On Brexit

 

 

 

 

Is June 23rd, 2016 one of the most important dates in this century thus far, possibly on par with 9-11 in historical significance? I think so.

The Citizens of Great Britain voted yesterday to leave the European Union by a margin of 51.9% (17,410,742 votes) to 48.1% (16,141,241 votes).  I think this was a good move on their part. Here’s why.

1.     Economics: The European Union never lived up to expectations. It was sold to Europeans as the means to band together to create an economic super power which could compete with Asian and North American rivals, much the same as five small lion robots combined to form one giant robot, Voltron, Defender of the Universe. In practice, it became more of a European wealth redistribution program. The taxpayers of donor states like Germany and Britain were forced to turn their hard-earned tax dollars over to Brussels bureaucrats who then gave it to receiver states such as Greece and others. After the Greek economy crashed, their government was bailed out by the E.U., whose only request was that Greece adopt austerity measures to ease the burden on the people paying their tab. Greece promptly refused. The first cracks in European unity appeared.

 

2.     Immigration: This was the game changer. As I understand, it was this issue that really forced yesterday’s vote. A key facet of the E.U. system is open borders among member states. An open border in Germany constitutes open access to France, Belgium, Italy, and the rest of Europe. The Syrian immigrant crisis of 2015, which saw millions of Muslim refugees flood into Europe and continues as of this writing, exposed a key flaw in the open border system. If Britain can’t control German immigration, it can’t control its own immigration. I realize that some countries have enacted border security, but these are temporary measures and go against the spirit of the E.U. fraternal intent. In effect, no E.U. member state has the right to control its national borders on a permanent basis.

 

3.     Politics: The best government is closest to the people. The idea of super states like a European Union, North American Union, or African Union, etc. is in direct opposition to this idea. When the E.U. decided a few years ago that European construction workers were no longer allowed to work with their shirts off due to skin cancer concerns, what recourse did these workers have? What if British workers and their E.U. representatives opposed the idea? Too bad. Majority rules. Now shut up and put your shirts or pay the fine. The fine goes directly to Brussels by the way. This does not take into account the rights and recourse of the individual citizen. What if a person’s property was adversely affected by an E.U. decree? If you can’t fight city hall, how can you fight all of Europe? Good luck with that, Nigel Six-pack.

 

4.     National Sovereignty: It all comes to this. Britain was wise to keep the pound and not adopt the Euro. I believe the same instincts of self-preservation are what led to Brexit. Brits knew that the longer they remained in the E.U., the harder it would be to leave. After all, is a country which loses control of its borders and currency still a country? I don’t think so. According to yesterday’s vote, neither do the Brits. Good on ‘em.

 

 

 

 

A Conversation about Writing, Dystopia, and the End of the World (Part 2)

Here’s the conclusion of our discussion of Homeland: Falling Down, and the trends which inspired it.

 
HENRY BROWN: So, whether faced with our own military or with modern-day Hessians under globalist command (assuming the 3 percenters have prepped adequately enough to avoid being simply starved to death) with no support from a foreign ally and probably without popular support, how viable do you consider a guerilla resistance effort to be?


R.A. MATHIS: You mention in False Flag that no insurgency has ever won without foreign intervention and popular support, which I thought was a very good point. The two things America has to counter that are the 2nd Amendment and the 2008 election of the best gun salesman the country has ever seen. We have over 300 million citizens and about as many firearms in this country. We are also buying up ammo as fast as it can be produced (at least what is left over after DHS gets their share). Combine that with hundreds of thousands of highly trained combat veterans scattered to every part of the country, and the odds don’t look so long.

(HENRY BROWN: What a coincidence that veterans, patriots and gun owners top the list of potential “domestic terrorists” the government is most worried about, eh?)

R.A. MATHIS: This alludes to the working title of book three, “Every Blade of Grass.”


HENRY BROWN: How appropriate–that very quote (whoever said it) was just going through my mind as your words sunk in.


R.A. MATHIS: I think the success of a resistance would vary by region. Rural areas would be virtual no-go zones for regime forces. Some urban areas may just welcome them like the Vichy French.
It seems to me that the biggest problem for the resistance would be the lack of electricity. If the regime restored power to each region as it was brought into compliance, it could make for effective deadly propaganda against the resistance. It’s the old “freedom vs security” dilemma on steroids. I’m not sure which way the populace would go in that case, especially in winter.


HENRY BROWN: Very good point. Most people  take electricity for granted. Few of us have any concept of what a struggle life will be without it. And that’s even without somebody intentionally trying to kill you.


R.A. MATHIS: How would you go about establishing a resistance? Could it succeed?


HENRY BROWN: That endeavor would be a kettle of quandaries stuffed full of dilemmas and wrapped in Catch-22s. What I would encourage is a cellular structure perhaps similar to the French Underground or other successful resistance movements. But if it is successful, at some point it would have to take the offensive. And that would require somewhat centralized leadership–anathema to the principles hopefully held by those who constitute such a movement. That would require very rare leadership–willing to step down and surrender the reins of power when victory was secured–as George Washington did.

Could it succeed? Yes. But it would be an uphill struggle from start to finish, with no room for mistakes at the strategic level. At a tactical level I like its chances a little better, partly because of the points you made.

In Falling Down, Cole’s father, Hank, is an honest cop. In my experience that’s a rare, dying breed. But now and then I come across memes regarding certain sheriffs who have gone on record stating they will not comply with unconstitutional orders from the Feds, including civilian disarmament. As with the military, I’m skeptical that many who wear the badge will honor their oaths at crunch time. How do you see it?


R.A. MATHIS: Again, I think this may be regional. I believe small town sheriffs would be more likely to resist the regime as they personally know most of the people they would be asked to arrest, kill, etc. The impersonal nature of bigger cities allows collaborators to see numbers rather than real people. Like Stalin said, “The death of one man is a tragedy…”

Of course, there would be exceptions on both sides of the spectrum. And we must always remember that power not only corrupts, it draws the corrupt.

That last sentence ran through my mind as I read the McMillan scenes in False Flag. You mention window tint citations a few times in regard to this trooper. Was this character and situation inspired by actual events?


HENRY BROWN: Actually, yes. I made friends with a state trooper a few years back. Unlikely, but true. Stories he shared fit with things I’ve heard from other cops and ex-cops. Basically, somebody with a badge can make your life hell now for any reason at all. Window tinting was one of the specific excuses he used to harass people and help eat out our substance. And that BS fits thematically so well, because the Surveillance State just HATES it when something impedes their invasion of our privacy.

In Homeland: Falling Down, Cole strikes me as a character who’s just an honest soldier who wants to do his duty and avoids politics like the Plague. First of all, is this an accurate assessment?


R.A. MATHIS: Yes. Like most people, he just wants to be left alone. But also like most people, politics affects him in huge ways, whether he likes it or not.


HENRY BROWN: Like the saying goes: You may not be interested in politics, but politics sure has a keen interest in you.


R.A. MATHIS: I found your character Adiur rather fascinating. His connection to Greeley, the secret government training program, the other members of his unit with equally unusual qualities and names. Can you go into detail about this character and your inspiration for him?


HENRY BROWN: This goes back to my research on the occult and mind control, again. There are documented cases of this kind of thing, including superhuman strength, drastic voice changes, change in spoken language, and being oblivious to pain. There’s other bizarre stuff like “remote viewing” and “automatic writing,” too, but I don’t know much about those phenomena yet. Anyway, molestation as a child is pretty common in these “sleeper agents” and sex acts are incorporated into the occultic rituals for adults, too. This is where Greely comes in.

It’s all pretty horrific stuff, which is why I left it behind closed doors, and only implied “vanilla” sex, at that.
Is Cole based to any degree on some particular individual?
R.A. MATHIS: He is the personification of the dilemma faced by our troops in such a time. Hank is the same, but for civilian authorities.

I’ll ask you the same thing about Greeley and Adiur.


HENRY BROWN: Greely and Handel are amalgam characters, based on different people I’ve known and met. I’ve never been involved in drugs or the occult, but I’ve rubbed elbows with others who were. Neither of these characters are what they seem to be on the surface. Greely appears to be the sultry cougar-type “strong independent woman.” She’s the object-of-every-schoolboy’s fantasy. But deep inside she’s a sick tool who is about as independent as a marionette.

Handel’s façade is perhaps just Joe Blow Normal Dude. He’s handsome, clean, in his prime, average intelligence, a “good person” on paper…but there’s more to him than superficial observation would ever indicate. He’s been horribly abused since childhood and doesn’t even know it. He’s fractured. At the risk of spoilers, he has been conditioned to surrender his will and his body over to be used as a vehicle by Adiur–a malicious personality given access to Handel when his psyche was fractured.

I don’t know for sure that anyone I’ve ever met was a bona fide MPD. But I’ve known some guys who were blank slates like Handel, susceptible to that sort of conditioning in my opinion. Such a person has a hole in their soul, and nature abhors a vacuum.
When you first introduced Eduardo in Falling Down, I couldn’t help thinking of Geraldo Rivera. But as the story progressed, I shelved the connection. You really drew a 3-dimensional character in him. He’s a disingenuous self-promoting media whore on the one hand, but he proves to have streaks of decency as well. Congrats on that, BTW. What were your thoughts when you conceived the character, and did he wind up like you first envisioned him?


R.A. MATHIS: He actually was inspired partly by Rivera, especially after I saw how Geraldo behaved on Celebrity Apprentice (not a good look for him). He represents exactly what you stated: the self-serving, headline-grabbing media. He doesn’t care if his reporting is biased or disingenuous. The next step in his career is all that matter to him. He’s not an ideologue, but he will toe the line and support ‘the narrative’ his superiors provide to get ahead. He is a tool (in more ways than one).

It's interesting that you ask if he is winding up as I first imagined him. I like the question because it implies Eduardo has a life of his own and makes his own choices. As a writer, that's when I know I'm onto something…. When I stop directing the characters and let them do their thing, writing down what I observe. That's when it's most fun. I don't know what Eduardo will do or how he will turn out. How will he react when he discovers the true nature of the regime? I don't know. He is a bit of a wild card.


HENRY BROWN:  Definitely onto something. He lives, breathes, sweats and stinks. Seriously: kudos. Very well-drawn character.
Will the presidential candidate from the prologue appear again in subsequent books?


R.A. MATHIS: The candidate, Martha Jefferson, will have a big roll down the road. And that road is gonna be a rough one.
The assassin’s “little green book” will be a factor going forward.


HENRY BROWN: How many books do you think the Homeland series will last?

R.A. MATHIS: Right now I'm thinking at least three, maybe four. It really depends on where the characters take the story…and sales (You’re laughing–I’m not laughing).


HENRY BROWN: Not laughing, really. Just smiling. But think of it as a smile of solidarity.

Is there anything you’d like to share about Executive Order?

R.A. MATHIS: Yes. President Tophet is just getting started. If you thought things are bad now, just wait.

Can you give a hint as to what is in store for the next Retreads book?


HENRY BROWN: I haven’t woven it all together completely yet in the cobweb of my mind, but there’s got to be a showdown between Adiur and Tommy Scarred Wolf. Also between McCallum and either Rennenkampf or Cannonball. The latter would be more dramatic. An EMP. Grid down. Starvation. Dissident extraction. Internment camps. The clergy response team. Jihadi terror cells completely unleashed. Texas secedes. Rocco and his crew take in some refugees. Clashes with occupation forces. And, oh yeah: World War Three. That’s a few off the top of my head.
Changing gears a bit, where did the idea for Ghosts of Babylon come from?


R.A. MATHIS: A few months before deploying to Iraq, I found a picture of my grandfather taken in Germany during WW2. With the photo was a note written on the tissue paper issued to GIs to write home with in those days. He had just learned of Germany's surrender and was looking forward to coming home and not sleeping in a foxhole anymore.

I wished I had more. More of his experiences. More of his thoughts and feelings. More of him.

So I kept a journal during my Iraq deployment so my family would have more than a picture and a note decades from then. When I finally got back home, I started writing, using the journal as the basis for a memoir. It was partly self-therapy and partly out of a desire to pass my experiences down to my children while they were still fresh on my mind.

 It eventually morphed into a novel. I still don't know why. Maybe there were things I needed to say that could only be said through fiction. In any case, it eventually turned into Ghosts of Babylon.
We all begin writing for different reasons. I once read that no one writes because they are happy. What inspired you to start writing?


HENRY BROWN: First of all, that is a cool story unto itself. Thanks for sharing that.

As for me and writing, I’ve always had an active imagination, for one. Also, from a very young age, no matter how much I liked a story (either on film or on paper) I saw room for improvement. “It would have been even better if this was changed, that was tweaked, if so-and-so would have said/done such and such…” At least that motivated me in my first creative efforts.

I kind of did that with real stuff throughout my life, too. “Hey, what just happened would make an intense scene in such-and-such type of story.” Or, “Oh wow–check that out! I’d love to be able to capture what I’m seeing/feeling right now and reproduce it.”
There have been times when I really should have been completely focused on reality and my part of whatever task was at hand, but part of my mind was already busy plagiarizing the situation. Somebody once called me “a cultural scavenger.”  I still have mixed emotions about that remark. Maybe he meant it as a compliment, but it still seems a bit insulting. Nevertheless, there must be some truth to it, since I’m constantly compelled to weave fragments of life experiences together into stories (which are much more exciting than real life).

In fact, that’s still at work today, in yarns like False Flag. All these trends are converging toward a perfect storm that promises a bleak future and an end to life as we know it…so why not insert some guys like the Retreads, who won’t take it lying down, no matter the odds. Islands of integrity in a world of treachery. They’ve got the skills and wits to bring smoke on some scumbags in the process. And most important, they’re compelled to try to make a difference.
You strike me as a voracious reader. I sure used to be. When I was on active duty, when possible, I always had a paperback stashed in my cargo pocket or rucksack, for the inevitable “wait” phase of the old hurry-up-and-wait S.O.P. Did you keep a book stashed in your tank?


R.A. MATHIS: I read a little of everything. I especially enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, history, philosophy, and even a little horror. Unfortunately, working and writing leave far less time for reading than I would like. I read as much as I can, but am frustratingly slow at it. I often supplement reading with audio books and YouTube.
I usually had a book handy in the Army, but never got to read it on the tank as I was the platoon leader and barely found time to eat and sleep during operations. But I read constantly during after-operation downtime. Like you, there were also the times waiting on the tarmac for a flight, leaning on my rucksack, stealing a few pages here and there.


HENRY BROWN: Oh yeah, I got a lot of reading done sitting around Green Ramp in my lower enlisted days.


R.A. MATHIS: What do you enjoy reading most?


HENRY BROWN: Excepting horror and philosophy, the same ones you listed, plus classic pulp; westerns; war (fiction and non); military history; and various & sundry fare from the blogosphere in the “neomasculine” genre.

Have you/do you read SHTF or TEOTWAWKI fiction from other authors? If so, which do you recommend? (Some authors I recently discovered, who have written some enjoyable books, are “Joe Nobody” and Mark Goodwin. I’m curious about “A. American” and some others, but haven’t taken a chance on them yet.)


R.A. MATHIS: Oddly enough, I haven’t read many other SHTF works other than False Flag (which I thoroughly enjoyed) and a bit of James Wesley Rawles first book, Patriots. I want to keep Homeland original as possible, so I’m avoiding similar works right now. I do plan to read them once I’m a little further into the Homeland series.

HENRY BROWN: Interesting. It seems that it’s paying off–Falling Down did not seem derivative or imitative of any other SHTF works I’ve read. And thanks for that!

 I read Patriots as well, and have considered trying more of Rawles’ fiction…but haven’t, yet.


R.A. MATHIS: Which authors do you recommend I start with?


HENRY BROWN: Me, of course. But seriously, you might want to try “Joe Nobody“–he blends prepping info into his narratives fairly well. The protagonist in the ones I read was easy to root for. The action was believable. Overall a good read.


R.A. MATHIS: Thank you again for having me, Hank. Your questions were enjoyable and thought provoking. I truly enjoyed them.


HENRY BROWN: Hey, same here. We should do this again some time.

R.A. MATHIS: That's a deal.

A Conversation about Writing, Dystopia, and the End of the World (Part 1)

I was recently interviewed by author, Henry Brown for his blog, Virtual Pulp. The interview turned into a running discussion about writing, dystopia, and worst-case scenarios.

Here is part 1:


HENRY BROWN: First of all, thanks for agreeing to do the interview.


R.A. MATHIS: Thank you for having me, Hank.


HENRY BROWN: After reading Ghosts of Babylon, I guess I assumed you might follow up with something similar, or possibly move on to more mainstream literature. What made you decide to spin a SHTF yarn?


R.A. MATHIS: I wrote Ghosts of Babylon because I had to. It began as an effort to mentally sort out my Iraq experience. The Homeland series is the same.

 The seed was formed from the occasional news story of another general being fired for questionable reasons, a new executive order being announced, or the IRS being used as a weapon. That seed took root as these stories began to appear with alarming regularity. I thought it was just me being a bit paranoid, so put it aside and kept my mouth shut. But then I noticed others voicing the same concerns, both on the street and even in the popular media.
The last straw dropped when a guy came to our house to work on the air conditioner. We struck up a conversation as he worked. He told me that he was mortally afraid of the government. That’s when I began to realize how widespread the concern really was. (As a side note, I believe this sentiment is a contributor to the current election cycle’s rebellion against all things establishment.)

(HENRY BROWN: I would have to agree. And on the one hand it’s about time. But on the other…it seems to me that the pent-up outrage, now that it’s finally loose, is proving to be misdirected in many quarters.)


R.A. MATHIS: Homeland is an attempt to test the thesis, to mentally sort it out as a kind of mental experiment. Unfortunately, the thesis is proving all too plausible.
On a similar note, I noticed your Retreads series has gone from pulpy men’s adventure to a more serious SHTF genre. Why the shift?


HENRY BROWN: I’m not sure I can answer that in a way that makes sense to others, but I’ll try. Some of the times I’ve been happiest in life were when I had my head stuck in the sand–either voluntarily or unintentionally. That applies to the writing partition of my life, too. My whole experiment in men’s fiction was partly an effort to relive the fun and the rush of adventure lived vicariously through characters in some of the novels I read as a kid and young man. Better yet: to pass that experience along to new readers. Such was my ambition. (And yet, I couldn’t go Full Ostrich all the way–in Hell & Gone you can already see the government attitude–through the goons in their alphabet soup agencies–that certain law-abiding Americans are more dangerous than actual terrorists. In Tier Zero I sort of laid the ground work for False Flag by introducing some ugly little secrets of black ops, and how, if Washington doesn’t have a convenient one to exploit, our would-be rulers are willing to manufacture a crisis as an excuse for the next power grab in their agenda.) But I got to the point where I just couldn’t swallow the blue pill anymore.

I see the world around me drowning in deception. People who recognize this must not let the truth be buried. We have to shout it from the rooftops as best we can, despite the odds. If those sound like the words of a maniac, well, so be it.

I guess I should mention that I’ve had it in mind to write apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic fiction for a long time–but something a little less heavy, like the Last Ranger series or Doomsday Warrior before it (only without the mutants, the Zen philsophy and the weird psychodelic acid trip scenes). However, taking stock of the situation facing us in America, people need to wake up; not be somnambulized into maintaining their complacency.

The Retreads were established characters, who I and some readers really liked. If I could choose anybody to guard my flanks when facing Armageddon, it would be guys like them. After all, they were staring down the barrel of WWIII from their very debut, and handled it pretty well. At the same time, I knew that pulling out all the stops politically would piss off some readers who liked the previous books. Oh well. Life is too short and freedom is too precious to lose sleep over whether I offended somebody or not. I get offended constantly in books and movies. Suck it up and drive on.

Aren’t you sorry you asked that question, now?
When you introduced the DHS involvement with the regular army in Falling Down, it made perfect sense and I wondered why it hadn’t been done before (my own excuse is that I haven’t yet depicted conventional national military forces). After all, the Red Army had its political officers–military commisars or whatever, feared by all the regular soldiers. Same with the Soviet Navy. The Wermacht was, to an extent, gripped by terror due to the SS and Gestapo. Compared to me, your active duty experience is very up-to-date. Did you witness anything first-hand that confirmed for you this scenario will play out in a SHTF scenario?


R.A. MATHIS: You are exactly right about the Soviet commissars being the basis for the DHS “advisors” assigned to active units in the book. In fact, an important parameter of my “thought experiment” mentioned above is that there must be historical precedence for the events in the book, especially in the actions taken by the government. Knowing that the new regime would be suspicious, or even hostile, toward the military, commissars assigned to keep the troops in line would be a top priority. If you put yourself in the regime’s shoes, the DHS seemed like a perfect fit.

 My first-hand military experience ended in 2006, before our current President took office. At that time, the political correctness machine was already in full swing, but I never experienced blatant meddling by civilian agents. That being said, the amount and pace of social engineering forced upon our men and women in uniform since then is both staggering and alarming.

There is something I found interesting as I read False Flag. The occult ceremonies woven into the plot and connected with the tier-zero units and other operatives. Can you go into more detail about their purpose to the regime and why you included them in the story? Also, are these ceremonies simply mind control, or are they really colluding with unseen forces?


HENRY BROWN: Well, now you’ve done it. If people didn’t believe me to be a tinfoil hat whack-job already…
This angle came entirely from my research, which encompassed everything from MK Ultra and Monarch to “satanic ritual abuse.” I followed the leads where they led and was astonished to discover how interconnected it all is. It all sounds crazy on the surface–some of it as if inspired by a B-horror movie or bad sci-fi. And don’t get me wrong–there are a lot of cockamamie wive’s tales out there. Unfortunately, much of it is mixed up with things that happen to be true. I could go on at great length on this subject, but will try to pare it down to just a couple aspects.

One of the first bombshells to land on me was that multiple personality disorder (MPD) can be artificially created in people. And I’m understating the fact here, because some who have studied it much more than I have will tell you that EVERY case of MPD was manufactured by high level experts in cognitive sciences; and furthermore, that they do so with a common denominator of ulterior motives, and with government funding.

Some of those same folks will tell you that there absolutely are unseen forces at work. Certain spiritual beings are always looking for a body to occupy, and when a personality is split, they are given entry. This is stuff I don’t really want to believe. I’ve never been obsessed with UFOs, vampires, werewolves or witchcraft. I don’t watch “ghost hunter” shows or think zombies (as depicted in pop culture recently) are very credible. In most of the churches I’ve ever attended, great pains were made to downplay the supernatural in the Bible, and remove the paranormal/supernatural from the Christian worldview. Frankly, that tendency rubbed off on me, so I’ve never taken that stuff seriously most of my life. That is beginning to change. I’m at the point now that I do see a spiritual/occultic aspect to the postwar mind control efforts. But not many rational people can swallow that–which I certainly understand. What I tried to do was write that subplot in an ambiguous enough manner that the reader can take it whichever way they are most comfortable with–either just advanced brain-screwing built on the discoveries of the Nazi mind control pioneers with occultic trappings to make the victims believe they’re tapping into some ancient spiritual power; or human scientists carrying out the brain-screwing at the behest of the unseen beings they serve (knowingly or unknowingly). The bottom line for most readers, perhaps, is that it’s fiction. There are plenty of theories even more far out than this in other books or movies, and people suspend their disbelief for the sake of entertainment. Frankly, I’d love to be proven wrong about a lot of stuff I’ve said both on this blog and in my books.

As to what purpose our domestic enemies would have for such individuals…when you take stock of what they are doing and still intend to do, sleeper agents they can activate like flipping a switch can come in very handy. Especially in false flags. The cream of the crop could be held in reserve for really big jobs–high profile assassinations, for instance; while the unstable sleepers can be used as cannon fodder in the school-shooting-of-the-week. One investigator has discovered that many of the MPD cases are part of a “super soldier” program, which makes sense when you consider that the mind control endeavors in North America took over where the Nazi scientists left off. Pretty scary, if true.

You mentioned how the purge of the  US high command partly inspired you to write Falling Down. In my own SHTF book, that purge of field grade officers (which began in earnest about 2009) also plays a part. First off, I’m curious how the average Joe in the ranks feels about this today, as well as the junior grade officers. Secondly, you wrote it in such a way as to suggest that Colonel Lee bugged out before being nabbed by the DHS. Are we going to see him again in future installments?


R.A. MATHIS: On the purge subject: Like the old saying goes, you can’t fool the troops. I still have friends in uniform. They see the attack dogs ejected while the lapdogs are promoted. It has an adverse effect on morale across the width and breadth of the active force.

 Yes, we will see more of Colonel Lee. Good catch on that one.


HENRY BROWN: Considering those purges, among other things, what is your general gut feeling about whether the regular military will hesitate to make war on American citizens?


R.A. MATHIS: That is why I included Cole in the book. I needed to see the situation through the eyes of a soldier. I don’t think they will obey that type of order, the outstanding conduct of our troops in the Middle East (with very few exceptions) over the last 13 years will testify to that. But what if extreme coercion is applied?  In Homeland, all military families are brought on base when it hits the fan. This allows the soldiers to focus on their jobs, knowing that their wives and children are protected and cared for. However, this move also gives the regime leverage. If a soldier refuses to commit atrocities, his family may be forfeit. That kind of pressure is enough to make good men do very bad things. I do not envy our troops in such a situation. The same tactic can be used on just about anybody. This was a key tool of the totalitarian regimes in the last century. I don’t see why future regimes would stop using it.


HENRY BROWN: I don’t envy them either. In fact, rarely does a day go by anymore that I don’t find myself opining that I couldn’t be a part of what the military has become. It is no place for a patriot, or even for a good soldier anymore.


R.A. MATHIS: What are your thoughts on the likelihood of the American military making war on its own citizens?


HENRY BROWN: No offense, but in my experience officers often have a perspective on situations and shared experience that is rosier than the grunts see it. I’ve been on the enlisted side and could write quite a hatchet-job on the rank-and-file, even back in my day and even in an elite unit.

It boils down to this: kids growing up in the USA have no appreciation for how good we’ve had it here. They not only take our freedom and rights for granted, they are conditioned to have contempt for America. Very few of them resist that conditioning. Those people grow up and join the armed forces and, big surprise, the motivation is rarely patriotism. It’s for college money and job training. And that’s how the recruiting commercials pitch it. They throw bait out for mercenaries and that’s what they get.  (But perhaps many did join in the months/years after 9/11 for a more altruistic motive).

Career soldiers would just as easily fight for any cause and as part of any army. That’s the impression I got of the average G.I.
All officers have some generic pretense of honor, but when the rubber meets the road, most officers and NCOs are serving their career ambitions, not their country. Some are better than others, but those who rise to the top are nothing more than uniformed politicians.

Baron Von Steuben gave us quite the compliment when he illustrated the uniqueness of the American soldier (unlike any other soldier who receives an order and automatically complies, Americans had to have confidence in the motive behind the order before they would comply). This is definitely no longer the case.
All of this was bad enough when I wore the uniform; I’m sure it’s much worse now. Thank God there are exceptions. But what few good soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen remain are either being purged, or forced out by the increasingly hostile environment the military is being transformed into. So yes: I’m afraid most will fire on American civilians, and with little hesitation–especially with the added head games they are sure to get immediately prior. I would love to be proven wrong, but won’t hold my breath.

So, whether faced with our own military or with modern-day Hessians under globalist command (assuming the 3 percenters have prepped adequately enough to avoid being simply starved to death) with no support from a foreign ally and probably without popular support, how viable do you consider a guerilla resistance effort to be?


R.A. MATHIS: You mention in False Flag that no insurgency has ever won without foreign intervention and popular support, which I thought was a very good point. The two things America has to counter that are the 2nd Amendment and the 2008 election of the best gun salesman the country has ever seen. We have over 300 million citizens and about as many firearms in this country. We are also buying up ammo as fast as it can be produced (at least what is left over after DHS gets their share). Combine that with hundreds of thousands of highly trained combat veterans scattered to every part of the country, and the odds don’t look so long.


(HENRY BROWN: What a coincidence that veterans, patriots and gun owners top the list of potential “domestic terrorists” the government is most worried about, eh?)


R.A. MATHIS: This alludes to the working title of Book Three, “Every Blade of Grass.”


HENRY BROWN: How appropriate–that very quote (whoever said it) was just going through my mind as your words sunk in.


R.A. MATHIS: I think the success of a resistance would vary by region. Rural areas would be virtual no-go zones for regime forces. Some urban areas may just welcome them like the Vichy French.
It seems to me that the biggest problem for the resistance would be the lack of electricity. If the regime restored power to each region as it was brought into compliance, it could make for effective deadly propaganda against the resistance. It’s the old “freedom vs security” dilemma on steroids. I’m not sure which way the populace would go in that case, especially in winter.

 That’s about the halfway mark. Look for the rest of the discussion tomorrow. – Rob

Click here to read Hank's review of HOMELAND: Falling Down.

Will Bin Laden Have the Last Laugh?

           



            Yesterday, on the thirteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I found myself once again reflecting upon that day and the differences in the world before and after.

            Thankfully, we haven’t experienced another attack on that scale since that day. Our intelligence and military services have done an outstanding job in combating Islamic threats. Many have sacrificed much to keep us safe and I am proud to have played a small part in that.

But that isn’t the whole story…

            Remember when metal detectors were the only security needed at the airport? I do. I also remember when the people who feared their communications being monitored by the government were kooks and the police didn’t drive MRAPs.

            I even remember a time thirty years ago, during the Cold War, when the ‘commies’ were the bad guys and we weren’t afraid to call them that.  I remember a President with the courage to refer to the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. I can still hear his command, “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear. Down. This. Wall.” His words struck like hammer blows.

            We knew who the bad guys were and weren’t afraid to admit it. It was a cold war, but war nonetheless. We knew what it took to beat them and we did it with neither excuse nor concession. Those were the days before political correctness.

            Those days are gone.

            Today, America’s second longest war turns 13. In spite of continued attacks, aggression, threats, and foiled terror plots, the media and Whitehouse policy are in chronic denial about the threat we face from the ‘religion of peace.’

            Terrorist acts are now called ‘workplace violence’ or ‘man-caused disasters.’ 80 year-old grannies are stopped at TSA checkpoints just as often as Middle Eastern males between the ages of 16 and 45.

            This narrative of the religion of peace is propagated in the media as well. When was the last TV show or movie you saw in which the Muslim was a bad guy? When the movie version of Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears was made, the Muslim terrorists were replaced by neo-Nazis. News outlets do all they can to deny Islamic radicals too, warning instead of the threat of right-wing extremists. Last night, the President led his ISIS remarks by declaring the group is not Islamic.

Really?

(Dr. Bill Warner has a presentation which shows how ISIS fits perfectly into Islamic philosophy and are no different than the prophet himself. See it here.)

For years, we have bent over backwards to deny the savagery committed in the name of Allah. We have bowed to the mandates of political correctness and we have paid the price. It must be said that this President not the only one to do so, but he does seem to be the most adamant about it.

Here are just a very few examples of the damage done while we buried our heads in the sand:

2009

·       The administration abandoned the T-word for the more benign term “man-caused disasters.”

·       13 unarmed soldiers were killed and over 30 wounded by a Muslim soldier shouting, “Allah uh Akbar!” on Fort Hood, Texas. This was called “workplace violence” by the administration. The victims were denied the purple, which meant that the survivors and families of the fallen would not receive the benefits they deserved. (Berkowitz/World News, 2013)

·       Citizens of Iran rise up against their government in the wake of elections they believe to be corrupt. America offers them no support. Many are arrested and killed.

2010

·       Arab Spring begins in December in Tunisia and soon spread to Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. The administration choses to back the Muslim Brotherhood in spite of their radical, anti-western, anti-Semitic, philosophies.

2011

·       We pulled out of a ‘stable’ Iraq, leaving a void of power without having any idea who would fill it.

·       Syrian uprising against President al-Assad. America backs the rebels, many of whom are linked to Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

·       Libya revolts. America backs the Muslim Brotherhood with supplies and air strikes. The rebels take over the country, murder Khadafy, and install an ant-American Islamic government.

·       Egypt falls. Thousands of Christians are murdered and hundreds of churches are destroyed. America does nothing.

·       Iranian citizens rise again, attempting to shed the yolk of radical Islam and are put down once again with an iron fist. Once again, America does nothing.

2012

·       Iraq’s vice president is charged with murder and flees the county. Iraq begins its spiral into civil war. America does nothing.

·       The same year – The American ambassador to Libya is murdered along with three other Americans in a well-planned and coordinated assault. The attack is painted as a spontaneous response to a YouTube video. The maker of that video is imprisoned. The attackers remain free.

2013

·       Syrian government is accused of using chemical weapons against rebel forces. The administration urges American to aid the rebels, including U.S. troops on the ground. The initial claims are refuted by many in the international community who say evidence points to the rebels being the initiators of the chemical attack.

·       ISIS grows out of the Syrian resistance and sets its sights westward toward Iraq. Intelligence services inform the administration of this development. Nothing happens.

·       The Boston Marathon is hit with two homemade explosive devises killing 3 and injuring 263 others. The two suspects are Muslim immigrants. This aspect is downplayed by the media and administration.

2014

·       Well, you get the point. Just turn on the TV.

 

The administration may deny the enemy, but they cannot deny the threat.

As such, they must cast an ever wider net to catch ‘bad guys’ instead of focusing on the one group that has conducted every attack since Oklahoma City 19 years ago. Our reluctance to identify the bad guys has muddied the water, causing every American to become a terror suspect.(At least I hope that's the reason, anything else is too terrible to go into here.)

Recent revelations of governmental agencies spying on, targeting, harassing, or otherwise molesting innocent Americans in the name of security have a lot of people wondering if it’s gone too far.

When two dudes with explosive pressure cookers can shut down one of the city of Boston and cause its residents to effectively be placed under martial law, we got problems.

When the IRS and other agencies are weaponized and used to target citizens and groups based purely on political beliefs, we got problems.

When Americans must censor their own speech out of fear that someone is listening, we got BIG problems.

When veterans,Christians, libertarians, Constitutionalists, soccer moms, and Tea Partiers are considered as big a threat as jihadists, we got HUGE problems.

Are we moving from a philosophy of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to one of ‘if you havenothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?’

If we treated radical Islam today as we treated communism all those years ago, we could effectively manage this threat both globally and domestically without turning every American into a suspect.

Between 1917 and 1991, we defeated imperialism, fascism, and communism in rapid succession. Those adversaries had the military and economic might of nation states with millions of troops and the latest military hardware. We faced annihilation at their hands, but we still respected freedom at home and abroad (except for the Japanese internment camps which were a disgrace). We didn’t militarize our police. We didn’t restrict travel. We didn’t eavesdrop on every citizen and we didn’t shred the Constitution. We faced the enemy head-on. We called it what it was.

And we were victorious.

Today, a few scruffy savages are able to terrorize us into surrendering our rights for the sake of a little imaginary security.

Al-Qaeda's goal 13 years ago was to weaken America, to make us prisoners of our own fear. It didn't work then, but, if we continue down our current path, the result will be that same. We will succeed where they failed in bringing our own country to its knees, so afraid of these boogeymen that we gladly give away what's left of our rights, becoming prisoners in our own homeland. And in doing so, we will invite tyranny the likes of which this country has never seen.

Then Bin Laden's victory will be complete.

 

 

What's the Rush to Attack Syria?

     As U.N. inspectors continue to investigate exactly what happened in Syria, the U.N. leadership finds itself begging the U.S. not to act until the investigation is complete.

http://news.msn.com/world/un-inspectors-still-checking-stricken-syria-areas

http://news.msn.com/world/ban-ki-moon-pleads-for-time-on-syria-investigation

     In the meanwhile, President Obama has already told PBS Newshour, "We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out."
    
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20130828&id=16826165&ocid=msnnws

     How can anybody 'conclude' anything before the investigation is complete? And if he can, why even conduct it? If what the President says is correct, the entire investigation is unnecessary. It reminds me an old cowboy movies where the posse catches a guy and tell him, "We're gonna give ya a fair trial and then we're gonna hang ya."

     But what if there is evidence that it was the rebels conducted the attack? Some say here is.

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/28/syria-three-other-chemical-attacks-by-rebels-in-same-area/

     How do we know who is responsible? Why should we act without even consulting our own congress? What about the inevitable collateral damage that will kill even more innocent Syrians? And above all, why are we in such a dang hurry? And why is Russia Today the only news outlet (besides Fox News) asking these questions?


    The whole thing just doesn't smell right.

   

Syria...Why?

It seems our government is hell bent on attacking Syria in response to the recent alleged chemical weapon attack against the rebels fighting to overthrow the country’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

            There is no question that the use of chemical weapons is inhuman and inexcusable, but what, if anything, should the U.S. do about it? This case is unclear at best. The administration is beating the war drum so loudly, no other voice can be heard. Everyone from the Commander in Chief to the Veep, Press Secretary, and the Secretary of Defense are speaking as if restraint is not even an option.

http://news.msn.com/us/attacking-syria-details-objectives-remain-hazy

http://news.msn.com/us/hagel-military-ready-to-strike-syria-on-obamas-order

http://news.msn.com/us/biden-no-doubt-syrian-regime-used-chem-weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/syria-assad.html?hpw&_r=0

 

After reading several pieces about the ‘Syria situation,’ and focusing on the words from our own officials, I have some serious concerns and a whole lot of questions. Here are just a few:

1. Are we sure there was a chemical attack? Sure, we’ve seen footage of victims on TV, but has there been any evidence presented to confirm a chemical attack? If so, what was chemical was it? Was it a persistent agent or one that disperses rapidly? We should know that by now, especially before going forward with military plans. And if those plans are carried out and we put boots on the ground, we MUST know what these weapons are because our troops will be prime targets for them.

2. Are we sure Assad did it? If the chemical attack really did happen, who conducted it? Which side would benefit most from images of dead children spread around the world in viral videos? Again, we better be sure who is responsible before we are tricked into a conflict that could pull in Russia, China, Iran, and who knows who else.

3. What are our objectives? If we can prove definitively that there was a chemical attack and that Assad is responsible, what do we do? What do we hope to accomplish? Yes, what happened in Syria is terrible, but what about the civil war that has raged in Darfur for ten years? Current estimates put the death toll at 300,000.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/War_in_Darfur?o=2801&qsrc=999#Mortality_figures

        Are we moved to action by murder using mustard gas, but not machetes? The administration has stated that Syrian regime change is not the goal of any military strikes. They just want to punish Assad. Really? Is that why we’ve been supplying weapons, food, medical supplies, and money to the rebels for months?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE96O1H020130725

This leads to the next question.

4. Who are the good guys? There are none. This is Egypt and Libya all over again. Yes, the dictators in those countries sucked, but at they were better than the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a big player in the Syrian resistance. How many times does it take to learn our lesson? Assad is a thug, but at least he keeps to himself.

5. What about Russia, China, Iran, etc.? This is the most troubling part of the debate. It also seems to be the part least addressed by our government. What are the consequences of drawing these countries in to the conflict? Everyone has drawn lines in the sand. No one wants to look weak. It isn’t difficult to imagine this situation snowballing as the assignation of Archduke Ferdinand did in 1914.
        
6. Where have all the doves gone? Where are all the politicians who advocated caution and restraint when George Bush was making his case for attacking Iraq? Two of the most vocal at that time, John Kerry and Joe Biden, are now cheering the loudest for action. Their rhetoric is akin to shouting, “Attack! Attack! Attack!” Why was it bad to strike then, but good now? After all, Saddam Hussein killed THOUSANDS of people in multiple chemical attacks. Could it be that this is a convenient distraction from the recent scandals? Is this a chance to reclaim some ‘street cred’ for the administration? I hope not, but it sure does look that way.

7. What are our national interests? How does this situation threaten our security, sovereignty, or economy? This is the most important question because it illustrates the only instances that military force is justified. In other words, the only occasion in which killing others and putting our own sons and daughters in harms way is acceptable is when it is done in self defense. Is this self defense?  It's a question few are asking. As I stated above, the world is a dangerous place with lots of evil people. Always has been. Always will be. We can't change that. We don't run the world. We shouldn't try to either.

 

I found this video a few months ago. It's been on my mind a lot recently.

This is what it will be like on the ground if this situation gets out of hand.

 

Has the Iraqi Civil War Begun?

According to NBC, the U.S. government is reporting that Iraq is now in a state of civil war.

Here is the NBC report:

 

 

 

 

     I wrote a detailed blog post about the situation last September outlining the powder keg of simmering hatreds and political conflicts just waiting to explode.

     Much like the Balkans after the exit of the Soviet Union, Iraq is set to become a nexus of brutality and genocide. But the danger doesn't stop there.

     The ethnic/religious nature of this war which pits Arab against Kurd and Sunni against Shia will almost certainly pull neighboring countries Iran and Syria into the fray. This conflict could potentially spread to Jordan, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia. If it does, I can't begin to guess how high gas prices will jump...and it will happen very quickly, just as it has every other time the region becomes more unstable than usual. One can only imagine what effect this would have on fragile Western economies.


    














From Arab Spring to Epic Fail

I hope you’re not planning a trip to see the Pyramids anytime soon.

Before we go on, I just want to make it clear that this post is not aimed at any religion, political party, president, network, ice cream flavor, vegetarians, electric cars, sports teams, or mythical creatures. It’s just an observation of our country’s miserable track record in Middle Eastern policy.

This post has been marinating on my word processor and in my mind since September 12^th. So much has happened so quickly that it’s been tough to process. It’s even tougher to find words to address it all, but I’ll try…The last thing I saw on TV on September 11^th was a montage of images from the 9/11 attacks followed by a brief mention of some trouble at the American embassy in Egypt and a diplomat being killed in Libya. The first thing I heard on the news the next morning was that Muslim extremists had stormed the American embassy in Egypt, burning the American flag (that was flying at half-mast in remembrance of the 9/11 attacks) and killed another four American diplomats in Libya, the ambassador among them. As of this writing, mobs are still gathered outside American embassies across Africa and Asia.

These are the same people the media rooted for during last year’s ‘Arab Spring.’ And it wasn’t just the media propping up this extremist takeover. Our own government called for regime change in both countries and actually provided air support to Libyan rebel forces until Gadhafi was captured and summarily executed.

Is it a coincidence that this all began on the same day at separate U.S. embassies in two countries? Was it a fluke that ‘spontaneous’ protestor in Libya had rocket propelled grenades and knew the exact location of the ‘secret’ safe house and that our ambassador was there that day?  Is it happenstance that it all happened on 9/11? I have my doubts. As the old intelligence community saying goes, “If you believe in coincidence, you don’t belong in Intelligence.” And then there’s the movie…Either this is a smoke screen to distract from incompetent foreign policy or this flick has succeeded in ticking off more people than Star War Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

 In the past thirty years, our Middle Eastern foreign policy hasn’t exactly been a study in how to win friends and influence people. Here are a few highlights:

·         Iran, a former ally, is now a terrorist state on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapon capability.

·         We supported the Mujahedeen against Soviet invaders only to see that nation taken over by the Taliban and turned into a haven for Al-Queda.

·         We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003. After a decade of war, Afghanistan is still a mess. We’ve left Iraq in danger of being set ablaze by old hatreds and Iran is stoking the flames (see my last blog post).

·         After the U.S. supported overthrows of their long-standing dictators, Egypt and Libya are set to follow in Iran’s footsteps with Syria close behind.

·         The entire Islamic world now seems enraged against us.

·         And in the middle of all this we’re giving our only ally in the region, Israel, the cold shoulder.

How can so many experts be so wrong? Again, I’m not criticizing any specific party or administration. What I’m pointing out is a chronic inability to understand Middle Eastern culture and psychology. Outside of a few occasions, our default setting can be summed up with, “If we’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us.”

Here’s the problem: We keep expecting them to think and act like we do. By that I mean we expect them to behave like a democratic society. Virtually every country in the region has been ruled by iron-fisted dictators or monarchs for centuries. Under this violent dog-eat-dog culture, respect and fear are synonymous and both are gained through force and intimidation. You’re either a master or a slave – a wolf or a sheep. Kindness is weakness. So is mercy. And apologies amount to submission. It’s a tough, brutal place and negotiations for everything from the price of a donkey to nuclear arms agreements are conducted accordingly. We are all products of the world we grow up in. Their world is very different from ours. We must understand that going in.

Also, extremists don’t hate us because of anything we’ve done. They hate us because we exist. Period. You can’t expect irrational people to act rationally. You can’t trust someone who refuses to recognize your right to live. Either you live in fear of them or they live in fear of you. Remember what your dad said about standing up to bullies in grade school? Same goes here. Have you ever seen what happens when a little bully figures out he can pick on a bigger kid and get away with it? It ain’t pretty.

In an example of our push-over foreign policy, the Cairo embassy issued this scathing rebuke as the mob climbed over its walls and tore down our flag:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…”

Yeah. That’ll show ‘em.

Dictatorships are very bad things. Always have been. But by helping to topple them in countries unprepared for the concepts of free speech and other basic human rights, we merely create voids to be filled by far worse things. The people we meant to help are ultimately harmed and our national security is invariable threatened. Sometimes it’s better to deal with the devil you know. Regime change can be a good thing if the people are ready and demand real freedom. Just look at the progress Eastern Europe has made since 1991. The Middle East, for the most part, isn’t there yet.

I’m not advocating war by any means. I actually think the best course is to achieve energy independence and make these countries irrelevant. Like we used to say in Iraq, “If these were carrot fields instead of oil fields, we wouldn’t be here.”

But for now the nest we can do is negotiate like the superpower we are (while we still are, anyway). To paraphrase a radio hosts recent comment, “Speak softly… and if you don’t have a big stick, you’d better grow one.”