Since at least November 18th, the national news has been awash in nightly stories of swarms of drones (aka Unmanned Aerial Systems or UAS) of unknown origin and purpose overflying large swaths of New Jersey, New York City, and other states. Many (most?) of the well-lit drones are as large as cars and buses, and they go dark when approached by aircraft or helicopters of known origin. The phenomenon actually began in December 2023 with serial nightly sightings of drones over Langley Air Force Base in Virgina; such was deemed so intrusive that the Air Force ordered the relocation of an entire fighter wing to another base for the sake of the planes’ and pilots’ safety. And all of this was preceded in late January-early February 2023 by the unusually long and long-unchallenged overflight of Canadian and American airspace by one or more Chinese spy balloons. The U.S. Government refrained from shooting down the high-traversing airship until after it had crossed the North American continent and drifted out over the Atlantic Ocean. Why, and what our government learned from the recovered wreckage, has never been disclosed to the public in any way. So many questions remain unaddressed and unanswered.

To this writer, this phenomenon appears to be preliminary reconnaissance for some kind of pre-emptive military strikes, whether kinetic, cyber, or both, on America, Canada, and perhaps the UK (similar drone swarms have been seen over British military and nuclear sites as well, of late).  Likely what is happening now, at least in part, is known as “ferreting” and/or a “capabilities probe”, efforts aimed at determining what will trigger official responses, what types, how quickly, and how effectively.  That all U.S. federal agencies are acting so abjectly nonchalant — even oblivious — to date in response to what has been occurring for over three weeks may well foreshadow an intentional, knowing complicity in whatever eventually happens. 

Indeed, this may well be a not-so-covert effort to subvert the Trump administration before January 20th or even force it into going to war against one or more foreign powers at a time when our U.S. military is by many accounts both under- and ill-prepared to win any big conflict quickly and decisively. Equally importantly, significant domestic turmoil would be virtually sure to erupt in such event, given how polarized the nation is politically, how chagrined the Democratic Party’s leaders are in the aftermath of November’s elections, and how very anxious all illegal migrant cohorts must be in light of the impending mass deportation planned by the incoming Trump administration. Alarmingly, this evolving matrix of factors could be appraised as making America ripe for widespread destabilization by the O’Biden & Co. regime before Inauguration Day 2025 — reifying the phony charge of “insurrection” levied by Democrats against both Donald Trump and the MAGA movement on account of the fracas that took place in front of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.  

With the disclosure this past week by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General that the FBI had as many as 26 “Confidential Human Sources” present in and among the rallygoers at the U.S. Capitol that day, the question must and will inexorably arise: What will the Democrats do extralegally to maintain their grip on federal executive power past January 20, 2025? A great many inquiring patriotic minds want to know posthaste.  

Addendum: A theory has arisen that these drone swarms are being directed by the U.S. Government for the beneficial prophylactic purpose of scanning for so-called “dirty bombs” emplaced within the U.S. homeland by bad actors of some stripe. If so, one must wonder who these bad actors are and what intelligence has been developed by our governmental agencies to suggest where such bombs may be situated at this time.

Courtesy of The Washington Post

As Donald Trump prepares to assume the office of the U.S. Presidency again in January 2025, buttressed by majorities in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, the leaders of the American far left are reeling, struggling mightily to assign blame wherever they can in the face of their monumental electoral losses earlier this month.   Racism, sexism, misogyny, and related superficial abstractions are all getting big media play as the core reason for America’s electorate decisively rejecting the “progressive” (read Marxist) paradigm and the downstream policies of the O’Biden/Harris regime.   That their overall ideology of open migration, enabling rampant crime without penalty, identity politics (CRT/DEI/ESG), moral and educational chaos (unfettered abortion, transgenderism, sexual indoctrination of minors, abjuring parents’ rights, historical revisionism in schools and colleges), wanton fiscal irresponsibility (both in spending and currency printing), and conscious abdication of America’s superpower roles was not widely embraced by the nation’s voters has come as an epochal shock to their exalted senses of moral and intellectual superiority.  As a matter of history, elitism dies hard, especially when attended by amorality, high narcissism, and a good deal of hysteria.  That the upset has taken place in the America of 2024 so dramatically and without any outbreak of open violence is a source of joy, pride, and great relief.   Everyone sane and sober hopes that it stays that way throughout the upcoming new year.

The far Left in America hates the America conceived by the nation’s founders.  They hate the constitutional republic that designs to limit the scope and extent of federal power and the actions of its minions, the free market economy that democratizes economic decision-making and wealth creation and accumulation, the moral motif holding the individual as sovereign in his/her life and the creation of families, the coherent system for the adjudication of legal guilt and civil accountability under public law, and the independent nation state with all of defined borders, a cohesive culture, a common language, and a consensual morality.   In the far Left’s ideal world, a self-selected elite would rule a single unified global enterprise with centralized  command authority over every element of human endeavor, be it social, educational, economic, fiscal, or political.   

The antidote to this mad drive towards unilateral domination and control is centered in patriotic nationalism.   Ideologues of the far Left hate any nationalism, whether patriotic or imperialistic.  The very notion impinges – nay, shatters — their fantasy of a unified world where everyone is a “global citizen” imbued with a spirit of mutual altruism and humility, eschewing any contrasts of  race, sex, creed, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.   In a word, a world of obedient, complaisant, fungible organic drones – all submissive, faceless, characterless, largely taciturn, and phlegmatic.  “You will own nothing, and you will be happy,” the wealthy German elitist Klaus Schwab has infamously intoned.   His father owned factories in service to the Nazis during World War II.   

Leftists who seek to end nation states often quote Albert Einstein, one the several true genii of the 20^th century:

Nationalism is an infantile disease.  As a citizen of Germany, I saw how excessive nationalism can spread like a disease, bringing tragedy to millions.  I am against any nationalism, even in the guise of mere patriotism.  Privileges based on position and property have always seemed to me unjust and pernicious, as did any exaggerated personality cult.

At the outset, it can be readily appreciated that Einstein’s anti-nationalism view was informed by his own experience of being disowned, denaturalized in, and functionally expelled from his native Germany on the basis of his Jewish ethnicity.   However, nationalism need not perforce be invidious and rejectionist of people on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, or even religion, creed, or sexual preference; the experience of all of the premier nations of the Anglosphere (America, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand) attest to that fact.   What makes American nationalism particularly precious is that it Is based on a foundational philosophy of life and governance that any man or woman can embrace and adhere to regardless of any of their immutable characteristics or even spiritual or lifestyle preferences.   That not all of the rest of the world shares that fact, or even wants to, is what mandates the need for nationalism in the world.  The many nations of the world effectively provide laboratories for the development of “best practices” for life and living in organized society, akin to the American founders’ notion of the role of the several states in the American Union (as per Louis Brandeis, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).   America, starting in 1776 and progressing over time – admittedly by fits and starts, big and small – set a high bar for a shared civil government, civil society, and civil prosperity in one polity that has been remarkably durable for almost a quarter millennium.  And this, despite the many ardent, cynical efforts by the authoritarian far Left over the last half century In America to cleave the nation’s aspirational unity along the fault lines of race, gender, and more recently, gender identification.   The end of nationalism is a sworn objective because it forestalls their ultimate goal of global governance by one transnational but undifferentiated corps of elites.

Nationalism reflects the quintessential realities of human nature.  People feel closest and most comfortable with those who share their core values, mores, language, culture, and worldview.   Can any rational person suggest that any middle-class American living anywhere in our country has as much in common with a Muslim in Iran, a communist in China, or an animist in Sudan as  he or she does with any other fellow, native-born American?  The answer is self-evident.   While an imperialist nationalism requires enemies outside that nation’s borders, patriotic nationalism – the love of one’s nation simply because it is near and dear – does not.   This simple distinction is critical to the advocacy of nationalism as sane, rational, and most conducive to all of peace, internal stability, and prosperity.   Universalism and globalism fly in the face of empirical human history over the course of many millennia.   Utopian notions, as eternally seductive as they are,  must be dismissed with prejudice in every generation. 

But how can the sentiments of such a distinguished man as Albert Einstein — of so noble and universally acknowledged genius, sensitivity, and perspicacity — be dismissed so summarily?   The calculus for this conclusion is actually quite as elegant and easy as the Theory of Relativity. 

Einstein was a physicist and mathematician, with a mind finely attuned to engendering order, precision, and the formulation of absolute laws.   While such a mindset is perfectly matched to  investigating inanimate, non-sentient — i.e., lacking reasoning, emotions, feelings, imagination, and memory — matter and energy, it is wholly unsuited to dealing with the multiple qualitative  complexities of human beings, particularly as and when interacting in organized societies.  Such beings are not reducible by the abstract pretensions of those who would eagerly seek to create some new Socialist Man (and Woman), all effectively fungible – and ultimately expendable.   In a phrase, all human beings instead have unique, intrinsic worth; paramecia, even frogs, do not. 

This points up the fatal flaw of leftists quoting an Albert Einstein on the matter of nationalism — or anyone else not learned in the long political experience of people on planet Earth.   In 1819, British writer and painter William Hazlitt coined a term for such temerity:  Ultracrepidarianism.  It is the practice of attributing an expertise to people with a recognized or advanced knowledge in one field to some other, unrelated field(s) of learning – simply by dint of their esteemed or estimable reputation in the former.   This should not be at all startling:  No one presumes world-class sculptors to be able to design sports-car engines, or Nobel Prize-winning economists to be able to diagnose and treat psychological conditions, or Superbowl-winning football players to be able to calculate ballistic-missile trajectories.   And so, nor should we pay any mind to famous pioneer mathematician/quantum physicists who suggest how distinctive peoples should focus the national direction of their native societies.  

To paraphrase a memorable adage:  Let’s follow The Science™.   A free society needs the spirit of a national patriotism in order to survive and thrive.   The United States of America has had such a spirit from its very inception.  And its future success demands that that continue without any abridgement.  Political scientists call it:  Nationalism.     

Courtesy of LINKED IN, Alan Arturo Zarzar, DDS

Our America dodged a veritable cataclysm on November 5^th when it elected Donald Trump again to be President and accorded the Republican Party majority status in both houses of Congress.  In so doing, the electorate realized the fentanyl-like poison pill being proffered by Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, and the cabal of the Democratic Party’s federal leadership to enable the national suicide of America’s constitutional republic and our still mostly free society.   Not only were the nails of necrotic finality not driven into the lid of the assembled coffin, but the lid itself was decisively lifted off and pushed away.   The body of America as conceived by its Founders now has a real chance again to revive and restore itself, to the benefit of not only its own citizens but all those who prize “I” freedom, prosperity, safety, and security in the world.   It really is a new dawn, fresh with hope and great promise.   Enforcement of the nation’s borders; mass deportation of illegal invaders; the full prosecution of all criminals; reductions in mindless public spending; revitalization of the armed forces; a recalibration of national social mores; a reactivation of national natural energy resources; stabilization of the U.S. dollar; reduced national taxation; and a serious purification, pruning, and paring of federal power and its agencies.  Just to name several salient objectives.  Much can and will be written about all of them, and others, in the coming weeks and months.   

As of January 20, 2025, the clock on the future of America and Western civilization will be reset, but the clouds of uncertainty will still be present, both at home and abroad.  And ominous they shall continue to be, as well.   The forces driving the attempted immolation and deconstruction of America have not been vanquished yet, only shunted aside in the homeland.  All our foreign enemies are still both here and abroad, and so great discernment, resolve, and dedicated effort will be needed to root them out and neutralize them at home and, in the global sphere, stand up to and, as needed, confront them.   China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and their many international proxies will be warily watching how the new America will proceed next year.  They wonder and ponder, “How strong and projective will America be?”  How will they act and respond to further their geopolitical aims?  And, on the domestic front, some of those same proxies (such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as “our own” Antifa and BLM) may well loom as new threats.  And, adding to this witch’s brew of bad actors, what will the extant cadres of MS-13, Trend de Agua, and the several narco-cartels now operating inside our nation do?   Informed speculation suggests:  PLENTY.

While America may reasonably expect the economic climate to improve markedly soon after Trump takes power, to the benefit of all working and retired people, and those seeking work, our civil society will nonetheless face the risk of severe disruptions in response to the actions  Trump & Co. undertake to realize their policy aims of securing the nation and people from the many ills that beset it today.  The Democratic Party and its minions will be aching to obstruct truly most, if not all, of the new administration’s initiatives and efforts, through all of lawfare, usual legislative maneuvering, passive and active resistance by hostile state governors and mayors, street protests and petitioning demonstrations, orchestrated strikes and work stoppages, and even – oh, it’s so very unnerving to imagine, a la 2020’s “Summer of Love”! – organized violence, to include riots, arson, looting, and even killings and assassination.   Prudent citizens will make reasonable plans to protect themselves, their families, and their properties, from any and all such possible mayhem, through the self-provisioning of food, water, medical supplies, energy sources, alternate comms devices, and mutual community support.   Let everyone hope that none of this will be necessary, only an exercise in harmless overcaution and laughable “paranoia”, rather than a savvy prescience.     

Like so many, I will be watching as events unfold in our homeland and around the planet, and I plan to commence commenting again as my information, intuitions, and enduring perspectives merit it.  May all on our Earth be blessed with peace, safety, health, prosperity, and security this holiday season — and long beyond!

MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY HANNUKAH! 

At a commencement speech delivered this past weekend at Howard University, a famous, historically black college, President Biden once again raised the specter of “white supremacy”, affirming his eerie practice of scapegoating on the basis of race in our nation’s political discourse. According to Biden, “[T]he most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy.” Never before in American history has a mainstream-party politician — much less a sitting president of the United States — ever so publicly resorted to a textbook tactic of totalitarian leaders worldwide. Joe Biden is now sounding this trope with almost every speech, in the early run-up to the 2024 national elections. Certainly, this is a portentous, frankly ominous, sign for the future of politics in America, based on the world’s history in the last century or so. This short review is highly instructive:

In apartheid-era South Africa (1948-1994), leaders of the ruling National Party regularly warned white voters of die swart gevaar (“the black peril”) as a means of scaring them into voting Nationalist instead of for either the United Party or the Progressive Party, both of which supported extending the voting franchise in varying degrees beyond just white people to citizens who were black or brown in skin color.  The overwhelming majority of whites voted accordingly, rendering South Africa a virtual parliamentary dictatorship of one party and one white ethnicity (the Afrikaners). Throughout the age of apartheid, there were many governmental abuses of power, against not only blacks, Indians, and Coloreds (mixed-race people of partial white descent) but also whites who would not fully, completely conform to all of the strictures of “separate development.” The certain, increasing minority in the country over time of white South Africans overall, the economic and social pressures of increasing international sanctions, growing violence by and among blacks in their residential townships, and a changing consciousness among some elements of the Afrikaner elites all conspired in the late 1980s to move the National Party leadership to begin dismantling the edifices of racial separation — and thereby avoid a race-based war of catastrophic proportions. While post-1994 South Africa has had, and continues to have, many problems, including some dealing with race and language, a readily looming, internecine civil war is not one of them at this time.

In the America of today, given that the leaders of the Democratic Party — substantially in control of all national political power and vitally aided in remaining so by all of Big Media, Big Tech, Big Banking, Big Corporate, Big Academia, Big Culture, and the Deep State — is demonizing the majority demographic of the domestic populace, can an independent and sovereign republic dedicated to individual rights, equality, the universal rule of law, and federalism survive much longer? It remains to be seen, but through the lens of history the prospects seem rather dim.

Courtesy of Etsy & Maher Ventriloquist Dummy Doll

In late April 2023, NBC’s Chuck Todd interviewed the young Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy (Harvard B.S., Biology; Yale Law School) and challenged his contention that there are only two real genders, claiming that scientific research now shows that gender is actually a “spectrum.” Vivek replied that they’d have to agree to disagree on that. Very cordial of him, to be sure, as a presidential aspirant, but the opportunity to make a much more important point was missed.

Leave it to fellow mid-30s female pundit Lisa Boothe to make that key point for him on May 1st on FOX’s morning show Outnumbered. Here’s what she said, in substance, after viewing the Todd/Vivek video clip, to the stunned silence of her three fellow female commenters and their male guest, a basketball celeb originally from Turkey:

This is about the Truth, the fight for the Truth. There are two genders, no more. This is a test for submission for the Left. If they can get people to accept demonstrable lies, deny basic biology, then they can get you to submit to anything. They own you, and society is then under their control. They will always try to silence you if you speak the Truth. They want us to live in fear of them. But don’t fear them, don’t submit to them. Speak out. Speak the Truth. Resist.

Lisa Boothe, courtesy of Business Insider

Out of the mouth of babes, both literally and figuratively!  Thus and so, there’s genuine hope for the preservation of Individual Liberty and Autonomy in America when folks have the moral courage to speak out with crystal clarity and honesty.  Long ago, George Orwell succinctly nailed it in several famous quips, thusly:

In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Sometimes the first duty of intelligent [people] is the restatement of the obvious.

Every sane, sober-minded person hopes and prays that’s all it will ever take to right our ship of state and preserve America as a sovereign, independent nation and home to a freedom-focused constitutional republic!

In early January 49 BCE, then Roman governor Julius Caesar crossed the river Rubicon with his army, in violation of the Senate’s edict prohibiting the entry of armies into Italy; the Rubicon then marked the northern border of Italy.  In so moving his men under arms across that frontier, Caesar triggered a civil war that resulted in him becoming dictator for life over Rome.  In the modern idiom, the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” suggests that someone is passing a point of no return on a path to intended tyranny.   

Last Thursday evening in Philadelphia, in a campaign speech billed ahead of time as one aimed at unifying Americans in these troubled times, President Biden excoriated “MAGA Republicans” at great length, villainizing them as existential threats to the Constitution, the rule of law, and democracy.  He claimed Trump supporters “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.” He followed with: “[T]here is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.” Such blatantly scurrilous “J’accuse” languaging was mean, lurid, and inflammatory — even inciteful.  And the staging of the event was redolent of totalitarian leaders’ public speeches in the 20^th century:  A crimson-red backdrop and two Marines flanking him in the background standing at some form of parade rest, whether truly per-protocol or contrived.  And so, with them, themes of anger (rage?), absolutist authority, the military’s support, and implied psychological intimidation were salient.  As Tom Fitton, president of the civilian government watchdog Judicial Watch later observed, the combination of abusive rhetoric and totalitarian imagery serves to paint a target on Trump and tens of millions of supportive Americans for political suppression and worse. All this in the United States of America of 2022, just two months ahead of the mid-term elections.

No speech like that one given by Biden has been ever delivered at any time by a sitting president in American history.  Even when the Republic was threatened with impending civil war in the mid-19^th century, President Lincoln never resorted to rank vitriol and scorn demonizing the Confederacy, its leaders, or Southerners in general.  Biden’s vituperative speech was as unique as it was explosive.

But it was not unexpected.  The president has been scapegoating Americans who disagree with his plans and policies as “white nationalists” or “white supremacists” since early on in his administration.  Underlying both terms of calumny is the cardinal sin in America today: “racism.”  Disagree with any Democratic Party initiative emanating from the White House, Congress, or any federal agency and the challenger will be vilified publicly as a “racist”, regardless of whether there is any tangible nexus between the given issue and veridical racial discrimination.  “Racism” is used as the all-purpose cudgel with which to beat down (“cancel”) anyone or any group or any organization that advocates for any viewpoint at variance with the “revealed truth” announced by any modern Democratic Party policymakers.  On all issues — political, social, economic, technological, and moral — without exception.  And the nation’s Big Media, Big Tech, Big Entertainment, and Big Business amplify all the charges and excoriations relentlessly and without restraint.

World history is instructive as to where such concerted assaults on a labelled group lead over time, however generalized and elastic, or particular and selective, the targeted members may be.  Once the objects of an officialized ire and loathing have been identified, personalized, and isolated, the path forward for the scapegoaters becomes easy.  Historically speaking, that path’s destination is always the same: destruction of human beings.  Neocommunist activist Saul Alinsky described the process of agitation with doric clarity in his revolutionary guidebook Rules for Radicals, even as he omitted the eventual certain outcome of its protracted use over time.     

In Mein Kampf (1923), Adolf Hitler infamously wrote: “The art of all the great popular leaders has always consisted in concentrating the attention of the masses on a single enemy [because] the masses are blind and stupid.  [. . . .]  The only thing that remains stable is emotion and hatred.” 

His maxim had historical precedent even then:  In 1789, the French Jacobins demonized the nation’s clergy (and royalty and aristocracy), and in 1917, the Russian Bolsheviks demonized the bourgeoisie (middle-class workers and merchants).  Like so, and well before 1933, Hitler’s Nazis demonized the Jews and the communists.  Later, starting in 1966, Chinese Communists demonized the bourgeois revisionists, and starting in 1975, the communist Khmer Rouge demonized the educated (including all wearers of eyeglasses).  Much more recently, in 1994, the Hutus of Rwanda demonized the Tutsis, a minority black tribe in that African country.

Each time, regardless of who did the social demonizing and who was socially demonized, the result was eventually the same:  Mass killings of innocent people, based on mass formation psychosis – a psychological, emotionalist conversion of throngs of otherwise pacific individuals into bestial killers.

Since early 2021, President Biden and America’s Democratic Party leaders have been demonizing “white nationalists” and “white supremacists” and the “privilege” and “status” supposedly accorded them based on their white skin color.  But, in a reflection of just how twisted, contrived, and willfully  tendentious such labels really are, even black conservatives such as attorney and gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder and author and social media celebrity Candace Owens have been tarred with the same opprobrious brush.  Just for dissenting from the dictates, mandates, and potentates of the Democratic Party.  They are, of course, not alone.  And it’s still 2022, just the second year into the Bidenista regime.

America and all its inhabitants, legal and illegal, are now skating on dangerous ice as a society. The nation’s populace is increasingly polarized by ideology, moral values, the roles to be played by the federal government, the honesty and impartiality of government agencies, the fundamental integrity of our election processes, the notion of what a nation is, and even the nature of national allegiance. As a matter of history, these are the portents of not just a national decline but dramatic schism and overall collapse, to be followed by some form of brutally authoritarian, centralized control.

Indeed, as of this year to date, all indicators are that the metaphorical Rubicon has been crossed in America.  Major agencies of the federal government that directly affect most Americans’ lives (viz., IRS, ATF, CDC, FDA, FBI, DHS, DOJ) have become covertly politicized and weaponized against dissent in word and deed by everyday citizens — and even against many of their customary and traditional practices of living, recreating, working, getting educated, and doing business.  And now that Democrats in Congress have recently approved – completely unilaterally — the hiring of 87,000 new IRS agents, it may be said of Biden’s regime that it will have, once again in American history, “erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”  (ref. the Declaration of Independence)  The American people mightily resisted just such an onslaught beginning in 1775 and for six hard years afterwards, emerging victorious only after much toil, strife, and devastation. 

Will the Democrats hear the modern American people “singing a song of angry men [and women!]” against a new, encroaching enslavement or adamantly continue enacting their program of total control, quite oblivious to it?  The next two years, through the elections of 2024, may well be much more than a euphemistic “inflection point” in our unique American story; they may, in fact, constitute a pivotal passage of redemption in the history of self-governance by free peoples everywhere.  With wisdom in both action and prayer, a national existential crisis may be averted. Only time can tell.