Andy Divine depends on the ignorance of his readers, Episode MCCVII: On Concentration Camps & more pressing Evils. Old Socialist comments

I’ll bypass the first two installments of the Mr. Divine’s encyclical of June 21, 2019:

The Next Step for Gay Pride

The Trump Code

I’ll just read this next segment of moral shaming with which Andy confronts his readers:

The Totalitarian Nightmare the World Is Ignoring

I don’t want a new Cold War with China. But it is, in my view, an evil regime, and we should have no illusions about that. Twitter has been having a great time this past week parsing whether detention camps for illegal immigrants in the United States should be called “concentration camps.” In China, this debate might seem somewhat beside the point. Over a million Muslims who have crossed no border and committed no crimes are being taken from their homes en masse and subjected to brainwashing in vast camps and compounds from which there is no escape. Watch this excellent new BBC piece on these “thought transformation camps” — and feel the fear everywhere. The BBC was given access to a show camp, which is creepy enough. We can only imagine what goes on in the hidden ones.

Somehow Andy has become an expert on ‘concentration camps’: now Andy isn’t very adroit about his attack on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and her very welcome plain speaking on the concentration camps used by ICE to hold the Mestizo Hordes ,that are invading the land of Anglo-Protestant virtue, as articulated by that American political hysteric Samuel P. Huntington: in his Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. The separation of children/infants from their parents , not to speak of caging these human beings, is an action used by Trump and his minions: ‘Give me your tired,your poor ,your huddled masses…’! An utter betrayal of ‘American Values’ ?

Andy likes to engage in the time honored tradition of One-up-man-ship pioneered by Stephen Potter. Virtue signalling is the current term of abuse, but Potter’s old stand-by fully describes Andy’s dull-witted practice . His argument:  You’ve averted your eyes from the ‘Evil Chinese Regime‘  for too long -its Human Rights abuses! In sum, the Concentration Camps used by ICE are by comparison to the Chinese Regime’s forms of oppression/re-education are evil, while the human rights abuses practiced by ICE are subject to a kind of pseudo- apologetic! In sum,  the crimes of ICE are minimized in comparison to the Chinese.


On the left, we worry about Islamophobia, or we expend our energies protesting the oppression of Palestinians by Israel’s occupation. On the right, we talk of religious freedom too often as if it only applies to Christians or Jews.

Yet, here is a man and writer whose moral/political enthusiasms for ‘The Bell Curve’ and the War in Iraq are facts that Andy can’t overcome. At least with his readers whose memories reach back to Andy’s reprehensible political past.  Andy achieves his ends by means of hectoring moralizing, in service to Andy’s pathological egotism, wedded to his political nihilism.

Old Socialist


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Neo-Liberals Bennett & de la Fuente attack Marianne Williamson, in America’s political gossip sheet Politico! Old Socialist scoffs

Headline: How the Dems Should Blow Up Their Debates

Sub-headline: For starters, putting Marianne Williamson on stage is hurting the party’s chances to unseat Trump. Here’s how to scrap the rules and start over.


Is it even a surprise that both the authors of this plan to ‘blow up the debates’ are passing themselves off as ‘Center Left’ , in sum New Democrats/Neo-Liberals?

Matt Bennett is an executive vice president at Third Way, a center-left think tank.

David de la Fuente is a senior policy adviser at Third Way, a center-left think tank.

The policies that Third Way has advocated:

Third Way has worked on the following policy issues:

  1. The economic benefits of green energy. Since 2010, Third Way is lobbying the creation of an alternative clean energy and climate agenda. Part of this effort has included highlighting and advocating the work of advanced nuclear technology start-ups.[25] The organization has recently partnered with the Department of Energy’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) to connect advanced nuclear developers with federal laboratories.[26]
  2. Marriage equality. Third Way launched the Commitment Campaign in 2011 with the aim of finding common ground between the LGBT and religious community that culminated in reframing the marriage equality debate to focus on “love and commitment” instead of “rights and benefits”.[27] The group also worked on the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act.
  3. Trade agreements. Third Way advocated for new trade accords with Korea, Colombia and Panama and advocated for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  4. Gun safety. Third Way has continued to work on similar issues to those addressed by Americans for Gun Safety, which include universal background checks.[28]

Notice that the support for ‘green energy’ advocates  nuclear power : ‘advocating the work of advanced nuclear technology start-ups.’  Marriage equality: ‘debate to focus on “love and commitment” instead of “rights and benefits”, in sum don’t upset/antagonize the religious conservatives.  And ‘advocated for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.’ This is Neo-Liberalism masquerading as ‘Center Left’,  in sum ,warmed over Obama!

After their dull-witted preliminaries, these two technocrats continue their attack on the utterly unqualified Williamson,  while Game Show Host Trump occupies the White House!

Beating Donald Trump is the political cause of our lifetimes. Democrats simply cannot afford a process for picking our nominee that advantages the activist left over the mainstream, the wealthy over the middle class, and the television famous over viable leaders. Before the July debates, the Democratic National Committee should scrap its rules for selecting debate participants and start over.

The inclusion of Williamson and other fringe candidates at the MSNBC debates—and the exclusion of quality, substantive contenders like Montana Gov. Steve Bullock—was the absurd if unintended consequence of the plan for limiting debate participants developed by Tom Perez, chair of the DNC. Perez is a brilliant and dedicated party leader. But he made a mistake with this debate plan, and it could affect our party’s ability to beat Donald Trump in 2020.

The political hysteria begins with these rhetorical actors : ‘ the political cause of our lifetimes.’ ,  ‘the activist left’, ‘the wealthy‘, ‘the television famous’ , as opposed to ‘viable leaders’ .  Those ‘viable leaders’ are the same old tired New Democrats ,beginning with the utterly clueless Joe Biden, of racist Crime Bill infamy. And some new faces like Kamala Harris, AIPAC stooge and OneWest Bank pardoner, who threatened the parents of ‘truant’ children, with jail time as Attorney General of California , Corey Booker ambulance chaser, and another AIPAC acolyte. the list goes on and on : the crowded field offer the illusion of choice, but not anything like its actuality.

And don’t miss this montage of the Democrats on Israel, in sum ,swearing their allegiance to this state repeating the all the bourgeois cliches!

Somehow in the Age of Trump Marianne Williamson remains beyond the pale. She represents the politically illegitimate, as the Guru to the stars, she offers a toxic distraction to the Trump Menace!  Except that the whole of America’s Political Class were/are the Midwives of Trump! Considering the political allegiance of Bennett & de la Fuente,  to an utterly failed Neo-Liberalism, presented as the self-serving lie of the ‘Center Left’ ,are an integral  part of that failed and failing Political Class!

Old Socialist





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment on Trump,Pelosi & The Young Radicals. Political Observer comments

To quote Henry Ford ‘history is bunk‘! An actual historical preamble, to Mr. Luce’s recitation of the commonplaces of the political present, awash in the corporate media ‘horse race mentality‘, might read like this:

From the mass migration of the Dixiecrats to the Republican Party in ’64 & ’65 in response to the passage of both the Civil Rights & The Voting Right Act’s, followed by Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ to Ronald Reagan’s notorious Neshoba County Fair speech, that opened his 1980 Campaign: ‘I believe in ‘States Rights’!

I believe in state’s rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, I’m going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

Not to speak of his ’76 campaign’s notorious ‘Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs’, the full story on Linda Taylor ,that Welfare Queen: Here is a portion of Josh Levin’s insightful essay:

Headline:The Welfare Queen

Sub-headline:In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan villainized a Chicago woman for bilking the government. Her other sins—including possible kidnappings and murders—were far worse.

The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of the craziest anecdote you’ve ever heard is definitely not data. And yet, the story of the welfare queen instantly infected the policy debate over welfare reform. Sociologist Richard M. Coughlin notes that in 1979, AFDC families had a median of just 2.1 children and a very low standard of living compared to the average American. In 2013, Bureau of Labor Statistics data continue to bear out the stark economic gap between families on public assistance and those who are not. Linda Taylor showed that it was possible for a dedicated criminal to steal a healthy chunk of welfare money. Her case did not prove that, as a group, public aid recipients were fur-laden thieves bleeding the American economy dry.

Even so, Ronald Reagan regularly dusted off the welfare queen’s lurid misadventures, arguing that rampant fraud demanded decisive government action. In pushing for welfare reform as president in 1981, he told members of Congress that “in addition to collecting welfare under 123 different names, she also had 55 Social Security cards,” and that “there’s much more of [this type of fraud] than anyone realizes.” The recent debate over cuts to the federal food stamp program, too, has featured Republican claims that we can save $30 billion by “eliminating loopholes, waste, fraud, and abuse.”

In truth, Reagan wrung savings out of the federal welfare program by slashing benefit levels and raising eligibility requirements. And with regard to today’s food stamp cuts, as Eric Schnurer explains in the Atlantic, “none of the savings actually come from fraud, but rather from cutting funding and tightening benefits.”

Bush The Elder’s ‘Willy Horton’ racist hysteria. Bush The Younger was just actively hostile. Juan Cole offers insight on Bush father and son here:

Headline:George W. Bush & GOP Lack Standing to Bash Trump for Racism

Sub-headline No racism and bigotry, no Bush presidency.

Mr. Luce frames his defense of the political status quo, Nancy Pelosi, by the weak rhetorical devise of ‘the younger radicals’ ,not just once but twice. Placing ‘The Squad’ , an example of American political thought, safely in the confines of its perpetual dull-witted political metaphors.

Never fear the New Democrats will nominate another Mrs. Clinton, rendering this pronouncement of Mr. Luce in the category of self-serving fiction!

He is literally pushing Democrats towards an extremist corner.

This reader can think of only one ‘radical’ currently running, that is Bernie Sanders,who remains a viable but unwanted candidate,by the Clinton coterie, who control the levers of power in the party.

Mr. Luce offer his final thought on Trump, not as what he is, the fulfillment of the de-evolution of the Republican Party, but a political creature who transcends the very facts of the history of the Republican party.

Such is the logic of Mr Trump’s interventions. They are incendiary, dangerous and un-American. But that is no guarantee they will fail.

The currently expressed political wisdom is that only a ‘Centrist’ can win against Trump. That ‘Centrism’ is represented by the current alliance between the New Democrats and the Neo-Conservatives: never has such a toxic alliance in American politics existed? Think of the alliance between the Nixon/Mundt/McCarren/McCarthy Republicans and the Cold War ‘Liberals’  Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the ADA.

Political Observer



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Andy Divine at full hysterical cry, episode MCCLXXIII : Nancy Pelosi, Labour Anti-Semitism scandal , Stonewall & Drag Queens. Myra Breckenridge comments

Just a small sample of Andy’s Bill of Attainder against Fellow Neo-Liberal Nancy Pelosi:

I know that aggressive oversight, especially impeachment hearings, is a politically fraught decision, full of risk. I know the polls suggest it splits the country and, by her own expert counting, divides the House Democrats as well. I know her party won the House in 2018 by focusing on health care, rather than Trump. I think that should be their focus next year as well. But fortune favors the brave. If she doesn’t act against a serious threat to the Constitution, voters will infer that the Democrats don’t actually believe there’s a threat. If she lets this president own the narrative, as he keeps doing, Democrats will end up following his story rather than their own.

The next  vexing question to be considered is the precipitous drop in Labour popularity,  the reason offered is the ‘Labour Antisemitism Scandal , Andy offers the Panorama ‘documentary’ on the BBC as evidence against Corbyn and his political fellow travelers:

On Wednesday, the BBC broadcast a documentary featuring eight Labour Party officials, who complained that their attempt to identify and remove anti-Semites from the party was interfered with by Labour’s top leadership. Thirty more whistle-blowers are testifying for a pending independent investigation of the party leadership’s conscious protection of Jew-haters.

“The testimonies of whistleblowers confirm what we have suspected for some time,” said the Jewish Labour Movement in a statement. “The culture and scale of antisemitism within the party has been perpetuated and exacerbated by those at the very top.” Left extremism, in other words, has eclipsed left radicalism and hobbled the viability of the party. All the promise of 2017 has evaporated.


Here are two critical reviews of that ‘documentary’:

Headline: With Panorama’s hatchet job on Labour antisemitism, BBC has become pro-Tory media

Sub-headline : Score-settling may make for lively TV, but it is execrable journalism

By Jonathan Cook

It is difficult to describe as anything other than a hatchet job the BBC Panorama special this week that sought to bolster claims that the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has become “institutionally antisemitic”.

The partisan tone was set from the opening shot. A young woman whose name was not revealed tearfully claimed to have been abused with antisemitic taunts at a Labour Party conference.

The decision not to disclose their interviewee’s identity is understandable in the circumstances. It would have discredited the whole narrative Panorama was trying so hard to build.

The woman’s name is Ella Rose, a senior official in the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), an organisation representing Jewish and non-Jewish members of Labour at the forefront of attacks on Corbyn. Rose has a secret past too: she once worked at the Israeli embassy in London.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

Two years ago she and other JLM officials were exposed collaborating with Shai Masot, an Israeli embassy official. He had to be hurriedly removed from the UK after an undercover Al Jazeera documentary showed him plotting with activists in the Labour and Conservative parties to discredit British politicians seen as a threat to Israel.

Most observers believe that Masot was operating within the embassy, as part of Israel’s strategic affairs ministry, which in turn has been running black ops against western critics of Israel. Corbyn, we can safely assume, is high on that list.



Headline: Labour raises ‘serious concerns’ about a major BBC propaganda offensive about to be aired

The Labour Party has raised “serious concerns” about a major propaganda offensive airing on 10 July on BBC One.


“One-sided narrative”

The opposition party is preparing to complain over the new Panorama episode entitled Is Labour antisemitic?. It told the Sunday Times:

We have serious concerns about how they have used taxpayers’ money to produce this programme. Rather than investigating antisemitism in the Labour Party in a balanced and impartial way, Panorama appears to have predetermined its outcome and created a programme to fit a one-sided narrative.

A spokesperson for Panorama told The Canary:

The Labour Party is criticising a programme they have not seen. We are confident the programme will adhere to the BBC’s editorial guidelines. In line with those, the Labour Party has been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

“Shoddy reporting and overt political bias”

But the record of John Ware, the journalist behind the programme, is raising concerns. In a previous Panorama episode on Jeremy Corbyn in September 2015, Ware claimed that the Labour leader had attended an event in Cairo that called for violence against British and US troops. In other words, he suggested that Corbyn himself had advocated attacks against British forces. Yet Corbyn was actually in Islington, London; and there is no evidence behind this claim.

In response, the BBC claimed that Corbyn’s team “didn’t offer any response or proof that he did not attend the conference”.

At the time, a leading scholar on the BBC – Tom Mills – took down the programme’s “shoddy reporting and overt political bias” in openDemocracy. Mills said:

Interspersed with condescending ‘vox pops’ with Corbyn supporters were interviews with luminaries of the Labour right, who were free to offer their apparently authoritative analysis unchallenged by the programme’s presenter, the veteran broadcaster and former Sun journalist, John Ware.

The BBC, meanwhile, claimed that the episode “clearly reflected the growth of support for his campaign within the party, union members and activists”.

But, in the new Panorama episode, will Hare inform viewers that accusations of antisemitism in Labour reportedly relate to 0.1% of the party’s 540,000-strong membership? Will Hare let people know that academics at the Media Reform Coalition concluded that corporate media reporting on Labour and antisemitism has been a “disinformation paradigm”? Given that the BBC played a leading role in not only the so-called disinformation paradigm but also the 2016 coup against Corbyn and the general demonisation of progressive views, that seems unlikely.


Concerns about Ware go beyond his previous conduct towards Corbyn. The Muslim Council of Britain, for example, has branded him “an agenda-driven pro-Israel polemicist”.

In 2013, the Electronic Intifada was highly critical of Ware’s portrayal of the state of Israel as the victim of Palestinian aggression in BBC documentaries. Yet it’s Palestine which is under Israeli military occupation. And despite the persecution and segregation of Palestinians living in Israel itself, Ware has said that Arab citizens in Israel “could become a fifth column” (the enemy within).

This apparent bias is problematic. Former Labour MP Clare Short summed up the connection between Israel’s occupation of Palestine and accusations of antisemitism in Labour on BBC Newsnight:

What’s happened is there’s been a widening of the definition of antisemitism to include criticism of Israel. Then, anyone who’s sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians is called antisemitic. That is what’s happened.

In September 2018, the Labour leadership adopted a definition of antisemitism that – some say – risks blurring the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. 24 Palestinian organisations, trade unions and networks are highly critical of the IHRA definition:


Andy’s last issue for consideration was Stonewall, and the actual role that Drag Queens played , in which he lauds the virtues of  Neo-Conservative war  mongering  writer James Kirchick ‘It takes the fearless gay writer, James Kirchick, to note that all of this is untrue.‘ And shames the ‘almost Stalinist in its conscious altering of history to comport with current ideology. The denizens of Stonewall, and the overwhelming majority of the rioters, were cis white gay men.’

Andy remains committed to his anti-left hysterics in his characterizing of the  ‘almost Stalinist…comport with current ideology  that the media hasn’t bothered to query very much’


Myra Breckenridge








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Anti-Corbyn hysteria mongering at the good grey Sunday Times July 14,2019. Posted by Old Socialist

Only three examples, its a slow week! As Niall Ferguson is on vacation in some exotic clime! Or just enjoying the pleasures offered in the Versailles Dining Room, at the Hoover Institution, where 1929 went to live.

Old Socialist




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment on Trump & ‘The Splintering of the West’. Political Observer

Mr. Luce begins his homily on ‘The Splintering of the West’ presided over by the Know-Nothing Trump, with the full co-operation of an utterly bankrupt Republican party, and The New Democrats dragging their feet, in reply to this political enfant terrible’s tantrums, with this comment on Kim Darroch’s resignation:

Spare little pity for Kim Darroch, Britain’s outgoing ambassador to the US. He leaves Washington with plaudits from fellow diplomats and will enjoy life after the Foreign Office. It is rare that someone whose career has been terminated so abruptly emerges with an improved reputation.

Craig Murray actually worked for/with Amb. Darroch and offer insights that put Mr. Luce’s comments on the ambassador … Luce is too busy engaging in a pseudo-Hegelian   World-Historical Political Metaphysics of Crisis , ‘The Splintering of the West’, to attend to less pressing, mundane questions:

Darroch’s scathing assessment of Trump is no way out of line with the mainstream media narrative and it is interesting – but exactly what I would expect of him – that Darroch shares the neo-con assumption that Trump’s failure to start a war with Iran over the drone take-down was a weird aberration. The leaks neither tell us anything startling nor obviously benefit any political faction in the U.K. So what was the motive?

Kim Darroch is a rude and aggressive person, who is not pleasant at all to his subordinates. He rose to prominence within the FCO under New Labour at a time when right wing, pro-Israel foreign policy views and support for the Iraq War were important assets to career progress, as was the adoption of a strange “laddish” culture led from No. 10 by Alastair Campbell, press secretary of former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This culture involved swearing, football shirts and pretending to be working class (Darroch was privately educated). Macho management was suddenly the thing.

At a time when news management was the be all and end all for the Blair administration, Darroch was in charge of the FCO’s media department. I remember being astonished when, down the telephone, he called me “******* stupid” for disagreeing with him on some minor policy matter. I had simply never come across that kind of aggression in the FCO before. People who worked directly for him had to put up with this kind of thing all the time.

Political Observer


@Dr Wu @Ed Luce, FT

Thank you both for your comments. It is always a pleasure to comment on my, almost favorite, Posh Boy Luce, the selection, here at @FT , is extensive. Since I write polemics my hyperbole:

Luce is too busy engaging in a pseudo-Hegelian World-Historical Political Metaphysics of Crisis , ‘The Splintering of the West’, to attend to less pressing, mundane questions:

Should be taken in the spirit that it is given. Mr. Luce’s idée fixe on ‘The West’ as under attack from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea invites a burlesque, framed by the reliably gaseous Hegelian vocabulary. ‘The West’ has been busy over centuries creating/cultivating its own enemies. The pose of moral/political virtue – history can’t mitigate this self-serving fiction?

What publication, I’ve given up on The Economist, that seems to have forgotten what it once was, would publish my comments, that exist on the rhetorical plane of  ‘… to speak frankly, you are spectacularly full of crap.’ ? Mr. Luce agrees with your comment, the power of one lone dissident voice, to evoke a single word of assent to your comment …

Trump is about a rebellion against the whole of the American Political Class: the toxicity you point to is about the whole of that class, not just the Republicans.

Craig Murray’s comments on  Kim Darroch are not ‘gossip’ as you characterize them, but a report on his personal interactions with the ambassador. The insights offered by Murray are valuable in that they place Darroch squarely in the vulgarizing world of New Labour:

Kim Darroch is a rude and aggressive person, who is not pleasant at all to his subordinates. He rose to prominence within the FCO under New Labour at a time when right wing, pro-Israel foreign policy views and support for the Iraq War were important assets to career progress, as was the adoption of a strange “laddish” culture led from No. 10 by Alastair Campbell, press secretary of former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This culture involved swearing, football shirts and pretending to be working class (Darroch was privately educated). Macho management was suddenly the thing.

Darroch is not some virtuous figure brought low by Trump, as Murray points out. The leaks are probably the work of a subordinate, who had simply had enough of Darroch’s insufferable arrogance!

Best regards,








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reading ‘The Collapse of the Dream Palaces’ in July 2019: American Writer’s selective commentary

Now that the war in Iraq is over, we’ll find out how many people around the world are capable of facing unpleasant facts.’

What to make of Mr. Brooks’ assertion in 2019? In the present, America is an Occupying power in Iraq, the white phosphorous attack on Falluja, Abu Ghraib and an American embassy that is 104 acres in size, are historically verifiable facts.

The embassy has extensive housing and infrastructure facilities in addition to the usual diplomatic buildings. The buildings include:[10]

Six apartment buildings for employees
Water and waste treatment facilities
A power station
Two “major diplomatic office buildings”
Recreation, including a gym, cinema, several tennis courts and an Olympic-size swimming pool
The complex is heavily fortified, even by the standards of the Green Zone. The details are largely secret, but it is likely to include a significant US Marine Security Guard detachment. Fortifications include deep security perimeters, buildings reinforced beyond the usual standard, and five highly guarded entrances.[citation needed],_Baghdad

Not to forget Sec. Powell’s  pivotal UN speech, about non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sec. Rice’s looming  ‘mushroom cloud’  and Judith Miller’s New York Times propaganda. Brooks makes up his list of heretics, whose collective abode were those  ‘dream palaces‘.

There is first the dream palace of the Arabists.

Then there is the dream palace of the Europeans.

Finally, there is the dream palace of the American Bush haters.

Mr. Brooks’ literary invention of Joey Tabula-Rasa allows him to add a strategic distance between his bellicose sensibility, and that of 20 year old Joey T-B. Who is a manufactured political naif, whose uncritical acceptance of the Wise Political Elders judgement is an inept propaganda device.

 Invent a representative 20-year-old, Joey Tabula-Rasa, and try to imagine how he would have perceived the events of the past month.

This essay was written for an audience of Weekly Standard readers looking for a set of political rationalizations for the ‘Iraq War’ : an endeavor of the now defunct Project for a New American Century. Its Statement of Principals and its signatories:

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

  • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
    responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
  • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
  • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
  • we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett , Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky,Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

Mr. Brooks’ evolution/de-evolution from Neo-Conservative war monger, to a self-appointed Political/Moral Prophet, with his books , riffing on the themes of an ersatz  Sociology made to measure: The Social Animal, The Road to Character and The Second Mountain places this essay, in a past that Mr. Brooks might find inconvenient? Although, like the adroit grifter, he might characterize this essay as a part of his moral/political evolution to his current point of enlightenment.

American Writer








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Our Man from Opus Dei on Marianne Williamson. Political Observer comments (Revised July 10,2019 7:02 AM PDT)

Before reading Mr. Douthat’s appraisal of the Williams’ candidacy, the reader should first go to this YouTube video, by New Progressive Voice ,that analyses in depth how the women of ‘The View’, treated Marianne Williamson.

Mr. Douthat commentary on Williamson, is just a bit more sophisticated than the ‘View’ coterie, and their open contempt of Williamson, but not by much:

Certainly in the eternal pundit’s quest to figure out what a “Donald Trump of the left” would look like, a figure like Williamson is an interesting contender. If Trumpism spoke to an underground, often-conspiratorial populism unacknowledged by the official G.O.P., Williamson speaks to a low-on-data, long-on-feelings spirit that simmers just below the We Are on the Side of Science and Reason surface of the contemporary liberal project. As Alex Pareene wrotefor The New Republic after her weird but weirdly compelling debate performance:

If the superficial version of “Democratic Trump” resembles him aesthetically, the proper version would be closer to his opposite: Not just female but powerfully and unabashedly feminine, aiming her message not at the raging car dealer dad but the anxious Wellness Mom. …

And while it is fun to scoff at her hokey spiritual woo and self-help bromides, it is easy to forget that hokey spiritual woo and self-help bromides are extremely powerful and popular among a massive subset of Americans, many of whom represent the exact sort of voters who decide Democratic primaries.

The post-debate polling, however, shows no Williamson surge — and my sense is that the path to a New Age answer to Trump would require a candidate who crosses racial boundaries more easily than Williamson (meaning, basically, Oprah), and a Democratic rank-and-file more alienated from their party leaders than today’s Democratic voters seem to be. Trump arose in the aftermath of both a failed establishment-Republican presidency and then the failed Tea Party insurgency; by comparison the Democratic Party still regards its last president fondly and regards itself as the country’s natural governing coalition, requiring no gambles on the power of Pure Love.

‘ “Donald Trump of the left” is nothing more than a libel against Williamson! She, masquerading as a ‘contender’ in a contest, whose rhetorical life exists in the political desperation of well paid scribblers, with nothing to say, except to declare their own moral/political vacuity.

But the concluding two paragraphs of the Douthat essay provide ample proof, that Douthat is steeped in the belief that women are lesser beings, in constant need of male tutelage, in order to function as complete beings. In sum, Williamson is ‘weird’, a kind of political spectacle, as object lesson, that proves her status as inferior being, un-moored from the essentialism of male tutelage.

But pending that synthesis, Democrats as well as curious onlookers should be glad to have Williamson onstage for at least one more round of weirdness. Even if most mystically inclined liberals aren’t going to vote for her, she speaks for a larger constituency than many of her rivals, and her warnings of spiritual crisis are at least as relevant to an America beset by addiction, suicide and atomization as any of Elizabeth Warren’s white papers.

It would take the entire course in miracles to put Williamson in the White House, but she’s right about one big thing: There’s more to heaven and earth, and even to national politics, than is dreamed of in the liberal technocrat’s philosophy.


Political Observer












Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment