“Be Brave. Be Water. Be Ready.” It Applies to Americans Too.

Ben Domenech, the publisher of The Federalist has an outstanding column on the Hong Kong protests.  It is a bit long but it also burrows down into the whole thing. It’s not very prone to excerpts, so I’m just going to suggest you read it. As the Hong Kongers say: “Be Brave. Be Water. Be Ready.” And for God’s sake don’t be a coward like LeBron James.

My other favorite from yesterday is from American Greatness, where Edward Ring visualized the Future that Trump portends. Here’s the opening:

Anyone who thinks President Trump’s victory is inevitable in 2020 is not paying attention. The entire weight of America’s profiteering elites is arrayed against him.

But what if he wins anyway? What if enough voters realize they’re being conned by the Democrats? What if enough voters decide they don’t want to feel like unwanted usurpers in their own nation? What if men and women of all ethnicities realize that despite the unrelenting avalanche of lies coming from the Left, America is a welcoming and inclusive nation and that the only way a society can stay healthy is by rewarding personal initiative?

What if a critical mass of independent voters were to conclude that, despite his pugnacity, President Trump cares about all Americans, and actually holds moderate, compassionate, common-sense positions? If these things happen, and they very well might, not only will President Trump get reelected, but control of the House of Representatives will return once again to the GOP. And if these sentiments sweep across the land, then politicians of both parties will realize it is time to stop fighting and get back to serving the American people.

Go ahead and read it and then come back, and we’ll talk a bit.

Quite the vision, isn’t it? Realistic? Perhaps not, but who can say. It reads as almost Pollyanish, embroiled as we are in the divisive culture wars. But who’s to say. In 1776, it was dead certain that Britain would regain its colonies, probably more certain than that the ChiComs will suppress the Hong Kongers. But it didn’t turn out that way, did it?

We often misapply the City on a Hill speech, but part of that is that we see beyond what Bradford could see. We can see how the American idea appeals all over the world. We have seen what free markets and free men and women can do. We saw a strip of dirt along the Atlantic Ocean, making a poor living as subsistence farmers turn into the greatest and freest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen both economically and militarily,   because of that freedom. And a bit of British gold to lubricate things, because of everyplace in the world, we were and are, the most like them with a trustworthy legal system.

Right now we have the divisiveness and vituperativeness of the left, as we have had (but worse) since Wilson a hundred years ago. This is why our greatest accomplishments – so far –  were in the nineteenth century. We have been swimming upstream against those who wish to shackle, for their own benefit, the people of the United States certainly, but actually all the world. Something for us all to remember, we are the ‘Keeper of the Flame’ of Liberty, if we go down, most likely all the world will follow us into a new dark age, made more sinister by the technology that free men developed. If we stand, the world has a chance.

You all know that I talk to many in Britain, like us, they have their eyeores, but when you really talk to them, they sound like the Hong Kongers, or Americans. I firmly believe that one of two things will happen there, Britain will exit the European Union, or Britain will destroy its left and destroy the European Union. God bless ’em. I said even before the referendum, that its significance is equal to July 4th, 1776, or maybe the Reformation.

In short, do I believe it will happen as Mr. Ring writes? Probably not. But if we stay the course, and continue to lead with our power and might, not only physically, but morally as well, we will win through, and others will follow us to Churchill’s broad sunlit uplands. You would be surprised how many Britons, and I suspect others, as well, read American blogs, for truthful information, of course, but also because of our thinking, and our willingness to speak.

Once again, I am reminded of the first lines of America’s first great anthem.

Let tyrants shake their iron rod
And slav’ry clang her galling chains;
We’ll fear them not. We trust in God;

Syria, Turkey, the Kurds

Well, we talked about the President’s Kurdish strategy yesterday. Like some of you, I was supportive but a bit worried. We just plainly cannot go around the world interfering in every conflict, no matter how rich it makes the military-industrial complex. As is usual, as soon as I talked a bit about it, the situation changed. How? the Kurds struck a deal with Syria. That to me makes far more sense. If anything in the mid-east makes much sense at all. Seraphim Hanisch writing in The Duran is quite a bit more positive than I am, so let’s take a look.

President Trump was right again. According to a new Fox News piece published late Sunday evening, Kurdish forces negotiated a deal with Damascus to face off Turkey’s offensive. Russia is involved in the dealmaking as well.

The New York Times reported that the deal– which was announced Sunday evening– would enable President Bashar al-Assad’s forces to attempt to regain a foothold in the country’s northeast. The Kurdish fighters had few options after the United States abandoned them, and it had been anticipated they would turn to Assad’s government for support.

“An agreement has been reached with the Syrian government — whose duty it is to protect the country’s borders and preserve Syrian sovereignty — for the Syrian Army to enter and deploy along the Syrian-Turkish border to help the SDF stop this aggression” by Turkey, the SDF said in a statement.

The Washington Post reported that the deal was reached after three days of negotiations between the Kurdish forces, Russian envoys and Damascus. […]

The media is portraying this as a Terrible, Awful, Not-so-Good, Unbelievably bad move for Trump who, as the American MSM, now even including Matt Drudge and more and more people even from Fox News will be happy to tell you, is facing the early termination of his Presidency with a growing level of “support” for impeachment and removal from office, per the Compleat Fake Impeachment Scandal.

These anti-Trump forces – basically globalists, secular humanists, represented in a very large number by the ranks of US Representatives and Senators in our own government, and reinforced by the severely biased globalist, secular humanist-biased Western press – are engaged in all-out waragainst the American president.

However, President Trump is playing the long game, and as usual, the foreign policy moves he makes (when he does so unfettered by “advisers”) are practical, needful, and nearly perfect. He is not afraid to gamble as he did with this Turkey / Kurd situation.

I don’t know about you, but I see little in that to argue with. In fact, the howl that went up from all the usual (globalist) suspects told me it was probably an excellent idea. I’m not very enamored of Russia’s involvement, to be honest, but Syria even with the support of others in the neighborhood, probably isn’t big enough to carry the ball alone. The best thing is that those 50-100 American special forces are not in the line of fire.

There are reports that Turkish troops/auxiliaries are killing civilians, including women and children. That probably helped precipitate the deal. It’s also normal Turkish practice, they practically invented ethnic cleansing. In this case, they are bringing opposition to them into the field, and that too is good. Erdogan is getting much too big for his britches and needs a lesson.

President Trump spoke about this situation the other day:

The Monday Roundup

A lot of (what I think is) good thinking showed up over the weekend. So let’s take a look at it. In American Thinker, Shoshana Bryen tells us that Trump’s foreign policy is “more money, less military’“.

One way to understand Trump administration foreign policy is to understand that it is more comfortable with the currency of currency than the currency of American soldiers abroad.  That isn’t always the best approach, since many of America’s adversaries are wedded to military interventions — including grossly illegal ones.  And how the United States reassures its allies that it is not abandoning the playing field to soldiers on the other side is of inestimable importance.

But since money appears central to administration thinking, consider China, the National Basketball Association (NBA), and the Trump administration.

That’s an interesting thought, and while I agree that it is not always the best approach, it’s not a terrible default idea – the soldiers are still about, but money is cheaper (for us, anyway) than blood.

The Trump administration, on the other hand, appears to have a stiffer spine, as befits the government of the United States.  It has gone straight after what China cares about most: energy, espionage, and the surveillance of its people. […]

And Huawei, the Chinese tech company, is looking to be running low on American semiconductors and other parts for its 5G network, raising questions about its ability to maintain global dominance in telecommunications — and industrial and national security spying.  Huawei can substitute its own parts in the network for American parts, but The Washington Post reports that “analysts have said a Huawei operating system would have a tough time competing globally with Google and its popular Gmail and Chrome apps[.] … Huawei chief executive Ren said the U.S. blockade was causing a large drop in Huawei’s smartphone sales outside of China.”

See what I mean, this may or may not have completely desirable results, but it’s a lot better than getting our people in the way of the Chinese Communists. It also leads into our next article, also from American Thinker by Robert Arvay, who asks is Trump leading Xi and Kim into a death trap.

A dictatorship is nothing more than an organized crime mob on steroids.  The head of state must brutally suppress (read: murder) anyone and everyone who poses even a remote threat to his power.  Dictators do not get voted out of office.  They get carried out, feet first.

Kim Jong-un, the dictator of North Korea (the title of chairman is a euphemism), is exceedingly paranoid.  Paranoia in a dictator is not a disorder; it is a necessary survival mechanism.  Kim not only murders anyone and everyone whom he even suspects of disloyalty, but takes nonlethal measures as well.  He even takes his own toilet with him wherever he travels, in order to prevent his DNA from falling into the hands of analysts who might deduce his physical infirmities. […]

The dictator, then, must carefully balance his threats and promises.  His acolytes must fear him.  Indeed, they must be constantly terrorized by the dictator’s ruthless exercise of authority.  However, the dictator must be exceedingly careful in how much terror he can impose.  Terror keeps him alive.  Panic can kill him. […]

Finally, this is what brings us to the ingenious method by which President Trump is deftly maneuvering both Kim and Xi into their potential death traps.  Both men are surrounded by loyalists who are not only terrorized, but also richly rewarded for their continued loyalty.  Once those rewards stop, once the dictator shows weakness, once he is defeated by a stronger enemy, the loyalists might panic.

Now mind, I doubt the President has thought all this out as clearly as the author writes, but Trump has been around the block a few times with some not overly nice guys, corrupt bureaucrats, even more corrupt unions and I imagine he learned some ways to get things done since he got things done.

Finally, yesterday, in 1775, something new was seen on the sea, for it was the birthdate of the American Navy. From that first salute at Stasia, to gunsmoke off Flamborough Head on the east coast of England, to a commendation from Lord Nelson himself, to the famous single-ship actions, to the destruction of two Spanish fleets, to Midway, Leyte Gulf, the successful submarine campaign, to Inchon, to the disaster relief provided by the fleet and the hospital ships, and right down to this week, the Navy has done it all and done America proud.

None of what we talked about today, or will in the future would be possible without the evident power of the United States Navy.

He who controls the sea controls the trade of the world,

He who controls the trade of the world controls the wealth of the world.

Sir Walter Raleigh and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz.

Happy Birthday, Navy!

Two (Videos) if by Sea

So, an hour with Candace Owens and Douglas Murray from the Candace Owens Show in London. Interesting, Intelligent, and enjoyable. What’s not to like?

Hat tip to Kathy Gyngell at The Conservative Woman.

And Boris Johnson at the Conservative Conference. Always interesting and often fun.

70 years after Operation Vittles

Yesterday, although few noticed, was the 70th anniversary of something that in time would lead eastern Europe to freedom. It marked the last flight of the US Air Force in Operation Vittles, the Berlin Airlift.

For almost a year the USAF and the Royal Air Force had supplied everything that the western sectors of Berlin had required to survive, from food to coal. The Soviets had cut off all land communication with the city, and while some thought we should simply run an armored force up the road, cooler (and perhaps wiser) head prevailed. The parallels to the Cuban Missile crisis are striking.

For the first time since World War II, American bombers were stationed in East Anglia, England, reoccupying some of the bases that had been used to attack Germany. This time they were B-29 Superfortresses capable of carrying atomic weapons to Moscow.

Caroline D’Agati at The Federalist has some thoughts, as well.

After its devastating defeat in the Second World War, Germany was on the precipice of doom. Its cities were in ruin, the people were demoralized, and its enemies were at the gates. The nation was divided into four sectors, controlled respectively by the victorious Allies: France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States.  […]

By then, U.S. President Harry Truman and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill [By the way, that is incorrect, Clement Atlee was the Prime Minister, although Sir Winston undoubtedly agreed. Neo] believed Stalin and the intellectual contagion of Communism presented a far greater threat than resurgent German fascism. The Western Allies knew that a stable, democratic German republic would be an essential barrier to halting the spread of Communism into Western Europe.

On the other hand, Stalin knew that poverty and chaos would only make the German people more open to Russia’s proxy or outright rule. An unstable world, still reeling from the agonies of two world wars, was up for grabs to whichever ideology offered people their best chance for stability and peace. By the spring of 1948, the stage for the first battle of the Cold War had been set. [….]

Hoping to get the Germany economy back on its feet, the Western Allies introduced a new currency—the Deutschmark—to the Western-controlled sectors of Germany and Berlin. Rightfully, Stalin saw this as a challenge to his power. In protest, on June 24, 1948, he launched a blockade on land, sea, and rail, denying all supplies to the still-devastated city of Berlin.

With the bombed-out capital still in ruins and a bitter winter approaching, Berliners needed food, clothing, and, above all, coal to heat homes and power rebounding German industry. Americans like Dionne, the British, and the French were going to make sure they got it. “Operation Vittles,” which later became known as the Berlin Airlift, was under way.

With Berlin 110 miles deep into the Soviet sector, the Airlift posed an enormous logistical challenge. The C-54 aircraft that Dionne worked on required constant maintenance due to the Airlift’s round-the-clock flights with heavy cargo.

“The heavy loads of landing after landing just seared the tires,” Dionne explained to the audience. We had to change the tires all the time.” It’s no wonder. At the peak of the Airlift, on April 16, 1949, 1,398 flights carrying more than 12,940 tons were flown to Berlin within just 24 hours. That’s an average of one flight every 62 seconds.

American Airlift pilot Col. Gail Halvorsen even took it upon himself to drop candy in little parachutes to the children of Berlin as a token of friendship and affection. Born into chaos, most children didn’t even know what candy was; many were so poor they didn’t have shoes. This gesture encouraged the people of Berlin that the Western Allies were sincere in their desire to re-build Germany as a free, self-sufficient republic.

Think about that for a while, nearly one flight a minute for eleven months, by the heaviest transport aircraft our countries possessed. And yes, the French provided airfields, seaports, logistical support, and air traffic control. It was an allied effort, and the commitment of the western allies saved Berlin and perhaps Germany as well.

The next test would be halfway around the world, in Korea, we weren’t as successful, but there too, we held the line.

The Age of Empires Redux?

This from Sumantra Maitra in The Federalist is very interesting.

“The world order of tomorrow is not a world order based on nation-states or countries, it’s a world order that is based on empires,”said former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, the current leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, in a barn-storming speech in the Liberal-Democrat conference in London.

“China is not a nation, it’s a civilization. … The U.S. is also an empire, more than a nation — maybe tomorrow they will speak more Spanish than English, I don’t know what will happen. And then finally, the Russian Federation,” he continued. “The world of tomorrow is a world of empires, in which we Europeans and you British can only defend your interests, your way of life, by doing it together in a European framework and a European Union.”

Interestingly, he is right in his own way, and I at least respect his sense of history and unabashed imperialism, although I am confused why, according to him, the British should join a European empire and not an American empire, since Brits are culturally and historically more compatible with the Anglosphere than with continental Europe. But at least he is not a fraud and is refreshingly honest about the ultimate endgame of global governance and “perpetual peace,” to borrow from Immanuel Kant.

I’d say he’s not entirely wrong. And I  too respect his honesty. America has always been sort of a quasi-empire, composed as it is of quasi-independent states, I’d be very surprised if our base language changed from English though.

I would not call China a civilization at this point, I would call it an empire, much like where the EU is tending, very authoritative, and little freedom.

Russia as well is an empire, composed, like the US of formerly independent countries. It’s problem is twofold. A lot of it is second world at best, and it sits between two other prototypical empires, the EU and China. It is more democratic than China and less than than the EU, but they are converging and may cross.  Vladimir Bukovsky, in a speech to the House of Commons, made this very point. So have many others. There is a very good explanation of his reasoning here.

In The  Federalist article, the point is made that the EU will eventually run afoul of the United States. I agree and would say that is already happening, although on a limited scale. Nor does it necessarily mean militarily, although it’s possible. It’s more likely to be like Sino-American relations, where both sides push at the fringes.

And that brings us to Great Britain, the leader of the two greatest empires of the modern world, and the progenitor of not only the United States, but almost all of what we could call Oceania, but might be better described as the Anglosphere in a looser meaning than we usually mean.

And that is kind of what is as stake with Brexit, will Britain remain in the authoritarian EU, almost all of which conflicts with British tradition, or join the much looser confederation, following for the most part British precedent and tradition, led, but not coercively, by the United States.

Read both linked articles, and I think you will see why this is such a basic decision, and why it is being so hard-fought. In truth, it may be as fundamental as when Henry VIII took England out of the Catholic Church and tuned the English gaze out onto the wider world, rather than stultifying in Europe.

It is also why the Democrats in the United States are going to lose, we’ve always gone our own way, but some of our people have always inordinately worshipped Europe. They really should move there, as should the remainers. Both we and they would be happier.

%d bloggers like this: