The Russian Mathematician Who Exposed the Cannibalistic Nature of Socialism

From FEE.org (June 3, 2023):

Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich is not exactly a household name, but the man richly deserves to be remembered, a century after his birth and six years since his death. In 1923, he was born on this date—June 3—in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, about a hundred miles west of Kyiv. He died in 2017 at the age of 93, leaving behind remarkable contributions to mathematics and, of far greater interest to me, a powerful indictment of the ancient calamity known as socialism.

Shafarevich ranks high in the pantheon of 20th Century mathematicians. His name is attached to numerous pioneering theorems and formulas I can’t begin to understand, but which are celebrated as genius among the numerical cognoscenti. In 1981, he was even inducted into the prestigious Royal Society of London as one of the brightest foreign scientists ever to grace its membership.

Growing up in Ukraine under Soviet-imposed socialism, Shafarevich harbored misgivings about the system from an early age. In his 30s, he began to run afoul of it because of his outspoken support of the Eastern Orthodox faith in an officially atheist empire. He eventually morphed into a full-blown, anti-Marxist dissident and an ally of Andrei Sakharov, the physicist famous for defending human rights against the regime’s assaults. Despite his world-class credentials in mathematics, Shafarevich was fired from Moscow University because of his collaboration with Sakharov.

When the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (author of The Gulag Archipelago and other seminal works) delivered his famous address at Harvard University in 1978, he cited a book by Igor Shafarevich that had appeared three years before. Solzhenitsyn, in fact, wrote the Foreword to the book’s English translation.

………..

In the final third of the book, or about a hundred pages, Shafarevich offers his analysis of socialism. He argues persuasively that “at least three components of the socialist ideal—the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family and socialist equality—may be deduced from a single principle: the suppression of individuality.”

Socialism presents itself in multiple flavors, of course, but the unadulterated version promises “the greatest possible equality.” This is the height of hypocrisy and delusion, Shafarevich argues, because at the same time, socialism offers up “a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.”

Individuals participate in life as thinking, acting individuals, not as indistinguishable portions of a collectivist blob. “Cultural creativity, particularly artistic creativity, is an example,” the author points out. Renaissance Italians didn’t paint The Last Supper. Leonardo da Vinci did. “And in periods when socialist movements are on the increase, the call for the destruction of culture is heard ever more distinctly,” Shafarevich explains.

Socialism is fundamentally anti-culture because it seeks to supplant individual initiative with one-size-fits-all, top-down diktats. Its centralized, mandated blueprint is ultimately a death sentence because “Not only people but even animals cannot exist if reduced to the level of the cogs of a mechanism.” Shafarevich writes,

[A]ll the aspects of life that make it attractive and give it meaning are connected with manifestations of individuality. Therefore, a consistent implementation of the principles of socialism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously deprives life of its meaning and attraction…it would lead to the physical extinction of the group in which these principles are in force, and if they should triumph through the world—to the extinction of mankind.

The collectivism that socialism champions is ultimately a mirage. There is no “blob” that thinks and acts. Only individuals do. So the so-called “collective”  reduces to some individuals wielding power over other individuals. Socialism is, therefore, cannibalism animated by philosophy. Shafarevich essentially told the world this a half century ago, and the world still struggles to learn it.

At the very least, we ought to thank him for letting us know on this centennial of his birth. [read more]

Socialism is truly evil.

FDA, CDC Hid Data on Spike in COVID Cases Among the Vaccinated: Documents

From NTD.com (Sept. 3, 2023):

COVID-19 cases among vaccinated seniors soared in 2021, according to newly disclosed data that was acquired by U.S. health agencies but not presented to the public.

Humetrix Cloud Services was contracted by the U.S. military to analyze vaccine data. The company performed a fresh analysis as authorities considered in 2021 whether COVID-19 vaccine boosters were necessary amid studies finding waning vaccine effectiveness.

Humetrix researchers found that the proportion of total COVID-19 cases among the seniors was increasingly comprised of vaccinated people, according to the newly disclosed documents.

For the week ending on July 31, 2021, post-vaccination COVID-19 cases represented 73 percent of the cases among people 65 and older, the company found. The elderly were 80 percent fully vaccinated at the time.

Breakthrough infection rates were higher among those who were vaccinated early, the researchers found. They estimated that the rates were twice as high in those who had been vaccinated five to six months prior, when compared to people vaccinated three to four months before.

The breakthrough cases started in January 2021, according to the data.

Protection against hospitalization was also fading, researchers discovered.

In the week ending on July 31, 2021, 63 percent of the COVID-19 hospitalizations in seniors were among the fully vaccinated, according to the documents. The same pattern of weaker protection among people who were vaccinated early was found.

Researchers calculated that the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection was just 33 percent while the effectiveness against hospitalization had dropped to 57 percent.

Seniors who previously had COVID-19 and recovered were more likely to avoid hospitalization, the researchers also found. Risk factors included serious underlying conditions such as obesity and being in the oldest age group, or older than 85. [read more]

Not good. So much for transparency in the Briben regime.

"Trump and Musk Share the Founder’s Mindset" main points

From Grok 3.0:

The article "Trump and Musk Share the Founder’s Mindset" outlines several key points about the collaboration between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, emphasizing their shared entrepreneurial approach to governance. Here are the main points:

1. Shared Founder’s Mindset: Both Trump and Musk are described as business founders who exhibit a "founder’s mindset," characterized by a bold mission, bias for action, aversion to bureaucracy, and relentless experimentation. This mindset contrasts with the managerial approach of most modern presidents, enabling them to pursue radical change.

2. Collaboration on Government Efficiency: The article highlights their joint effort to reduce the size and reach of the federal bureaucracy through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Despite their age difference and limited prior acquaintance, their shared vision allows them to align on goals and execution strategies

3. Disruption and Innovation: Trump and Musk apply a founder’s approach to reshape government operations, focusing on disruption, efficiency, and innovation. This includes significant reforms in agency structures, as well as policies related to cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence

4. Alliances with Other Founders: Their founder mentality facilitates partnerships with other entrepreneurial figures, such as Silicon Valley tech leaders, cryptocurrency entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists like David Sacks, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen. This network supports their vision for transformative change

5. Contrast with Traditional Politics: Unlike typical politicians, Trump and Musk consistently question the purpose and function of government operations, asking, “Why are we doing this?” This approach drives their efforts to rethink how the federal government operates, setting them apart from conventional political strategies

6. Potential for Inspiration and Polarization: The article notes that their approach, like that of historical founders including America’s Founding Fathers, is likely to both inspire and alienate. It draws a parallel to Thomas Jefferson’s view on the necessity of periodic rebellion in politics

These points are drawn from sources discussing the article’s perspective on Trump and Musk’s collaboration and mindset.

Since the article was under a paywall I asked Grok 3.0: What are the main points in the article "Trump and Musk Share the Founder’s Mindset"?

Trump Signs Big, Beautiful Bill at WH July Fourth Picnic

From Newsmax.com (July 4):

President Donald Trump signed his package of tax breaks and spending cuts into law Friday after his cajoling produced almost unanimous Republican support in Congress for the domestic priority that could cement his second-term legacy.

Flanked by Republican legislators and members of his Cabinet, Trump signed the multitrillion-dollar legislation outside the White House and then banged down the gavel that House Speaker Mike Johnson gifted him that was used during the bill's final passage Thursday.

Against odds that at times seemed improbable, Trump achieved his goal of celebrating a historic — and divisive — legislative victory in time for the nation's birthday. Fighter jets and a stealth bomber streaked through the sky over the annual White House Fourth of July picnic as Trump and first lady Melania Trump stepped out onto the White House balcony.

"America's winning, winning, winning like never before," Trump said, noting last month's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which he said the flyover was meant to honor. "Promises made, promises kept, and we've kept them."

The White House was hung with red, white, and blue bunting for the regular Fourth of July festivities. The United States Marine Band played patriotic marches — and, in a typical Trumpian touch, tunes by 1980s pop icons Chaka Khan and Huey Lewis. The two separate flyovers bookended Trump's appearance and the band playing the national anthem.

Democrats assailed the package as a giveaway to the rich that will rob millions more lower-income people of their health insurance, food assistance, and financial stability.

"I never thought that I'd be on the House floor saying that this is a crime scene," Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said during a record-breaking speech that delayed the bill's passage by eight-plus hours. "It's a crime scene, going after the health, and the safety, and the well-being of the American people."

The legislation extends Trump's 2017 multitrillion-dollar tax cuts and cuts Medicaid and food stamps by $1.2 trillion. It provides for a massive increase in immigration enforcement. Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper projects that nearly 12 million more people will lose health insurance under the law.

The legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote Thursday, culminating a months long push by the GOP to cram most of its legislative priorities into a single budget bill that could be enacted without Senate Democrats being able to block it indefinitely by filibustering.

It passed by a single vote in the Senate, where North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis announced he would not run for reelection after incurring Trump's wrath in opposing it. Vice President JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote.

In the House, where two Republicans voted against it, conservative maverick Tom Massie of Kentucky has also become a target of Trump's well-funded political operation.

The legislation amounts to a repudiation of the agendas of the past two Democrat presidents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, in rolling back Obama's Medicaid expansion under his signature health law and Biden's tax credits for renewable energy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade and 11.8 million more people will go without health coverage.

Trump exulted in his political victory Thursday night in Iowa, where he attended a kickoff of events celebrating the country's 250th birthday next year.

"I want to thank Republican congressmen and -women, because what they did is incredible," he said. The president complained that Democrats voted against the bill because "they hate Trump — but I hate them, too."

The package is certain to be a flashpoint in next year's midterm elections, and Democrats are making ambitious plans for rallies, voter registration drives, attack ads, bus tours, and even a multiday vigil, all intended to highlight the most controversial elements.

Upon his return to Washington early Friday, Trump described the package as "very popular," though polling suggests that public opinion is mixed at best.

For example, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that majorities of U.S. adults support increasing the annual child tax credit and eliminating taxes on earnings from tips, and about half support work requirements for some adults who receive Medicaid.

But the poll found majorities oppose reducing federal funding for food assistance to low-income families and spending about $45 billion to build and maintain migrant detention centers. About 60% said it was "unacceptable" that the bill is expected to increase the $36 trillion U.S. debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade. [source]

Pretty good bill. Here are some provisions from the bill:

• (Sec. 110001) This section makes permanent the individual tax rates of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%.
• Sec. 70202. No tax on overtime.
• Sec. 70203. No tax on car loan interest.
• (Sec. 60001) This section provides funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for construction, installation, or improvement to barriers; access roads; detection technology; invasive plant species eradication; and expenses for facilities and checkpoints along U.S. borders.

It's too bad the no-tax on tips and tax deduction for overtime expires in 2028 unless Congress renews it. Probably, has to something with the CBO or maybe the Senate parliamentarian. I don't know. Doesn't make sense to me. I hope the Republicans aren't playing political games with the bill. I haven't heard any Republican politician (including POTUS) mention that the tips and tax deductions will expire.

More links on the bill:

• H.R.1 - One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• The One, Big, Beautiful Bill [pdf]
• President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Is Now the Law
• The White House's page on the bill (includes Tax-Free Tips & Overtime Calculator and Savings By State map)
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• What Works: The Most Popular Provisions in the Budget Bill
• Every Newborn in America to Receive $1,000 Investment Account After President Trump Signs ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
• Ten tax policies that made it into final version of 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Trump signed into law
• How Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill Will Help Kids Escape Failing Government Schools
• Votes Against the One Big Beautiful Bill Were Votes Against the American People
• All 45 Senate Dems Just Voted For A $4 Trillion Tax Increase
• Millions Reported Dead As 'Big Beautiful Bill' Passes

Trump Signs Order Aiming to Cut Funding to NPR, PBS

From Newmax.com (May 2):

Donald Trump signed an executive order that aims to cut funding to news outlets NPR and PBS, the White House said, marking the U.S. president's latest attempt to use federal funding as leverage against institutions he does not view favorably.

The order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funding to PBS and NPR stations, to "cease direct funding" to them, according to the order's text released by the White House late on Thursday. It labeled the news outlets as partisan and biased.

"The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding," the order says.

Both NPR and PBS have previously said that Trump's effort to cut their funding would disrupt essential media service and have a "devastating impact" on Americans who rely on them for credible local and national news, including during emergency situations.

The Trump administration has labeled multiple institutions in academia and the media industry – from Harvard and Columbia universities to NPR and PBS – as being leftist, Marxist, biased and woke, and threatened funding cuts. Human rights advocates have raised concerns over free speech and academic freedom.

Since taking office in January, Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk have gone on a cost-cutting drive that has resulted in the gutting and attempted dismantling of various agencies and the layoffs of over 200,000 federal workers.

The Trump administration also sought to shut down Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, whose news broadcasts are funded by the government. A federal judge ordered the Trump administration in late April to halt those efforts.

Thursday's order by Trump also aims to suspend indirect funding for NPR and PBS by asking the CPB to ensure "that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use federal funds for NPR and PBS."

The CPB sued the White House on Monday after Trump sought to fire three of its five board members. The nonprofit corporation was created by Congress in 1967 and provides funding for more than 1,500 locally managed public radio and TV stations.

Several media outlets have reported the White House plans to ask Congress to rescind $1.1 billion in funding for the CPB, with the amount being two years' worth of funding.

NPR has more than 900 employees, according to its website. The exact employee count at PBS was not immediately clear though a media report said it had over 550 staffers at the end of 2022. [source]

Great!  Let rich Leftists like George Soros, Oprah, most of Hollywood, most of professional sports stars, etc. fund it. If they want those media organizations to still exist, no-one is stopping them from supporting them.

Along the same lines...

• PBS Sues Trump, Claims 'Viewpoint Discrimination'
• House Republicans Move to Defund NPR
• NPR CEO Refuses To Negotiate With Trump as Network Sues President Over Defunding
• Trump Defunds NPR And PBS: ‘No Media Outlet Has A Constitutional Right To Taxpayer Subsidies’
• Promoting an Ideology
• NPR and PBS dug their own graves. Taxpayers tired of the bias
• NPR Is Under The Delusion It Has A Constitutional Right To Your Money

The agreement paradox: Reducing political polarization through disagreement

From Lucian Gideon Conway III on Christian Post.com (Apr. 1, 2023):

In case you hadn’t noticed, America is a bit of a mess right now.

The country is as polarized as it has been for a long, long time. In most scientific studies of worldwide increases in polarization, the United States ranks at or near the top. Americans have taken note: Recent polls show that polarization is consistently listed as a main concern among the U.S. populace. Lots of Americans are looking around and wondering “why the heck are all these groups shouting at each other all the time?”

How do we get out of this quagmire? Psychology research suggests a somewhat surprising answer to our dilemma: The way out of our polarized society is to stop caring so much about polarization.

The seduction of forced agreement

To see why that is, let’s start with a psychological fact: Disagreement bothers us. That’s why people love words like “together” and “unity” and hate words like “torn asunder” and “divorce.” Our ideal worlds are generally not populated with separation from others. Thus, it is hardly surprising that psychological research shows we have a fundamental need to belong. We want to fit in, and agreement is one of the main ways we do that.

These motives to agree with others are often healthy. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get along. There is nothing wrong with wanting to belong to a group. We were made for fellowship.

However, ironically, this desire for agreement — when given a too-exalted place — can undermine the very thing it is trying to create. Often, we feel so strongly that we want agreement that we put top-down pressures to force agreement. We want everyone to agree with us about vaccines, so we force everyone to say the same thing. We want everyone to agree with us about religion, so we force people to say only one point of view.

But this kind of forced agreement, even when done with good motives, is a disaster for society. Research sheds some light on why this is the case. As Stanley Milgram’s and Solomon Asch’s classic research taught us, to a surprising degree, people comply with social pressure. If you try and force people to agree, it generally works. But while pressure creates superficial agreement, it also causes two other things to happen simultaneously.

First, even if people comply, they are really upset at being told what to do. This is what psychologists call reactance. People don’t like their freedom being taken away, and pressure to agree does exactly that. Second, people who observe the forced agreement believe it is artificial, something our lab calls informational contamination. If I believe you said you agreed with vaccine mandates only because you were forced to, I don’t trust your stated belief. And this interferes with our ability to come to anything like real common ground. Ironically, in forcing agreement, we cut off the actual potential for genuine and meaningful agreement to grow. In the place of potentially solid ground, the forced agreement provides a psychologically contaminated, shifting sand upon which it is hard to build anything lasting.

That’s partially where we are now. We’ve increasingly responded to our divisions by trying to bludgeon the other side into some kind of forced agreement. The results have been disastrous. Divisive figures like Donald Trump weren’t the cause of our disagreements; they were the symptoms of forced agreement. Even people who agree with the side being pushed upon the populace lose faith in their own side when they feel the agreement is forced. This isn’t sustainable long-term. If we keep trying to bludgeon the other side into an agreement then we’ll find there really is no “there” at the end of that road — for either side.

The better road: Love does not equal agreement

Fortunately, this paradoxical psychological analysis implies a very straightforward solution to our problem: Let’s stop caring so much that we all disagree. If we stop obsessing over the fact that we are polarized, we will become less polarized. A desire for agreement partially got us into this mess, and a tolerance for disagreement can get us out of it. Rather than trying to agree, we should vigorously disagree without fear.

Of course, I don’t mean that we should disagree hatefully. The very fact that many readers will assume I’m suggesting an all-out, rage-filled, free-for-all illustrates part of our problem. That’s because somewhere along the way, we got it into our heads that love and agreement are inseparable. It is often hard for us to imagine loving someone that we disagree with. Because of this implicit psychological overlap between agreement and love, it is natural to assume that when I say we need more disagreement, I mean we need more hate. To us, love equals agreement. And in fact, psychological research suggests that’s exactly how we behave, an effect so strong that it has been given its own name: The Similarity-Attraction Effect (SAE).

But a moment’s reflection shows that “love = agreement” is a lie. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Love doesn’t end where agreement ends. Love begins where agreement ends. It is easy to “love” someone who agrees with you, who validates yourself and your place in the world. True love involves fully disagreeing with someone and loving them anyway.

That’s probably why Jesus Christ spends a striking amount of time talking about loving people from whom we get no benefit. You see, we are prone to falling into the SAE trap. Jesus says in Luke 6:32, “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you?” Applied to our present case, this suggests we need to separate out the benefits we get from agreement from the duty we have to love others. What we really need is to separate loving our neighbor from agreeing with our neighbor.

But note both sides of this separation. You should be kind to your enemies, but it is fine to disagree with your enemies. Jesus didn’t say “pretend your enemies agree with you.” One doesn’t have to read very far into the New Testament to realize that a large percentage of the Bible heroes disagreed vigorously with their enemies.

Realizing this is freeing. We need to resist the subtle psychological lie that a stable relationship, a stable family, or a stable society means that we have to agree on everything. In fact, that is dishonest and unproductive. Our society was originally formed on a better principle: The acknowledgment that disagreements are inevitable and often healthy. The founding fathers weren’t so much trying to create a world where everyone agreed as they were trying to provide a stable mechanism where people could disagree as much as they liked, but where we could vigorously work out our disagreements in the public sphere. That’s what separates America from almost everywhere else. And what the country really needs is to get back to that, to release the valve that says, “we must all agree” and instead foster more and more respectful disagreement.

So, I say, disagree more. Disagree vigorously. Disagree passionately and with conviction. But, as Jesus admonishes, love those who are your enemies. Disagree respectfully. Disagree fairly. You do not have to pretend your enemies are your friends. That’s the opposite of what it takes to create a healthy society. Rather, embracing the fact that you’re disagreeing with them is okay — and their disagreement with you is okay, too.

You may not change the entire world by doing so. You may not change your country or even your city. But it is certain that you can make an impact in the small circles you travel in by engaging in principled, respectful, and fair disagreement — and by not freaking out when others disagree with you. And who knows? If enough of us do that, maybe we will move the country onto a better road, a road that doesn’t end with the kind of polarization that truly is past the point of no return. [source]

Instead of coercion, maybe try persuasion too? But that takes time and energy which the Ruling Class doesn’t want to deal with. Using fear and lying is much quicker. Forced agreement is also a sign of insecurity.

Dulce et Decorum Est: In Defense of Healthy Patriotism

From The Public Discourse.com (May 22):

None of us is an independent agent surfing a private island in time. Each of us belongs to a much larger continent of human experiences stretching backward over centuries, experiences that situate us within a network of home, family, clan, tribe, friends, country, religion.

These things tug on our emotions. They demand our fidelity, and rightly so. In large measure, they make us who we are. They give us the context for our lives. When the poet Horace wrote his famous line Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s homeland,” he put into words what the Roman people yearned to believe: that their struggle to survive and thrive in the ancient world had meaning.

…………..

Consider: In A.D. 778, rear elements of the army of Charlemagne were ambushed by Basque warriors and their Muslim masters. The engagement took place at Roncevaux Pass in the Pyrenees, near the border of what are now Spain and France. Over time, it passed into legend. In the mid-eleventh century, one thousand years ago, traveling minstrels began telling the story of a great Frankish warrior from the Roncevaux Pass battle. His name was Roland. The poem that bears his name, La Chanson de Roland (the Song of Roland), has many scenes. But the most famous recounts his heroic stand against a fierce and much larger enemy.

In the poem, Roland is revered by his king and loved by his men, for both his warrior prowess and his noble character. Thus he’s trusted with the crucial task of covering the rear of Charlemagne’s army of Franks. The army is retiring to rest in France after fighting in Spain against its Muslim conquerors. A resentful nobleman betrays him. The Muslim force learns that Roland’s men are vulnerable. They set a trap and attack. But Roland and his men, united in a brotherhood of arms, fight courageously. They ensure the safety of Charlemagne’s main body of men.

As the battle wears on, the size of the enemy force weighs against the valor of Roland and his men. In the end, enemy warriors overrun them. Only in the final moments does Roland blow his great horn Oliphant. The mountainsides echo with the sound. Charlemagne, alerted, returns to crush the enemy. But he arrives too late to save Roland and his men. They’ve given their lives, faithful to their duty.

…………

The Song of Roland captures an enduring truth about the human condition: The things we’re willing to die for are tied to what we hold as sacred. In fact, the willingness to die for something also consecrates it as sacred.

Many students who’ve gone through U.S. higher education in recent years have been taught to be skeptical of patriotism. A critical, and often poisonously cynical spirit has undermined a great deal of modern life, including the nation. At the same time, a naïve kind of globalist utopianism has grown. It promises a new solidarity transcending national borders. But it’s a “solidarity” as shallow as it is wide. A peculiar free-market ideology is married to this globalist dreaming. It asks us to see ourselves almost solely in economic terms. It reduces us to stateless, homeless consumers, not citizens.

We do need to be wary of excessive national pride. It has caused great harm in the modern era. A nation can become so corrupt and Babylon-like that it’s not worth defending, and America is no exception. We also need to remember that the nation-state, however happily we conceive it, is distinct from, and finally less important than, the purpose of our life in this world. Man’s purpose is to know and love God. We should never imagine our citizenship in any nation as sufficient. Our true and lasting commonwealth is in heaven, and therein lies our real citizenship (Phil 3:20)

Thus, in civic affairs, zealotry for one’s country can be a vice. But there’s also a vice called indifference. And today, in America, we suffer from a media-driven culture that feeds this indifference while simultaneously aggravating divisions. A distorted emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism at the expense of communion and unity discourages any particular loyalty to the nations that constitute the West.

…………

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori may be too sweeping a claim for many in the twenty-first century to accept, or even to understand. But we need a healthy patriotism. We need to entertain the possibility that love for our country might lead us to sacrifice greatly, even radically, in order to preserve the best that remains in it. That love is not an evil. It’s a source of liberation. It breaks the bonds of our addiction to lesser things. It leads us to stand as brothers, sisters, and friends with others. Fidelity to the good in our nation is not our final end. It doesn’t deliver us from sin and death. It doesn’t have an absolute claim on our souls. It doesn’t replace our hunger for heaven. [read more]

Can’t Make This Up… New York State Is Now Mandating “Stargazing Permits” For Looking At The Sky

From The Gateway Pundit.com (Jan. 29, 2020):

Imagine this: You’re out with your family in one of the parks in New York state where you can actually see the stars when it gets dark. You look up in the sky, see a constellation, and you point upwards to show your kids. Along comes a park ranger demanding to see your Stargazing Permit, and issues you a citation because you didn’t know you needed such a permit.

That’s right, the state of New York is now demanding us peasants give them money so we can look up at the sky.

Unsurprisingly, the only two regimes to ever regulated stargazing have been the inquisition and @NYGovCuomo

— Sal the Agorist (@SallyMayweather) January 22, 2020

This is totally a real thing, as it shows up on the state’s permitting for “Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation” schedule:

STARGAZING PERMIT

Requirements:

Fee of $35.00, $60-Out of State –Vehicle Registration and Driver’s License Required

• Permit allows after sunset parking for stargazing only,valid January 1 -December 31at:
• Hither Hills -Except July & August
• Jones Beach -West End 2 and Field 6
• Montauk Point –Upper Parking Lot
• Robert Moses -Field 2
• Gov. Alfred E. Smith/Sunken Meadow -Field1 & Field 3
• Wildwood –Main Parking Lot

Sold at:Babylon Headquarters-Permit Office (beginning January 2nd), Jones Beach, Montauk Downs, Robert Moses, Governor Alfred E. Smith/Sunken Meadow and Wildwood

StargazingPermits are only sold January 1 –March 31 and the Tuesday after Labor Day -December 31.

They also make you buy a permit if you want to dive into the water. It’s the “regional diving permit” and it costs $80 for in-state residents and $125 for out-of-state. Want to run your metal detector over the dirt? Fork over $40, you peon, or end up in jail!

Even Neil deGrasse Tyson chimed in:

No. Back in the day, you didn’t need permission to look up at the sky.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 22, 2020

Free Thought Project adds:

Others are defending the permit in the thread, claiming that it allows people to enter the “closed parks” after hours. But they are clearly missing the point. If you can enter the park with a permit, then it’s not “closed” at all. It’s opened to anyone willing to be extorted or who can afford it. Those who are unable to pay the government or choose not to do so for the exact same activity will be arrested and or further extorted.

Now for the irony and blatant statist hypocrisy. If you want to go after dark to look at stars on state land that you paid for through your tax dollars, you have to pay the government more money for a permit. However, if the government wants to take the most sacred land in the state and put a telescope on it to look at the stars, this is fine and dandy. If you try to protest the government’s construction of star gazing equipment on your sacred land, you can and will be kidnapped and caged.

Case in point: Mauna Kea’s summit is the most sacred of all the mountains in Hawaii to many of the indigenous people. In July, when those people showed up to protest the desecration of their land with the Thirty-Meter Telescope, dozens were arrested.

The libertarian anarchists are having a field day with this.

https://twitter.com/colovion/status/1220007044385656832

https://twitter.com/Man_Andres_/status/1219976148677021697

https://twitter.com/StevenSurizon/status/1220074471228432385

You're not far off – the whole set of US and State Supreme court cases affirming rights to film police was due to officer Ralph Goar accosting an insomniac nighttime birdwatcher, in the act of – birdwatching – and charging him w/ felony wiretapping for recording the accostation.

— Dan Quixoté (@DanQuixot1) January 22, 2020

https://twitter.com/CrystalClearGa2/status/1220374795369504774

So what happens when an illegal alien wants to look up at the sky, and can’t get the permit because he doesn’t have proper ID? ACLU would no doubt sue the state for millions, and the taxpayers would be on the hook for it. [source]

Dumb law.

Cars are collecting data on par with Big Tech, watchdog report finds

From NBC News.com (Sept. 6, 2023):

An internet and privacy watchdog has a warning: Your car is tracking you, and it’s collecting far more information than it needs just to get you where you’re going.

Mozilla, the nonprofit that develops the Firefox browser, released a report Wednesday detailing how the policies of more than two dozen car manufacturers allow for the collection, storage and sale of a wide range of sensitive information about auto owners.

Researchers behind the report said that cars now routinely collect data on par with tech companies, offer few details on how that data is stored and used, and don’t give drivers any meaningful way to opt out.

“Cars are a humongous privacy nightmare that nobody’s seemingly paying attention to,” said Jen Caltrider, who directs Privacy Not Included, a consumer privacy guide run by Mozilla. “And they’re getting away with it. It really needs to change because it’s only going to get worse as cars get more and more connected.”

Unlike Europe, the U.S has few meaningful regulations on how companies trade and store personal data. That’s led to a bustling industry of companies that buy and sell people's information, often without their knowledge.

Carmakers have a long list of personal information they say they may track, including employment and purchasing history, education, internet browsing history, location data, music and podcast listening habits, immigration status, religious and philosophical beliefs and health information.

Six of the manufacturers say they can collect “genetic information” or “genetic characteristics,” thought it’s unclear how. All but four of the car manufacturers say they can or do sell at least some of their customers’ data.

Nissan’s policy says “sexual activity” is an example of the type of sensitive information it can collect. Kia’s mentions “sex life or sexual orientation.”

Nissan did not respond to a request for comment.

A Kia spokesperson said that the company does not actually collect its users’ sex life information, and that it includes that language in its privacy policy because it was part of the list of examples of “sensitive information” under California law. The spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for a full list of what types of sensitive personal information Kia does collect.

Other manufacturers indicated they have lower standards than legally necessary for sharing users’ information with police.

As a rule, U.S. companies turn over information to police if they are compelled to do so by a warrant or court order, and car manufacturers are no exception. But Hyundai’s explanation of its policies goes significantly further, saying it may turn over customer data simply because a police officer or government official asks for it.

Hyundai can share user information “as part of an investigation or request, whether formal or informal, from law enforcement or a government official,” it says.

It’s unclear how much money car companies make from selling or trading the personal information on their users. But the privacy policies reflect an industry that has become awash in user data — especially location data, which can be incredibly useful for companies looking to track people’s habits — but is unequipped to handle it all, Caltrider said.

“These car companies are becoming like tech companies, but they don’t have any idea what they’re doing,” she said. “They’re like, ‘data, let’s get it all.'”

It’s also practically impossible for a car owner to not be part of this practice, Caltrider said. Tesla, for instance, is the only manufacturer surveyed that gives customers a meaningful option to not share their data. But Tesla’s data opt-out policy warns users that doing so may end many features and “may result in your vehicle suffering from reduced functionality, serious damage, or inoperability.”

“Consumers can’t do anything,” Caltrider said. “Usually we tell consumers to shop with their dollars. Now I’m just going to scream for the policymakers and regulators to get in the act because we’re already too late.” [source]

So, Big Car is watching you now? Doesn't sound good.

Beautiful: President Trump Sends Special Surprise Birthday Message to 104-year-old WWII Veteran After Viral Party Invite (Video)

From The Gateway Pundit.com (May 16):

World War II veteran Denver Moore just turned 104 years old and he invited a special guest to celebrate his birthday.

In TikTok video that went viral with over almost 900,000 views, Mr. Moore invited President Donald to help his celebrate the big day.

Moore, a longtime supporter of the president shared, “President Trump, my name is Denver Moore and I’m gonna be 104 in May, and I’m inviting you to my birthday party, the 17th here in Canal Fulton,” he shared in the viral video.

“I’m living in a rest home called Danbury and I got to vote for you again, and I hope I can vote for you some more.”

President Trump responded with a message for Mr. Moore to help make his birthday special.

“Hi, Denver!” Trump shared in a video message.

“I want to wish you a very happy 104th birthday from your all-time favorite president. That’s me, Donald Trump.”

“And I’m sorry we weren’t able to get to your party. I would love to get to your party, but I’m working on Russia, Ukraine, China, and all sorts of other places, and I know you want us to do well.”

“But I want just to thank you for your incredible service to our nation and for your support for making America great again. A very, very special man you are, and happy birthday,” he added.

Mr. Moore, who lives in Massillon, Ohio, reacted to the message with News 5 Cleveland.

Birthday cards can be sent to Denver Moore, resident of Danbury Senior Living, PO Box 2631, North Canton OH 44720. [source]

It was a nice gesture from President Trump to take time out of his busy day to record this happy birthday video.

Trump: India, Pakistan Agree to 'Full, Immediate Ceasefire'

From Newsmax.com (May 10):

President Donald Trump hailed the reaching of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan on Saturday following U.S.-led talks to end the most serious military confrontation between the nuclear-armed rivals in decades.

"After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE," Trump wrote Saturday morning on Truth Social.

"Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

India and Pakistan confirmed the ceasefire deal following U.S. mediation.

Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven major industrialized democracies have issued a statement calling for the "immediate de-escalation'' of hostilities between India and Pakistan.

The ministers condemned the April 22 attack by militants in the Indian-controlled section of Kashmir that triggered the current outbreak of violence, while warning that further escalation threatened regional stability.

"We are deeply concerned for the safety of civilians on both sides," the ministers said in a joint statement released Saturday. "We call for immediate de-escalation and encourage both countries to engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the quick resolution for a ceasefire and vows to meet for long-term peace talks.

"Over the past 48 hours, Vice President Vance and I have engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik," Rubio wrote to Newsmax in a statement.

"I am pleased to announce the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.

"We commend Prime Ministers Modi and Sharif on their wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace."

The ceasefire deal follows weeks of clashes, missile, and drone strikes across their borders that were triggered by a gun massacre of tourists last month that India blames on Pakistan, which denies the charge. Dozens of civilians have been killed on both sides.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar announced the ceasefire on Geo News. He said Saudi Arabia and Turkey played an important role in facilitating the deal.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said the head of military operations from both countries spoke Saturday afternoon.

"It was agreed between them that both sides would stop all firing and military action on land, and in the air and sea. Instructions have been given on both sides to give effect to this understanding." The top military leaders would speak again on May 12, Misri added.

The deal has brought a swift conclusion to military escalation.

India said it targeted Pakistani air bases early Saturday after Islamabad fired several high-speed missiles at military and civilian infrastructure in the country’s Punjab state. Pakistan said it intercepted most missiles and responded with retaliatory strikes on India.

Earlier Saturday, India's military held a press briefing in New Delhi, saying Pakistan targeted health facilities and schools at its three air bases in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

"Befitting reply has been given to Pakistani actions," Indian Col. Sofiya Qureshi said.

Pakistan's military said it used medium-range Fateh missiles to hit an Indian missile storage facility and air bases in the cities of Pathankot and Udhampur. Army spokesman Lt. Gen. Ahmad Sharif said the country's air force assets were safe following the Indian assault.

Tensions have soared since an attack at a popular tourist site in India-controlled Kashmir left 26 civilians dead, mostly Indian Hindu tourists, on April 22.

They have traded strikes and heavy cross-border fire for days.

Indian missiles Saturday targeted Nur Khan air base in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad, Murid air base in Chakwal city and Rafiqui air base in the Jhang district of eastern Punjab province, according to Pakistan's military spokesman.

There were no immediate reports of the strike or its aftermath from residents in the densely populated Rawalpindi.

Pakistanis celebrated their army's missile launches on India.

"Thank God we have finally responded to Indian aggression," said Muhammad Ashraf, who had gone out in Lahore for breakfast. There were jubilant scenes in Peshawar and Karachi.

Following the announcement of Pakistani retaliation, residents in Indian-controlled Kashmir said they heard loud explosions at multiple places, including the two big cities of Srinagar and Jammu and the garrison town of Udhampur.

"Explosions that we are hearing today are different from the ones we heard the last two nights during drone attacks," said Shesh Paul Vaid, the region’s former top police official and Jammu resident. "It looks like a war here."

Vaid said explosions were heard from areas with military bases, adding it appeared that army sites were targeted. Residents living near Srinagar city’s airport, which is also an air base, said they were rattled by the explosions and booming sound of jets.

"I was already awake, but the explosions jolted my kids out of their sleep. They started crying," said Srinagar resident Mohammed Yasin, adding he heard at least two explosions.

Buildings were destroyed or damaged in Indian-controlled Kashmir, where powerful blasts ripped off roofs, windows and walls and left homes riddled with holes.

Villagers and rescuers in a district of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir sifted through the rubble of homes hit by overnight Indian shelling on Friday as people carried the dead. Others surveyed the ruins. [source]

Good to read!  Peace is always better than war. Those two countries, it seems, has  always been quarreling. Maybe, one day they'll get along or at least tolerate one another.

Making Mice with Two Fathers: Science Is Never Value Neutral

From John Stonestreet on Breakpoint.org (Mar. 30, 2023):

In the biblical account of the Tower of Babel, God states, after examining humanity’s ambitious but misguided building project, that “nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.” His reason for confusing their languages and halting their project was not anger. Rather, God states that working together like this, humans can achieve, at least here on Earth, a godlike power. Things that seem impossible can become possible, and for fallen people, that’s a problem. Inevitably, like the builders of Babel, humans use their incredible capacity to “make a name for ourselves” to do what should not be done and to rebel against God’s design and purpose for His world.

I thought immediately of Babel when I saw headlines this month about a team of scientists who created living baby mice with two biological fathers. The Japanese team behind this seemingly impossible feat described their work in the journal Nature.

After harvesting skin cells from the tails of two male mice, they converted them to “induced pluripotent stem cells,” cells able to differentiate into any type of tissue in the body. The scientists treated these stem cells with a drug that transformed them into female cells. These, in turn, produced functional eggs that the team fertilized and implanted into female mice. Eventually—after a 99% failure rate—these pregnancies resulted in a few live mice pups that had two genetic fathers and no mother. The pups survived, grew, and even reproduced normally.

As the Associated Press put it, saying the quiet part out loud, “This raises the distant possibility of using the same technique for people.” The scientists behind the project got more specific, remarking that their work might “provide a template” for male same-sex couples “to have biological children, while circumventing the ethical and legal issues of donor eggs.”

Let’s put aside for a moment the terrifyingly laughable idea that there are “ethical issues” with donor eggs but not with eliminating mothers altogether in reproduction. Science writers have long predicted this breakthrough as a dream come true for those who view normal reproductive biology as something to be “circumvented.” Even if the huge failure rate and serious inefficiency of the method means that it is likely many years from being an available option for humans, the proof of concept is there, as is a whole set of social incentives. It is, apparently, possible to produce live offspring from two individuals of the same sex in mammalian species.

At a moment like this, it is tempting to quote the late science fiction author Michael Crichton, or at least the film adaptation of his novel Jurassic Park. In that movie, Jeff Goldblum’s character famously observes, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” His point is simply that science can only answer “how” questions. It can never give you a “why.” It can discover techniques but never teach ethics.

That does not mean, however, that science or scientific breakthroughs are value neutral. In his book The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis wrote these immortal lines:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

He was writing specifically here about Subjectivism, a movement that sought to eliminate value judgements from education. They also apply eerily well to the Babel-like project of eliminating one sex from reproduction. The question we must ask is simple: Why? Why are we investigating this technology, what is its therapeutic purpose, and will it make us more human, or less?

In theory, we can now bring human children into existence who have no biological mothers. Should we? Are mothers incidental to the life of a child, easily replaced by a “second father” in order to accommodate the sexual and relational wants of adults, or are they essential? We can ask the same of fathers. In short, does human life and the human family have a definition, an identity, a given structure? Or are they infinitely malleable, putty in the gloved hands of scientists who are so preoccupied with whether they can, they don’t stop to ask if they should? 

None of these are scientific questions. And to be clear, they apply to all kinds of social, legal, and cultural innovations about marriage too. Every time we reinvent, replace, expand, or otherwise redefine marriage and parenting, kids suffer. Yet, the same wrong answers to these questions are guiding scientific projects to manipulate cells with the goal of fundamentally altering human reproduction.

By denying any God-given “ought” for sex and procreation, we are building a new scientific Babel. Through the shared language and technique of science, we may indeed prove that nothing is impossible for us. But as Lewis observed, we may find that in the process we have engineered away our humanity, replacing the love and complementarity our biology signifies with cold, cynical technique. Lewis called these efforts “the abolition of man.” In light of the increasingly likely possibility of children without mothers, we may as well re-label it “the abolition of woman.” [source]

Why do this experiment? Other than to prove, at least theoretically, that same-sex couples can have a baby. But was it really successful experiment after it failed 99% of the time even with a chemical added? I would think not. There’s a reason the experiment failed: It’s unnatural.

Any same-sex couple contemplating doing this Frankenstein-like experiment in the future with themselves is either stupid or evil. Maybe, both. Besides, who knows what kind of biological issues those adult mice would have in the future.

It’s too bad those Japanese scientists couldn’t have done experiments to benefit humanity.

The experiment was stupid and a complete waste of time and resources.

“Explaining Postmodernism” book excerpts

Postmodern cultural themes … in turn inform our more specific cultural debates.

1. Whether the Western canon of great books is a distillation of the best of the West and reflective of a multi-faceted debate—or whether it is ideologically narrow, exclusive, and intolerant.
2. Whether Christopher Columbus was a modern hero, bringing two worlds together to their mutual benefit—or whether he was an insensitive, smugly superior point man for European imperialism, bringing armed force that rammed European religion and values down indigenous cultures’ throats.
3. Whether the United States of America is progressive on liberty, equalities, and opportunities for everyone—or whether it is sexist, racist, and class-bound, e.g., using its mass market pornography and glass ceilings to keep women in their place.
4. Whether our ambivalence over affirmative action programs reflects a strong desire to be fair to all parties—or whether those programs are merely a cynical bone thrown to women and minorities until they seem to be helping, at which point there is a violent reaction by the status quo.
5. Whether social conflicts should be defused by encouraging the principle that individuals should be judged according to their individual merits and not according to morally irrelevant

……..

[Georg W. F.] Hegel’s place historically is to have institutionalized four theses in nineteenth-century metaphysics.

1. Reality is an entirely subjective creation;
2. Contradictions are built into reason and reality;
3. Since reality evolves contradictorily, truth is relative to time and place; and
4. The collective, not the individual, is the operative unit.

……….

The legacy of the irrationalists for the twentieth century included four key themes:

1. An agreement with [Immanuel] Kant that reason is impotent to know reality;
2. an agreement with Hegel that reality is deeply conflictual and/or absurd;
3. a conclusion that reason is therefore trumped by claims based on feeling, instinct, or leaps of faith; and
4. that the non-rational and the irrational yield deep truths about reality.

………

[Martin] Heidegger offered to his followers the following conclusions, all of which are accepted by the mainstream of postmodernism with slight modifications:

1. Conflict and contradiction are the deepest truths of reality;
2. Reason is subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality;
3. Reason’s elements—words and concepts—are obstacles that must be un-crusted, subjected to Destruktion, or otherwise unmasked;
4. Logical contradiction is neither a sign of failure nor of anything particularly significant at all;
5. Feelings, especially morbid feelings of anxiety and dread, are a deeper guide than reason;
6. The entire Western tradition of philosophy—whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Lockean, or Cartesian—based as it is on the law of non-contradiction and the subject/object distinction, is the enemy to be overcome.

Source: Explaining Postmodernism:  Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault     Expanded Edition (2004) by Stephen R. C. Hicks.

A glimpse into irrational (mad? insane?) minds. An interesting and informative book.

EV Battery Factory in Kansas to be Powered by Coal, At Least Temporarily

From Institute for Energy Research.org (Oct. 4, 2023):

A new electric vehicle battery factory in Kansas needs so much energy that the state is delaying the retirement of a coal plant to make sure the facility has enough power. The $4 billion Panasonic electric vehicle battery factory is located in De Soto, Kansas. Panasonic broke ground on the facility last year. The Japanese company is slated to receive $6.8 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, which has been pouring billions into electric vehicles and battery factories as part of its effort to transition America to electric vehicles. The factory will require between 200 and 250 megawatts of electricity to operate as electric vehicles require enormous amounts of energy to manufacture.

A 15-pound lithium-ion battery holds about the same amount of energy as a pound of oil. To produce that battery requires 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to obtain the minerals that are needed for its manufacture. The average EV battery weighs around 1,000 pounds. The mining and factory processing needed to produce an electric vehicle results in a lot more carbon dioxide emissions than a gas-powered car, so electric vehicles have to be driven around 50,000 to 60,000 miles before there is a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The federal government requires batteries to be warranted for at least 8 years or 100,000 miles. After that, if the batteries need replacing, more energy demand would be required. As more factories are built in the United States to supply EV manufacturers, there will be higher demands on the grid for power.

Besides the energy needed for industrial activity, there will be more demands placed on the grid to charge the electric vehicles. That energy is unlikely to come from solar panels and wind turbines, which are weather-driven and provide power intermittently. While renewables are a source of “auxiliary supplemental power,” they need a solid base load to ensure the reliable energy supply such factories require.

Evergy, the utility serving the factory, indicated that the 4 million-square-foot Panasonic facility creates “near term challenges from a resource adequacy perspective.” Beyond the sheer magnitude of load and load factor, Panasonic’s construction schedule, and, in turn, its energy needs, are being planned on a very aggressive schedule. With energy needs starting to ramp in 2024 and full load requirements by 2026, there is urgency to procure capacity and energy to fulfill the expected energy usage schedule. As a result, the utility will continue to burn coal at a power plant near Lawrence, Kansas, until at least 2028, delaying plans to transition units at the plant to natural gas. [read more]

Coal is more reliable and consistent than wind or solar. If not coal maybe the factory can be powered by a nuclear power plant? Just a thought.

H/T: Just the News article:

Tim Stewart reacts to Kansas EV factory’s reliance on coal plant: ‘No such thing as net zero’

Trump Announces 'Full and Comprehensive' Trade Deal With UK

From Newsmax.com (May 8):

President Donald Trump announced in an Oval Office ceremony Thursday that the US and UK have reached an agreement on trade and tariffs.

Trump has agreed to cut tariffs on U.K. autos, steel, and aluminum in the deal with Britain, which would buy more American beef and streamline its customs process for goods from the United States.

The symbolically resonant agreement still has yet to be finalized, but it suggested that Trump was still able to negotiate with other countries after his vast set of tariffs stoked fears around the world of an economic downturn and higher inflation.

The announcement provided a political victory for U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and offered a degree of validation for Trump's claims that his turbulent approach on trade may be able to rebalance the global economy on his preferred terms.

Trump talked up the agreement to reporters from the Oval Office, even as the fine print remains in flux.

“The final details are being written up,” Trump told reporters. “In the coming weeks, we’ll have it all very conclusive.”

The president said that the agreement would lead to more beef and ethanol exports to the U.K., which would also streamline the processing of U.S. goods though customs. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the baseline 10% tariffs would stay in place, while U.K. officials said that Trump's auto tariffs would go from 27.5% to 10% on a quota of 100,000 vehicles and the import taxes on steel and aluminum would go from 25% to zero.

Starmer, speaking over the phone to Trump, stressed the importance of the relationship between the two countries as the anniversary of the World War II victory in Europe was being commemorated.

“To be able to announce this great deal on the same deal 80 years forward, almost at the same hour and as we were 80 years ago with the U.K. and the U.S. standing side by side, I think is incredibly important,” Starmer said.

"It's a very big deal right now," Trump told reporters.

The deal affirms that "reciprocity and fairness is a vital principle of international trade" and increases access for U.S. agricultural products, Trump said.

It also fast tracks American goods through the U.K.'s customs process, Trump said.

"They’re opening up the country," Trump said. "The country is a little closed."

Earlier Thursday, Trump said it would be a full and comprehensive one, amid expectations the two countries would soon sign a trade deal.

Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that it would be the first of many but provided no further details.

"Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY," Trump wrote. "THE FIRST OF MANY!!!"

"The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come," he added.

"Because of our long time history and allegiance together, it is a great honor to have the United Kingdom as our FIRST announcement. Many other deals, which are in serious stages of negotiation, to follow!" he said. [source]

More winning!  Nice.

More articles on the deal:

• Trump, Starmer herald limited US-UK trade deal, but 10% duties remain
• Trump confirms major trade deal with UK: ‘Very big and exciting day’

Trump Directs Spy Satellites to Surveil US-Mexico Border

From Newsmax.com (Mar. 27):

The Trump administration has directed two intelligence agencies to train their satellite surveillance capabilities on the U.S.-Mexico border region as part of a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration and drug cartels.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which are part of the Department of Defense, oversee spy satellites and analyze imagery for the Pentagon and other intelligence organizations.

Their engagement, coupled with troop deployments, shows increasing militarization of the southern border, where President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency.

Reuters could not determine whether the effort, which has not been previously reported, would gather imagery of U.S. territory.

Asked by Reuters about their roles in border surveillance, the NGA said it had created a task force to coordinate its "support to the U.S. border mission," while the NRO said it was partnering with the intelligence community and Pentagon "to secure U.S. borders."

Their participation is in response to sweeping executive actions by Trump aimed at stopping unauthorized border trafficking and crossings, as well as deporting those in the United States illegally – estimated to be up to 14 million people.

The White House and Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment. Trump made immigration enforcement a central part of his campaign that catapulted him to the presidency Jan. 20.

While the government has deployed artificial intelligence and drone surveillance at the border for years, the latest initiative seeks to expand the use of military capabilities generally built for conflict overseas.

The government could use AI to identify objects or persons of interest by sifting through satellite images and other data feeds, much like the Defense Department can do on the battlefield, said two sources familiar with the initiative.

Though Reuters could not determine the exact scope of this effort, the new focus on the border could force the administration to grapple with safeguards against collecting intelligence on Americans, three experts said.

While laws generally restrict U.S. spy agencies from surveilling citizens and other legal residents, they allow immigration authorities to conduct physical searches "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States." Regulations have defined this as 100 air miles from the border – an area including cities such as San Diego and El Paso.

"If they follow the law, these agencies should only collect on the other side of the border in foreign territory," said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who specializes in national security and privacy law. "But how they implement that, and if they do, are legitimate oversight questions."

A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the government's lead unit for integrating spy efforts, told Reuters that all intelligence activities are "legal and authorized" and conducted "in a manner that protects the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. persons."

The NGA and NRO declined to detail what they are collecting and whether such surveillance could include U.S. territory, citing the need to protect operational details. The NGA works on a wide array of efforts including mapping features of the Earth and informing commanders of the exact location of U.S. forces and adversaries.

Reuters could not ascertain whether any other U.S. intelligence agencies would be involved in the effort. The Central Intelligence Agency has no role in domestic immigration enforcement. "Once foreign criminals are inside the United States, they are not within the purview of the CIA," a third source said. [read more]

Interesting. Hope it helps with monitoring the border Better than spying on Americans.

How Israel Lured Iran's Top Generals to Their Deaths Will Blow Your Mind

From Red State.com (June 18):

As of Wednesday, the Israeli operation to destroy Iran's nuclear program and its ballistic missile capabilities continued apace, with launchers and production facilities becoming prime targets.

In perhaps the most dominant, decisive show of military force this century, the IDF managed to gain air superiority in the first three days of strikes and has been able to loiter over Tehran without consequence. I'm not sure enough people truly appreciate how insane it is that the Israelis have not lost a single plane yet. Once again, the incredible gulf between American and Russian military technology is being laid bare. To say Iran was a paper tiger would be an insult to paper tigers.

With that said, we are learning some stunning details about how things got to this point. In the early hours of the war, it was reported that dozens of top Iranian military leaders were taken out in a single strike, and how that strike came to be is just as incredible as the result. According to a new report, the subterfuge used to get all those IRGC generals into a single bunker is like something right out of a spy novel.

Amit Segal told the Call Me Back podcast on Monday: “What Israel did was create a fake phone call for 20 members of the air force senior staff an calling them to a specific bunker in Tehran.”

This meant there was no one to give the order to fire the initial salvo of 1,000 ballistic missiles as Iran had previously threatened to do, he added.

The added bonus for the Israelis was that Iranian military leadership was essentially crippled from the moment of Israel’s first strike against the world’s top sponsor of terrorism.

As The Chronicle reported, Mossad had used “falsified communications through Iranian channels” to call the meeting — which successfully lured “the entire senior leadership of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, including Commander General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, his deputies, and key technical personnel, into a fortified bunker outside Tehran.”

Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, infiltrated Iranian backchannels and then placed 20 different fake phone calls to IRGC leaders. Those calls instructed them to all meet a reinforced bunker in Tehran, an order none of them questioned. It's safe to speculate that Mossad agents were on the ground to confirm their arrival, and shortly after, the entire place was blown sky-high.

It was a boon for Israel because Iran's command and control structure was crippled. It took almost a day for the Mullahs to finally muster a military response, and by then, the IDF had severely hampered their ballistic missile capabilities. While initial barrages did cause damage, including tragically killing several civilians due to Iran's indiscriminate salvos, in context, they were very ineffective counterstrikes, accomplishing nothing of military value for Iran. 

Still, as impressive as the nuts and bolts of the plot were, it's how thought-out this all was that's truly incredible. It's one thing to place fake calls through Iranian back channels. It's another to have every general who answered the phone fall for the ruse.

How did that happen? The answer lies in how antiquated and authoritarian Iran's military structure was and remains. When you serve at the behest of an Islamic dictator who tortures and kills people who step out of line, you aren't exactly in a position to question an order. When the calls came in to head to the bunker, wondering if things seemed a little suspicious wasn't an option. So all the generals blindly listened.

But weren't there just other leaders ready to step up and carry out the Mullahs' decrees? Not really. Unlike the U.S. military structure, where junior officers are trained and placed in a defined, highly redundant chain of command, Iran's top brass were insular loyalists. With them out of the way, chaos ensued.

Every part of Israel's strike was considered down to the most granular detail. They knew how to trick the generals, but they also knew what the effects would be with enough confidence to risk a full-scale air war with Iran, and all of this occurred on an incredibly tight, fluid timeline. If someone had written a spy novel with these same details, the publisher would have probably said it was too unrealistic. [source]

These assassinations were mind-blowing! Right out of a thriller or spy novel.  Terrorists are dead. This is what happens when you have a true authoritarian leader unlike what the Left believes about President Trump.

Along the same lines...

How Israel Built a Secret Drone Army Inside Iran That Humiliated the Mullahs and Crippled Their Nuclear Program

What's Important?

From Bill O’Reilly on Bill O’Reilly.com (Mar. 29, 2023):

Recent polling shows a disturbing drop in the "what's important" category. Led by younger Americans, religion and patriotism are on the skids. This is NOT a good thing, but understandable in our current culture.

Organized religion has been shrinking for years in the USA, mirroring what happened in Europe in the late 20th century. Two reasons: first, many clerics cannot connect their theology to the modern world. They are essentially boring and disinterested in the actual lives of their congregations. I go to Mass every Sunday.  I know what I'm talking about.

Second, many folks don't believe in right and wrong any longer. They want to do whatever. They reject any judgment of behavior, which is what religion does, with a few exceptions.

On the patriotism front, the collapse of the public schools in many places fosters ignorance and apathy about a citizen's duty. Younger folks now tend to identify with social culture, not a vast nation.

If you don't know history, geography, and political science, why would you have an attachment to your country? Immigrants often love America more than those born here because they know what America provides; they can compare now to then.

Younger Americans, in general, have little frame of reference. They live insulated lives drifting in cyber-space. Some of them are even insulted they have to earn a living. Their collective motto: "where's mine."

Any country is only as strong as the people who live in it.  Our decline is apparent. [source]

It’s sad to see this happening. Maybe, things will change for the better with the youth.

In Mao’s China, They Even Monitored Talking in Your Sleep

From FEE.org (May 18, 2023):

When the recently deceased Canadian folk singer Gordon Lightfoot sang, “I heard you talking in your sleep… from your lips there came that secret I was not supposed to know,” he was talking about marital infidelity.

Not long after Chairman Mao came to power in China, idealistic college students learned that political fidelity to Mao and the Communist Party was the most important virtue they needed to demonstrate. Party or Youth League members were present at every meal and in every dorm room. Historian Frank Dikötter described in his book The Tragedy of Liberation, “These Communists took notes on the day and night behaviour of every student. Even the words of a student talking in his sleep were recorded and considered for political significance.”

Despite the stark lessons of history, Chinese youth are again gravitating towards Mao’s totalitarian gospel, seeing Mao “as a hero who speaks to their despair.” One 23-year-old tech editor explained Mao’s writing “offers spiritual relief to small town youth like me.” An earlier poll found 85 percent believed “Mao’s merits outweigh his faults.”

Sleep is not yet monitored in today’s America, yet some think “thought crimes” should be.

A Chinese-American academic, writing under the pseudonym of Xiao Li, pointed to similarities between Mao’s Cultural Revolution and today’s America. He observed, “The Red Guards of 1968 often came from privileged backgrounds.” These Red Guards, encouraged by Mao, “went out, seeking to root out imaginary class enemies from within.” Li’s father was tormented by bullies “for being descended from counter-revolutionaries”; his work assignment was reduced to picking up cow dung.

Today, Li observed, the West’s “revolutionary vanguard is also made up of young, well-educated people, a disproportionate number hailing from elite educational institutions and working within elite professions” who hunt for “secret racists.”

Li observed a further ominous parallel: “In China, no book, be it about astronomy or sewing patterns, could fail to contain an introduction with fulsome praise for Chairman Mao, complete with quotations from his collected works. Similarly, today [Western] businesses selling anything… feel the need to bend the metaphorical knee to the protesters.”

Before going down this Maoist path any further, we should review where it all began. There was never a honeymoon period; Mao was never a good guy whose revolution went tragically wrong. Mao was always a vicious totalitarian. The loss of tens of millions of lives was not unintended nor unpredictable.

In the 1940s, Yenan (Yan’an) was the epicenter of the Chinese Communist Revolution. In their searing biography of Mao, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday described how young idealistic volunteers were treated in 1943. Mao and his spy chief “devised a blanket accusation,” turning “virtually all the young volunteers into spy suspects.” All these potential “spies” were placed in confinement for “screening.”

Chang and Halliday explained that Mao “went far beyond anything either Hitler or Stalin achieved: he converted people’s colleagues into their jailers, with former colleagues, prisoners and jailers living in the same premises.” Mao’s terror “innovation” resulted in an enormous increase in repression:

In this way, Mao not only drove a massive wedge between people working and living side by side, he greatly enlarged the number of people directly involved in repression, including torture, making the orbit significantly wider than either Stalin or Hitler, who mostly used secret elites (KGB, Gestapo) that held their victims in separate and unseen locales.

The chief product of communism was not goods and services; it was “interrogations—and terrifying mass rallies, at which some young volunteers were forced to confess to being spies and to name others in front of large crowds who had been whipped into a frenzy.”

The dominant emotion produced by communists’ control was “fear,” which Chang and Halliday described as unbearable.

If you were not being interrogated or “hysterically” shouting slogans at rallies, you were “pounded flat at indoctrination meetings.” The few moments you had alone were “consumed… in writing ‘thought examinations.’” Mao’s orders were to “get everybody to write their thought examination, and write three times, five times, again and again … Tell everyone to spill out every single thing they have ever harboured that is not so good for the Party.”

Everyone became an informer, even reporting on themselves. Chang and Halliday related how “everybody was told to write down information passed unofficially by other people—termed “small broadcasts” by the regime.” One revolution veteran reported, “You had to write down what X or Y had said, as well as what you yourself had said which was supposed to be not so good.”

The criteria for “not so good” was “vague,” so “out of fear, people would err on the side of including more.”

Today, American progressives scour tweets for evidence of “small broadcasts.” You might put your job in jeopardy if you like a “not so good” social media post.

Mark Tykocinski, the president of Thomas Jefferson University and dean of its medical college, liked tweets that questioned COVID vaccines, gender reassignment surgery for children, and university diversity offices. Placing no value on freedom of speech, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Susan Snyder informed readers of what she thought were Tykocinski’s transgressions.

On contemporary American college campuses, students are encouraged to call “bias response teams” to denounce other students, professors, and guest speakers. Unlike in Mao’s China, they haven’t yet beaten a professor or speaker to death, but they disrupt speakers and threaten violence.

The Minnesota House has passed a bill that would monitor the speech of citizens for “biased” content alleged to create hate and fear.

Today in America, in light of revelations of government spying on Americans, we hear those who blithely say, “I have nothing to hide.” These individuals have no idea of the freedoms they are forfeiting.

In Mao’s China, Chang and Halliday explained, “The concept of privacy could not be evoked, because a Communist was required to reject the private.” Any sign of resisting reporting was “considered ‘proof’ that the person resisting was a spy, on the specious grounds that: ‘If you are innocent, there should be nothing that cannot be reported to the Party.’”

As Mao’s orders were implemented at one college, a man quipped, “Do we have to write down our pillow talk with our wives at night?” He was soon judged to be a spy, as were all but one of his college’s teaching and administrative staff.

Chang and Halliday reported how Mao broke the bonds of trust and prevented the exchange of views:

By suppressing “small broadcasts,” [Mao] also plugged what was virtually the only unofficial source of information, in a context where he completely controlled all other channels. No outside press was available, and no one had access to a radio. Nor could letters be exchanged with the outside world, including one’s family: any communication from a Nationalist area was evidence of espionage.

Under Mao, independent thinking was dead; “indoctrination and terror turned the lively young volunteers…into robots.”

Irony, satire, and humor were criminalized; these offenses were called “Speaking Weird Words.” Mao wanted robotic machines. Chang and Halliday observed, “He did not want active, willing cooperation (willingness, after all, could be withdrawn). He did not want volunteers. He needed a machine, so that when he pressed the button, all its cogs would operate in unison.” [read more]

Welcome to China’s dark totalitarianism.