WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-05-08 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
When I watch the MDC versus Robert Mugabe, I see Napoleon’s words coming to life.
I have mentioned before that Napoleon (and also Prince Eugene of Austria), both of whom were great generals, did not like meetings and councils of war.
Napoleon was not a great believer in meetings and group consensus. These days, and especially among the Leftists, there is a deep belief in GROUP POWER. But most of Europe’s greatest men actually had little faith in groups of people – ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAME TO WAR.
In the battle between Mugabe and the MDC, we see a single powerful personality (Mugabe), with a single mind, fighting a GROUP. And as per European Military history, we see that when a single mind fights a GROUP, the single mind wins.
It is a common misconception that groups and group think is superior to the single mind. European military history proves time and again the superiority of the single mind. You will see it in any war and conflict anywhere, any time.
Prince Eugene, despised councils of war. Napoleon was just as bad. I can’t remember which one said it, possibly Prince Eugene, but it was something to the effect that, “Councils of War result in excuses for DOING NOTHING!”
Napoleon was more pointed. He said that Councils of War, “always resulted in the worst possible outcome” – which by his definition was LACK OF ACTION.
When groups of people get together in meetings (and you will see this in any meeting at work or anywhere else), you’ll get someone with a plan. Then you’ll find everyone ripping it to pieces. Eventually, nothing gets done.
In violence and in war, inaction is of course the worst thing you can do. You need to actively fight back by hook or by crook.
You see this struggle between Mugabe and the MDC, and the MDC always opts for the safe course of action. Mugabe, on the other hand, with his fiery temper (See: Zim: Kevin Woods Analysis: Rober Mugabe’s Vicious Hitler-style Temper for which people were shot ) doesn’t care. He just orders beatings and killings.
Mugabe is always quick to act. He does not care what people think… he orders ACTION.
The MDC on the other hand, always ends up ordering INACTION.
And so we will see Mugabe defeating the MDC time and again, until one day the MDC learns to FIGHT BACK.
Until then… the MDC will lose EVERY TIME WITHOUT FAIL.
Dictatorship is not a pleasant thing, but history does prove, time and again, the power of a single focussed leader. A single focussed, energetic leader is an extremely dangerous person. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
I said the other day that the job of military leaders IS TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEMS.
People keep on making the mistake of thinking that war is always won by those with superior weapons, etc or that victory is CLEAR. Not at all. Many fight wars where the odds are stacked against them. The Confederates were outnumbered by the Union. But the Confederates acquitted themselves brilliantly in battle. With less money and less troops, they fought fabulously. They lost in the end, but they performed far better than one would have expected.
Then of course in history, you get small armies defeating much larger ones, and their commanders became LEGENDS. Julius Caesar had a really small army with which he conquered all of Gaul (France). Alexander the Great, ran a small bankrupt kingdom in Greece. He united the Greeks, and attacked a much stronger enemy. What Alexander the Great did would be about the same if the British today were to invade America and to defeat its armies in battle and conquer all of it. What Julius Caesar did was similarly amazing and completely illogical.
And what of Ghengis Khan? With a tiny tribe, he conquered the biggest nation on Earth – the Chinese. And then he went on to conquer the largest empire in all history.
What of Shaka, the King of the Zulus? He had a small tribe… and when he was finished he had a massive empire – the largest ever conquered in southern Africa.
Mugabe is a maniac – and it is his maniacal attitude WHICH IS ALSO THE KEY TO HIS SUCCESS. Mugabe is behaving the way many European leaders behaved. He is showing the supremacy of the will power of ONE MAN.
And, completely contrary to modern ignorance (portrayed as “knowledge”), the will of ONE can dominate EVERYONE.
In past ages, it was called: LEADERSHIP.
All great military commanders were fabulous leaders. Mugabe is not fabulous. He is above average – for Africa – but he is no match for the greatest of Europe or even for Shaka – who truly was Africa’s greatest military leader.
Mugabe actually uses pretty straightforward military strategies and he wins every time.
In warfare… EVERY STRATEGY and EVERY TACTIC has a counter-strategy and a counter-tactic. Then you turn the tables on your enemy.
Until the MDC learns the military lessons of history, it will never defeat Mugabe. Mugabe is not invincible, even though many in Zimbabwe would be mistaken for thinking that. Yes, I know the terror and fear his name inspires in that country. What Zimbabwe needs is a great military leader who will stand up to fight Mugabe and to lead the people to victory. That leader must be found.