The Death of the West. But Who Wields the Dagger?

There has been much spoken on Social Media about the death of the West and most point to the excellent Spy Yuri Besmenov and his interview where he raises points on how the Soviet Union plans to destroy the West from Inside. The points he raised almost perfectly track the current capture of the institutions that form the pillars of Western Society.

But why would Russia continue with such a plan? Especially now, given that if the West and European civilisation collapses, it is most likely to be replaced by a Muslim society? A society that isn't exactly aligned with Russia.

Is this a plan that others have usurped? Or others have taken advantage of? Have Russia been outplayed?

It's an interesting mind-game to go through exactly who wins when the West dissolves, as looks most likely now. 

I can see the tipping point is way too close. The Muslim minority have exploited their political power through their block vote, the left have allied themselves with that block vote and have bent over backwards to institute policies that favour the Muslim vote over the majority. Used as patsies, the time is close when the left no longer need to be used as a vehicle to gain votes, or to play the oppressed victim in order to garner sympathy and support from the left.

The rise of the Muslim party of the UK is very close.

The Workers Party of Britain, the George Galloway vehicle is a way of raising a kite to see if a Muslim party could in fact fly. If you look at the WPoB candidate list, only 10-20% were western names. The rest were primarily Muslim sounding names. Ostensibly campaigning on the issue of Gaza, the WPoB were a Muslim party in disguise. 

The Green Party used a Muslim candidate who shouted support for Gaza and Allu Akbar when he won his seat. As a local councillor. Not sure how Gaza and Islam help ALL the citizens of Rochdale exactly.

That's a  clear sign that seats in certain areas cannot be won with a Western Candidate or Western Values. Elsewhere with such, the greens cannot win any more than a very small minority. With a Muslim candidate in a Muslim area, they win. 

What of the Elites that are at best allowing this soft takeover or at worse actively encouraging it? I think they have an inkling that things are going to get a lot worse. The number of billionaires building substantial bunkers has increased. They know something that the population don't.

Would America allow a Muslim-controlled Europe to continue to control nuclear weapons? I doubt it. Would Russia? I VERY much doubt it.

I'm sure there will be a plan involving the removal (or neutralisation a-la Israel and Iran) of nukes from European control. I doubt any Muslim-controlled government will voluntarily relinquish control, so any "removal" of nuclear weapons from the active arsenal may have to be via more active or destructive means. 

In the next 10-15 years UK Submarine skippers may find themselves having to decide whether to drive their subs and surrender them to the US, or face being sunk by American subs. 

The US may have to decide what to do with our Nuclear bomb and cruise missile warheads if we have any. Will our nuclear weapon facilities be destroyed by force?

What happens to France's nuclear deterrent if they fall to Muslim control? 

If America can't stomach bombing an ex-ally, I'm sure the Russians would have no such misgivings, especially as with the fall of Europe, they'd be surrounded on all sides by Muslim countries. That's a huge front to secure and the risk of nuclear proliferation between Muslim countries would increase massively if a major nuclear power became Muslim.

Would Russia unilaterally strike a nuclear-equipped, Muslim-controlled UK or France?

These are the questions I hope that governments around the world are looking at. 

But back to the start. Who wins by all of this? Is this a Russian psyop? Has it been co-opted by the Muslims, or is it just a lucky coincidence that Muslims have started to arrive in the West in huge numbers just at the time the Russian plan starts to bear fruit? Why are the Elites still carrying on with this? Do they think we'll have a bit of a civil war and all will be fine? If there is a Civil War, who will support the Western side?

Who will win, Communism or Islam? 

Right now, governments need to start thinking on what is happening really seriously. America needs to understand that there are no facilities for the West to win an "active" takeover. We have no guns or weapons of any kind available to our side. The Muslim fundamentalists I know for sure are arming themselves, supported by the Gulf States. 

The majority in the West have no weapons training. The Muslims had ISIS, which was essentially a bloody training camp for extreme violence and use of weapons. 

At what point do you think an armed, trained and very motivated Muslim minority could take over an unarmed, unprepared Christian majority? You think we are close? How long do you think we have? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? You think any of the Christians marching for Gaza understand what is coming? Will they have the will to fight for Western values? The evidence appears they don't.

I've seen this play out in a number of countries previously and the results are not good for Christians. I'm reminded of Lebanon and their history of transition.

The transition to any Islamic fundamentalist regime does not go peacefully.

I would hope the Americans are looking at this very carefully and the CIA are actively involved. 

The U.S. Administration Needs to Investigate Common Purpose NOW.

 Way back, in 2018 I noted the the organisation Common Putpose had gained a foothold in the USA.

My blog is here: Delphius' Debate: Common Purpose in the USA. (delphiusdebate.blogspot.com)

I noted that it had started in the USA during the Obama years, so what's that, somewhere between 2009 and 2017. I assume closer to the end of his tenure because I blogged about it as a fairly new thing in 2018.

I only mention this because Kimberly Cheatle, the ex--Secret Service Director sounded and acted like the typical Common Purpose drone we have sitting in positions of authority here in the UK.

She wasn't prepared, she expected to have an easy ride. However in the US Common Purpose hasn't infiltrated all the organisations it needs to to gain consensus and control the narrative of government. Hence why she was given a hard time, in public. And looked bewildered as to why she should be responsible for the failings of her underlings.

This is a warning to those in the USA: if you saw Kimberly Cheatle and was appalled by her lack of leadership, then start pressing your political representatives to investigate the operations of Common Purpose.

Ask why a n organisation that is openly Marxist is recruiting and "training" people in positions of leadership, or people that will become future leaders.

Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like the WEF leader Claus Schwab gloating that he had WEF students in every government in the West.

This is not a conspiracy theory, Common Purpose is openly Marxists and spouts Marxist ideology, it's founders were Marxists. It is collating a huge base of "leaders" across local and National Government, the legal profession and the Police, and also the Military.

In the UK the capture is virtually complete, we are paralysed by incompetent so-called leaders that were promoted in part because they signed up to Common Purpose and attended the training courses (more like indoctrination courses).

It would behove the US authorities to investigate if Kimberly Cheatle ever attended a Common Purpose meeting or training course of any kind.

There may be a conspiracy in play, but not the one people are actually engaged with at the moment. 

Kimberly Cheatle Resigns

She finally read the room. 

A leader must LEAD. What I saw yesterday was not leadership.

Return of the Battleship?

There are rumours of a plan to bring the old U.S. Iowa-Class battleships back into service. 

I can see why. The Houthis in the middle East can generally survive an attack from aircraft. The amount of ordnance an aircraft can delivery is pretty limited in scope. Yes, the U.S> have something like the B-52 that can deliver an impressive number of bombs, but the total amount isn't that high.

It would take several sorties to deliver a knock-out punch, with each mission losing the element of surprise and increasing the chances of a loss.

But something like the USS Missouri, with her massive guns could in theory impart quite a punch exactly where it's needed, especially when allied to UAV spotting. 

A shell the size of a car, filled with explosive landing on a target would have a pretty shocking effect. A continuous bombardment even by secondary armament would have a pretty devastating effect. 

Plus the ship is pretty well armoured, having been built in the days when the enemy was also lobbing car-sized shells back. Small UAVs and missiles most likely wouldn't touch it.

A battleship with a defensive screen would be an almighty ground-pounder. 

The only downside is the limited range. But by God the effect of an all-out barrage from such a ship would be pretty devastating. If the big munitions could be modernised to have some guidance capability... 

Head of the US Secret Service Confirms She is Not Fit for the Job. Complete ShitShow. Another Non-Leader.

 Kimberly Cheatle's meeting with the committee in congress yesterday did not go well. It did not go average, it did not even go badly.

It went about as abysmally bad as you can imagine. It was a ShitShow.

Her fall-back position when asked any questions of substance was to refer the committee to the findings of the on-going investigation into the shooting of former President Trump.

But she couldn't answer even basic questions about that day. Instead saying she will get beck to the committee with details. Nine days after the shooting, I would have thought that she would have her staff collating all the relevant information for her benefit, so she could ascertain for herself what went on and satisfy herself that her staff were working appropriately.

Instead she couldn't care less.

There was a massive security lapse by the department she is head of and she couldn't be bothered to aske her staff to put together a basic synopsis of the day: how many people were employed on the security detail, what agencies were involved and how many people from each agency were employed doing what.

That's no prejudicial to the investigation. That's information that could be handed to the relevant authority (I believe the FBI) to save them asking for it.

Instead Kimberly sat there, in congress, apparently clueless. No information, hiding behind a separate agency, not doing any work herself to avail herself of relevant information.

Is that really the actions of a leader? 

I don't think so. I think her attitude to the shooting is chilling. 

She couldn't care less that Trump was shot.

She couldn't care less that a man lost his life.

She couldn't care less that she was subpoenaed to testify before congress.

She couldn't be bothered to collect and collate even basic information that she might be asked by Congress.

It says volumes about her leadership (or lack of it) her contempt of Congress and her contempt for Trump and especially her contempt for the victims of the shooting.

I get the impression she's just one of these people put into a position she has no clue about. So instead of being pro-active, she just let's things run as they are, she let's things slide on. She might throw in a bit of ideology just to put a bit of her flavour on the organisation because she thinks that has no real impact. 

But as proved in this case, when working at a higher level, miniscule changes do have an impact. 

I'm reminded of Paula Vennells in the Post Office Enquiry. Clueless on how to lead, Instead doing very little of substance and instead blaming everyone else when things go wrong. 

True Leaders understand that you can't just let the ship sail itself and hope things go right. you need to constantly make adjustments whilst simultaneously justifying your actions, need to LEAD, need to make sure the ship doesn't eventually run aground.

There's only a limited amount of time non-leaders like these can stay in office before something substantial goes wrong. It's sadly happening every day in the NHS where lives are lost due to the inactions of those in charge and failures in challenging negligence and incompetence. Sadly they've been very good at covering things up. The NHS closes ranks very efficiently. 

One of the prime reasons for the fall of the West is the rise of the non-leader and the replacement by them of true leaders. 

I can see it will be a while before Kimberly reads the room and resigns. I think in her own mind she did no wrong, because she did nothing. She did nothing to lead, made no decisions, etc. She did NOTHING, quite literally.

But doing nothing is in itself wrong. It is not leadership. And leadership was the prime role of the position she accepted.