Napoleon Counsels

Given that France’s children have recently suffered a smearing of entrails by enemy combatants imported by their own executive, I was curious if that country’s valiant forebears could provide insight into such conduct. Interestingly, one of her most illustrious sons did. Referring specifically to Military Maxim LXXI, Bonaparte instructs:

Nothing can excuse a general who takes advantage of the knowledge acquired in the service of his country, to deliver up her frontier and her towns to foreigners. This is a crime reprobated by every principle of religion, morality, and honor.

Reprobated by all except those bereft of such attributes. These deficiencies being concentrated in the political stewards elevated to safeguard our their interests.

Though what of those officers bound to conflicting allegiances between their nation and its mortal enemies in the civilian command? What is their core duty? Are our military men soldiers in defense of a people, or mercenaries for marketers? That the farthest seas bob with bristling American flotillas, while our lampooned border is garrisoned by a platoon of half-drunk mestizos is one indication of the answer.

So why do Americans pay $852 billion for quote-unquote national defense? Is it to annihilate the camel spider caliphate? If so, it’s an extraordinarily inefficient means of self-protection. The capacity of islamic militants to harm us is directly proportional to their presence in our countries, not to how many bugs we obliterate in the Syrian desert. I am intrigued to learn what effect French bombs in Syria will have on the festering Parisian banlieues where so much hostile alien sentiment is safely incubated. Every sortie in Hollande’s impotent operation should be accompanied by Bob Uecker’s baseball commentary: Juuust a bit outside.

Fortunately Napoleon also has opinions, from which we can extrapolate, on the obligations of generals in such circumstances.

A general-in-chief has no right to shelter his mistakes in war under cover of his sovereign, or of a minister, when these are both distant from the scene of operation, and must consequently be either ill informed or wholly ignorant of the actual state of things.

Hence it follows, that every general is culpable who undertakes the execution of a plan which he considers faulty. It is his duty to represent his reasons, to insist upon a change of plan–in short, to give in his resignation rather than allow himself to be made the instrument of his army’s ruin. Every general-in-chief who fights a battle in consequence of superior orders, with the certainty of losing it, is equally blamable.

In this last-mentioned case, the general ought to refuse obedience; because a blind obedience is due only to a military command given by a superior present on the spot at the moment of action. Being in possession of the real state of things, the superior has it then in his power to afford the necessary explainations to the person who executes his orders.

But supposing a general-in-chief to receive a positive order from his sovereign, directing him to fight a battle, with the further injunction, to yield to his adversary, and allow himself to be defeated — ought he to obey it? No. If the general should be able to comprehend the meaning or utility of such an order, he should execute it; otherwise, he should refuse to obey it.

Allowing your nation to be colonized, dispossessed, and subsequently dominated via demographics and the franchise is as tantamount to defeat as one could ask. And Friday night in Paris sadly won’t be the last of the Waterloos.


24 thoughts on “Napoleon Counsels

  1. Interesting, that when ordered to certain defeat, generals are given the option of resigning. Corporals and lieutenants simply get a bullet in the back.
    It’s not surprising the French reject Napoleon’s advice. They put him on Elba’s Island for muttering the word “sand-******”. Disqualifie!

  2. Pingback: Napoleon Counsels | Reaction Times

  3. From Bonaparte to Hollande in 200 years … talk about civilizational decline!

    There are French regional elections coming up on Dec. 6. Marine Le Pen will probably win the presidency of the northern region that includes Calais. Her niece Marion might win the Provence region, and the FN could possibly win the Alsace region as well.

    Even though these regional presidencies don’t seem to have a lot of power, for the FN to win 3 of the 12 regions in metropolitan France would be a very big deal indeed, and set up Marine nicely for the presidential election in 2017.

    It’s interesting that the FN are much stronger in the east of France (where these 3 regions are) than they are in the west. Presumably because the east is blessed with much more diversity, especially of the Islamic kind, than the west. Far-left Paris is an exception to this rule, but otherwise, familiarity with Islam breeds complete and utter contempt.

    • This phenomenon being the same one long employed in America. New England liberals in pristine white villages draw upon the racial wisdom accumulated over years of watching Morgan Freeman characters on teevee. They subsequently find themselves in contempt of the Southerners who obviously have no accurate perception of black behavior, and probably haven’t even read a single Atlantic piece by Ta Nehisi Coates.

  4. Delaware governor says WW2 compels us to be swamped. Well Africa’s been in a persistent state of war since antiquity, so refugees should definitely go there first by that logic.

    Or go nowhere. As I’ve mentioned previously in these pages, and as repeated by reader Donald Trump, the West could quite easily create a safe “””””””refugee””””””” zone for Syrians…in Syria. Though that extraordinarily simple and cheap resolution wouldn’t at all address the actual underlying objective of western leadership.

    • Cohen: “American politicians of the 1930s and 1940s [wanted] to keep refugees from Nazi Germany out of this country, asserting that there were communists among them.”
      Are these the same politicians who exported giant ovens to Germany, in a little-known subsection of the Lend-Lease Act?

      • The old American anti-semites were worried jews would work to subvert the dominant culture, drive the country hard left politically, and form tribal nepotism networks anywhere they accumulated control.

        I bet they feel foolish now.

  5. I was glad to see the Germany-Netherlands soccer match cancelled yesterday evening, and I hope this is the beginning of a rising trend of couch potatoes being denied their sports pablum. Also it’s a good thing that the security surrounding sports fixtures is beginning to resemble what you’d see when Michelle Obama and her retinue roll into town. The sheeple need to be reminded of what they’ve allowed to happen to their countries.

  6. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/11/22) | The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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