With no ends in sight to the longest wars in American history, at what point do we start trying to make peace?

My friends,

The war in Afghanistan continues on, with no end in sight. The President’s address this week once again reassures that the longest war in the history of America will continue for even longer. As the greater war on terror continues, when do you think we are to start seeing results? We were promised that these wars would be fought to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism, a promise which was upheld by the President earlier. Yet, with terrorism continuing on, with new strikes in Europe only this month, how much longer will we go on before we consider this promise to be broken?

Effective methods of combating terrorism have never been a secret, and yet our government continues to refuse to use them, as do so many governments across the Atlantic. Effective methods of stopping terrorist attacks have been used in eastern Europe. When have we ever heard of a terrorist attack in Warsaw or Belgrade? Anyone reading this can say that they would be genuinely shocked to hear of an attack in any of these places, but an attack in Paris or London would seem tragically normal. It does not help that the leaders of these western countries have seemingly capitulated, having the audacity to tell their people that they will just have to live with these tragedies, because their governments are simply not interested in preventing them.

Not only did the Mayor of London call terrorism “part and parcel” of “living in a city”, but the American media, the illegitimate dictators controlling policy and narratives, slammed Donald Trump for calling him out on that comment. Any rational person, hearing about any attack in London, can come to the conclusion that the Mayor of London is simply not interested in stopping these attacks, and can thus be blamed for them. Having the integrity to point this out was seen as worse than the attack itself, one could conclude by comparing the levels of media outrage after both events.

I could only wish that the President would show this same integrity when dealing with foreign policy, which is perhaps his weakest area so far. While he has made steps in the right direction when it comes to certain issues, mainly the issue of ungrateful, unhelpful, and deeply corrupt European “allies”, he has shown an unwillingness to carry out his non-interventionist agenda, which he promised to execute during the campaign. The reason for this is clear, we saw it only recently. How can we expect good foreign policy decisions when we have our allies in the White House being fired? The White House from day one has been in desperate need for more Millers, more Bannons, not less, and it is very saddening to me that more people do not see that.

People tried to defend the removal of Bannon by pointing out that they voted for Trump, not Bannon. This is true, but you also did not vote for Jared Kushner, you did not vote for Ivanka, and yet we are now stuck with them. We are stuck with two registered Democrats in the ear of the President, giving him advice and undoubtedly causing him to make decisions like bombing Syria and staying in Afghanistan. Bannon knew that all of this meddling in the middle east would be detrimental to America. It takes the focus of the government away from the suffering American people and towards a goal which can be achieved in a much easier and less expensive way, immigration control. Why is it that with the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Governor’s Houses, the State Legislatures, with everything, we still can not see any form of immigration control?

Well, the most likely answer is that the government does not want to give up its wartime powers. They do not want to give up the money and power that they receive from keeping us in a state of perpetual war. Of course, they also would not want to upset their puppet-masters, be it the corporations or the media (though usually both are intertwined). They know that corporations profit from mass immigration, at the expense of the American worker. They know that the media organizations, which the corporations fund, will do anything they can to destroy their careers. They saw what has happened to Trump, who has faced a nonstop onslaught, an absolute blitzkrieg, of hostile media coverage from day one, all because his announcement speech included comments about the crime that unfiltered immigration brings, and announced his plans for the wall, which, by the way, Congress has been awfully slow to fund. As I wrote about before, Republicans in Congress are absolutely terrified of the media, and many, being as out of touch as they are, still consider them to be true representatives of the American people and their opinions.

How can we call our government legitimate when it refuses to protect us? What is the point of a government if it can not protect its people? Even ancient tribes knew that part of the reason for forming their early governments was to provide an organized defense against outside threats. Can our government not follow these simple prehistoric rules? If the government can not protect its people, then how can a government be called legitimate? If they can not protect us, then we will have to take our safety into our own hands. Should things get to the point as they are in Europe, where you have fragmented cities and neighborhoods with incompatible foreign migrants and native populations desperately defending themselves, with their so-called leaders unable to help, then do we really have a country anymore? Maybe to those who are more liberal-minded it may be, but to me that seems more like tribal states warring it out. This is the reality that many in Europe live with, and it is the reality that we face if we continue down the path of perpetual war over immigration restriction.

Yours,

Mikhail