Post: #1

I don't see any threads or mentions of this William S. Lind on the RVF and I believe his work deserves some mention here. I'm sure other guys on here have read his writing, even if you don't recognize him by name. If I have to categorize his views, he is "paleo conservative" writer with with a focus on cultural marxism, and military history. He worked closely with the Marine Corps on military reform in the 1980s and 1990s, and is known for trying to bring the concept of 4th Generation Warfare into the military lexicon, essentially stating that future conflicts would be fought between states and non-state entities rather than state vs state, long before 9/11. Anyway, I don't want to take up space with a biography as you can find that elsewhere and judge for yourself.

What I enjoy the most is his style of tying current events into historical context, particularly military history. Check out his most recent article at Traditional Right on the problem of the Italian Navy now being forced to escort thousands upon thousands of African refugees into Italy (bold-emphasis mine):

Quote:Now, the Italian Navy is suffering a defeat worse than Lissa, worse because it is at the strategic, not just the tactical level. At the orders of the Italian government, the Navy is being forced to escort or carry thousands and thousands of African refugees, who are pouring across the Mediterranean at a rate of at least 500,000 a year to Italy. Navies are supposed to prevent invasions, not facilitate them. It is as if Don Juan de Austria, instead of defeating the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto, had escorted it to Italy so it could land a Turkish army.

On a number of levels, this is madness. Most of these immigrants will be nothing but burdens all their lives on Italy or any other European country where they are allowed to settle. They are coming from utterly dysfunctional cultures, which they will bring with them. If they are Muslims, they will not only fail to acculturate, they will refuse to do so.

All this has been true for some time. But there is something new: Ebola. It appears that in a few months, African cases of Ebola may number in the millions. Some Ebola carriers will join the migration north, which will swell further as people attempt to flee the disease. Italy has experienced the plague before. Does it really want to be Ebola’s land bridge into Europe?

The root of the problem is political correctness both in Rome and in Brussels. It dictates, in its usual womanish way, that we must welcome refugees regardless of what baggage they bring with them because they are “hurting.” Our own future, even our own survival, must not be allowed to enter into the equation. The abandoned puppy must be welcomed into our home even it it has rabies.

A sane policy is not difficult to identify. The Italian Navy should be given a new mission: return all intercepted refugees (and it should try to intercept all of them) to North Africa. If the countries there say they will not accept them, the Italian Navy has a good amphibious capability. It simply picks an area of deserted beach, makes a landing, put the Africans ashore, and leaves. Italy is much stronger militarily than any North African state. The refugees are coming from North Africa. What is the objection, beyond a suicidal, mawkish “humanitarianism?” This is, after all, why countries have navies: to stop invaders and make them go home.

I find it refreshing to read a conservative perspective that criticizes the culture of political correctness and calls it out for the damage it is doing to our civilization, but doesn't shove all the nation building neo-con BS, or extreme economic laizzes-faire down your throat. I've always found that to be the devil's bargain with the mainstream conservative platform in the US. He railed against the Iraq war from the start and predicted fairly accurately how events would unfold there to the present day. Yet he's done a significant amount of work in favor of investments public transportation, and criticized wall street/corporations, which would put him completely out of place in mainstream conservative circles.

I'm not painting this guy as a saint and have disagreed with Lind in the past. In particular I found his take on Michael Brown/Ferguson, while it brought up some legitimate points, to be dangerous in advocating giving too much leeway to the police. But Lind's overall philosophical independence and ability to place current events into a historical context, particularly military history, is difficult to rival. I've enjoyed reading his work immensely, and I think other guys here will as well. The American Conservative and Traditional Right are the two sites that have his most recent content, so I'd start there if you are interested.