use, and let it go? Certainly everyone wants to take over the American empire these days, in lieu of looking to defeat it.

    • Pius Vindex November 6, 2017 at 03:26

      Where have you been? “Defeat the American Empire” is exactly the typical leftard/libertard/paleotard position. Nrx is about the only ideological movement that both openly admits America is an empire and wants to reform it into something worth preserving.

      • spandrell November 6, 2017 at 16:21

        Huh? Who said that? I certainly don’t want to preserve the US empire in any shape or form. I hope every single one of your troops abroad goes back home, thank you.
        Beyond that I wish you the best.

        • Pius Vindex November 8, 2017 at 03:38

          I know you don’t really identify as Nrx anymore, but preserving the western power structure has become the Social Matter line. I for one would much rather live in a world dominated by a Neo-Roman America than one broken into a bunch of impotent little nation states. Even if Europe goes full nationalist, Europeans are simply too decadent to fend for themselves. A fractured America would consist of Brazilified (at best) coastal states and impoverished flyoverstans run by cucks (for a while) until they’re Brazilified, too. If you want to live in a West that remains great, you need the Empire.

          • spandrell November 8, 2017 at 05:22

            I have friends in Social Matter and I don’t think they agree Europe must remain an American colony.
            If you want me to not support the breaking up of the USA I can agree to that.

            • Pius Vindex November 8, 2017 at 05:42

              If Europe isn’t going to remain an American colony then Europeans need their own empire. A Europe of small, weak nation states will end up dominated by the U.S. or Russia one way or another.

          • Howard J. Harrison November 9, 2017 at 11:35

            Can the U.S. afford the empire? Is it not too expensive to maintain?

            Besides, in relative terms, was Rome’s rival Persia not weaker than America’s rival China? (Rome’s barbarian foes were stronger, but I do not speak of barbarians here.)

            I am skeptical that even a non-Brazilified U.S. could maintain the empire. Neither the British nor the Spanish could. Neither can the Americans. The burden is too great.

            The U.S. empire is real, alas, for now; but it is a pale, sickly thing compared to the great empires of the past. The trickle of tribute into Washington is too weak, for Washington has too many opportunistic dependents abroad and too few genuine tributaries. Arguably, America’s chief tributary has been China. If so, the analogy thus fails, for Rome maintained her empire less with financial instruments (fiat money) and more with legions. Washington is a faux Rome.

            America’s Asian dependents would seem to face a choice: arrange their own security at their own expense; or fall under Chinese domination. America is not dependable.

            NRx is lovable but, I think, mistaken. Most readers of this blog will live to see the end of the empire. More thought should be given to what comes next.

            • Wency November 9, 2017 at 12:09

              “The U.S. empire is real, alas, for now; but it is a pale, sickly thing compared to the great empires of the past.”

              Or it’s not really an empire. These word games with “empire” drive me nuts.

              “If you don’t think the U.S. is an empire, then you’re BLIND.”

              “Alright, except it’s not and never has been all that much like what we mean when we think of empires.”

              “Right, that’s because it’s a weak, sick, stupid empire.”

              “Then we can we just not call it an empire?”

              “Ha! How naive!”

              • spandrell November 9, 2017 at 20:30

                The Roman empire before Docletian was also not a formal empire. It wasn’t the Roman state getting tribute, it was Augustus and his retinue getting personal revenue from vassals abroad and using that to manage Roman politics. The US also doesn’t get tribute as a state, but different private and public actors in the US have different vassals abroad from which they get money and advantages.

                • Howard J. Harrison November 9, 2017 at 21:52

                  Maybe so. Interesting. I admit that, so far, I tend to think as Wency does, but this does not make you wrong.

                  If a professional economist wanted to publish something really interesting, then he could account tribute against imperial expenses (or as Wency might say, against not-imperial expenses), along with forecasts of future profitability. As far as I know—which is not very far—America’s tribute comes largely in the form of perverse U.S. trade deficits denominated in fiat U.S. dollars. America’s imperial expenses would be largely military and naval.

                  An American, I do not personally particularly want the empire, anyway; but that’s just me.

                  (I have read your words regarding “private and public actors” but cannot comment because I do not know the actors. I had forgotten about Diocletian. Good point.)

                  • Howard J. Harrison November 9, 2017 at 22:47

                    Also, one would need to show that the trade-deficit tribute—that is, the international use of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, which use incidentally allows the U.S. Federal Reserve System to liquidate and export the cost of America’s trade deficits—were causally linked to the military and naval expenses. Maybe the tribute and expenses are indeed causally linked, but that they were firmly causally linked is not obvious to me.

                    In short, though NRx earns extra credit for style, my boxing scorecard has Wency ahead of NRx on points.

                • Wency November 10, 2017 at 16:10

                  In a monarchy or dictatorship, the state and the personal household of the ruler are commingled concepts. During the middle ages, was the title King of England worth all that much compared to being the landlord of the royal demesne? Still, there are characteristics of the early Roman Empire that are not fully Imperial, which is why it’s sometimes called the Principate.

                  And the whole argument for the U.S. being an empire, as Howard is saying, seems to be that the dollar is the reserve currency. Is there any other economic benefit that you can point to? And a benefit that flows one way, not things that could just be called “trade”.

                  Meanwhile, a lot of things that look sort of imperial are done by other nations. We have megacorporations that do international deals and buy up natural resources, but then so do other countries, countries with no military clout to speak of. Our military doesn’t seem to give companies like Exxon any particular advantage over, say, Statoil.

                  There were reserve currencies before. Before the dollar, it was the British Pound. I really think when we refer to the British Empire, we should be talking about the places that were actually part of the Empire, maybe including a few places like Egypt that were dominated by it. But by the “U.S. is Empire” definition, the British Empire might include a lot of other places: any place where the British had some kind of influence on policy and benefited from their reserve currency status. This probably includes parts of Europe. Maybe even France.

            • Pius Vindex November 10, 2017 at 02:54

              Many Americans profit handsomely from their empire, likely including you. Do you think America would maintain its economic hegemony without political hegemony? True, the American empire as presently constituted is hugely inefficient and wasteful, but that’s because the empire is poorly run, not because empire is inherently burdensome. It was the same story for the late Spanish/British empires.

              But Rome really does make a much better comparison than the old Euro colonial states. America is in that same awkward phase Rome was in between the Gracchi and Augustus. Political systems designed to govern yeomen farmers warp into grotesque shapes when used to administer world powers. Returning to a nation of yeomen farmers is just as futile for Americans as it was for the Romans. The only possible futures for America are the same as they were for the Rome of Caesar’s day: radical restructuring and formalization of power or implosion.

  2. Pingback: Soldiers | @the_arv

  3. Ted Nuisance November 5, 2017 at 12:06

    they’re kids. they’re excited to be led by a non-pussy. imagine having to sit through an obama diversity speech all the while knowing he’s restricting your ability to win? also, they’re kids.

    • spandrell November 5, 2017 at 12:35

      Kids! Soldiers stationed in an imperial garrison are “kids”!

      • Rhetocrates November 5, 2017 at 15:05

        Yes, they are.

        • spandrell November 5, 2017 at 21:37

          Well shouldn’t USG have a proper army and not a kindergarten?

          • Black Flak November 6, 2017 at 01:48

            I have no doubt that if a proper army, masculine and effective, becomes necessary to the continued perpetuation of USG or USG’s sovereign power, or sufficiently in USG’s or USG’s sovereign power’s utilitarian interests to possess, then such an army will be deliberately and systematically produced — just as such an army was produced for each World War.

          • Rhetocrates November 6, 2017 at 13:19

            Probably it should. But that starts with recognizing manhood in 14-year-olds, and we’re very far away from that, now.

      • A.B. Prosper November 5, 2017 at 19:34

        Yes they are. we don’t encourage young men to mature, we actively discourage it in fact and this includes many military people

        Its political (kids are easier to boss about for the power hungry and control ) and economic (we don’t have useful work for young men)

        Also most soldier and airmen in safe garrisons are hardly in real danger, its not that different than doing any other job, its much safer and structured than being a store manager for lower ranks

        • Patrick Brehon November 6, 2017 at 04:08

          Are they so safe Mr. Prosper?

          Those soldiers and airmen may be safe enough in Japan garrisons for the present but they’re subject to extreme danger at any moment, have sworn oaths voluntarily to do exactly that so the store manager doesn’t have to and are also frequently deployed to places that are more dangerous than your average store…

          As far as the lower ranks being in less danger that’s directly contradicted by the casualty figures for some time. They’re in more danger unless they’re Army or Marine Junior officers who have been quite decently dying at the honorable rate. As opposed to the higher ranks which have not.

          As far as maturity if that room were called to attention it would be as silent as a church and not a soul moving. They were placed at ease and encouraged – as they have been since the dawn of war – to cheer their commander.

          • A.B. Prosper November 8, 2017 at 21:41

            I don’t disagree with you actually though unless you are deployed in a war zone, being in the military is a pretty safe job. Thus the phrase safe garrisons.

            People in the gulf and Afghanistan face danger though deaths are around 7% of those of Vietnam in a similar time frame . Maiming are a lot higher though.

  4. Handle November 5, 2017 at 12:55

    This sounds a lot like what Larry Auster would say in reaction to the same image, and I mean that as a compliment.

  5. Imperial Energy November 5, 2017 at 15:51

    Interesting. When it came to motivating men, Wellington despised Napoleon’s “theatrics” and regarded British soldiers as “scum”. One time, the men cheered as Wellington rode by – he was not pleased with this outburst of emotion. He said, in effect, that if they cheer when they are happy they will yell when they are not.

    The British flogged their men.

    Napoleon was different and did all sorts of things things to gin up morale (inspections, conversations with rankers, jokes, rewards etc).

    What Trump is doing is building up morale. He may need their support…….

    Remember, in a democracy you need to be popular.

  6. Pingback: Soldiers | Reaction Times

  7. Dan_Kurt November 5, 2017 at 18:00

    Spandrell you exhibit too much Sinology and not enough Roman Empire awareness: Caesar would approve of how Trump is handling his troops. Imagine how his troops will cheer when he tells them to sack & pillage FaceBook, Google, Harvard, Yale, CNBC, and the rest of the Swamp, encouraging them to take no prisoners.

    Dan Kurt

    • Pius Vindex November 6, 2017 at 03:20

      Can you imagine Caesar’s legions recording his speeches on smartphones while they should be at attention? Cheer, yes, but the typical modern use of electronic devices in all situations is very unmanly.

  8. Alf November 6, 2017 at 00:22

    Does indeed look like a Justin Bieber concert.

  9. j November 6, 2017 at 06:36

    …one for the show, one for the money… (Elvis)

  10. Orthodox November 6, 2017 at 15:49

    Why do they even HAVE phones?

  11. rcglinski November 6, 2017 at 16:54

    It’s a failure of leadership. When the first phone came out an officer needed to say put your goddamned phone away. Once they didn’t it spread like a fucking disease.

    On the more substantive point, once the Pentagon got on its penchant to enlist as many women and trannies as possible, it’s been clear to me they don’t think individual soldiers will play any important role in the outcome of future wars. Or they’ve affirmatively decided to lose future wars. Either proposition is frightening.

    • Wency November 7, 2017 at 14:27

      The Pentagon is a bureaucracy. Its purpose is not to win wars, it is to defend its bureaucratic turf, especially its budget. Who really cares about winning a war — whatever that even means in COIN operations? Not many people. It would be a boost for morale for a short time in a few circles, but it wouldn’t solve many problems.

      Red-meat Republicans will always favor a larger military, apparently. Trump has been saying we need additional aircraft carriers, we need this, we need that. Possessing 80% of the world’s naval power isn’t enough, I guess. So the Pentagon’s bureaucratic objective is to win over Democrats. Hence trannies and so on.

      I was once involved with lobbying in DC for an oil-and-gas company. How much time do you think we spent trying to persuade Republicans? Almost zero. We just had to say, “This is what we think would be better for the economy,” and they were instantly on board. All our work went towards trying to get Democrats to our position. Maybe if we had just put out a press release talking about how much we love trannies, we could have saved ourselves some time.

  12. Inquiring Mind November 6, 2017 at 17:04

    I think Spandrell is trolling us.

    In the context of relentless drumming that Mr. Trump doesn’t know how to be president and that Trump is tone deaf and that Trump is senile and needs to be replaced under the 25th Amendment, he sure knows how to work a crowd.

    Presented with a leather “bomber jacket”, of course he is going to put it on, but he first asks for permission from the assembled enlisted personnel. Our soldiers are perhaps the last element in our society who are obedient, and of course there would no smartphones up in the air of the Commander-in-Chief in the least bit did not want it that way.

    Can you imagine the smartphones held overhead with President Obama reviewing the troops? I think we have already seen this with them standing at stone-faced attention.

    I find it heartening to see this reaction to President Trump, especially since I had no idea how he would be received among the soldierly ranks in light of the shade thrown on him from the Senior Senator from Arizona for not being his roommate during the late 60’s. Spandrell is showing us this video for a purpose and making remarks about the smartphones held high is being coy.

    • spandrell November 6, 2017 at 19:25

      No I’m not. Adult men grabbing their phones
      to record stuff in a crowd like teenagers are disgraceful. That’s the beginning and the end of this post.

      I’m cool with Trump and I’m very happy the troops like him. But he should’ve told them to put down the phones and listen. With a joke or something: “Hey my guys are recording this anyway, I’ll send you a DVD. Do they still make DVDs in Japan? I guess not”.

    • parisian November 11, 2017 at 07:10

      @Inquiring Mind, I totally agree, this post totally misses–but I don’t think it’s trolling so much as that Spandrell has had an ‘archaic moment’, which is understandable because the ubiquity of smartphones is like ‘The Day of the Locusts’. Much as I hate to admit it, Brehon is also right, but only about that part–because in this, a ‘soldier subject’, he is going to know, whereas when he talks about ‘elites’, he’s not. Point is–in the ‘Chair Force’, of course they’re going to have phones just like almost everybody else. You think a single one of them thinks he can afford to NOT have one like me? I don’t know, though, my father was in the Air Force in the Pacific War, and he could be accused of nothing frivolous. It’s not that Trump should have told them not to use the phones, it’s that Trump is totally frivolous about everything. He loved the red carpets in China even more, made him feel like he might at least get a Golden Globe.

  13. mitchellporter November 6, 2017 at 22:55

    They were probably encouraged to bring their phones.

  14. some random guy November 7, 2017 at 01:01

    Everybody is addicted to phones now, officers and enlisted, politicians, blog writers… you name it.

  15. Howard J. Harrison November 8, 2017 at 19:03

    If you happened to be writing an article, or thinking of writing an article, on Xi Jinping’s Oct. 18 speech, such an article would interest me. I mean the big speech Xi gave to his party congress.

    Xinhua’s fluent English translation of the speech looked pretty straightforward to me—it didn’t read like translational taqiyya, like a tricky mistranslation prepared for the purpose of misleading foreigners—but of course I cannot read Chinese and thus would not know.

    U.S. media have hardly covered the speech. The lack of interest strikes me as odd.

  16. james November 10, 2017 at 03:57

    Would they be doing that for Hillary?

  17. Bob November 11, 2017 at 01:18

    To be fair, these might not be soldiers. If they’re from the Air Force, they’d be airmen, not soldiers, who are in the Army. The Air Force is looked down upon by the Army, Navy, and Marines as not being part of the real military. It’s considered more like a corporation with lots of comfortable desk jobs and the most benefits and amenities in the military. That’s why they call it the “Chair Force”, because it’s mostly guys sitting in chairs all day.

  18. Joseph Moroco November 14, 2017 at 14:12

    Apropos of nothing, I was in the Army late Vietnam era. The lower em were mostly as goofy if not worse.

    I volunteer among the great washed at a classical music venue. The people are informed that taking pictures in the hall is not allowed. Up at the back, the cameras come out almost immediately.

    These are not youngsters, but probably affluent members of the professional class.

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s