Quotulatiousness

November 4, 2026

More Polish news

Filed under: Europe, Government, Media, Military, Politics, Russia — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

On the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Krzysztof Szczawinski posted about concerns that the Tusk government may be trying to provoke a military confrontation with the Russians over the Kaliningrad exclave on the northeast border of Poland:

He also shared a post from Pippa Malmgren, a former US presidential advisor:

In the New English Review, Bruce Bawer discusses the overall situation in Poland after the attempted coup over the weekend:

And now a would-be coup, which Tusk defended by saying: “I will not allow the right wing to take us out of the European Union. That’s what the game is about today.” Upon learning of Tusk’s perfidy, President Karol Nawrocki, who is not a fan of the EU and who at the time was in an airplane over Spain on his way to Senegal on an official trip, turned the plane around as soon as news of the attempted coup reached him. “At such a moment”, Nawrocki posted on X, “the President must be in Poland. I’m interrupting my flight to Senegal. I’m returning.” In a subsequent post, he explained that the traitors’ “ultimate objective … is to impose EU law over Polish law, force through the EU Migration Pact [which, adopted in 2024 and already rejected by Poland, empowers Brussels to orchestrate the resettlement of migrants throughout the EU], and open Poland’s borders to tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands, of illegal migrants.” When Nawrocki’s plane reached Warsaw, the control tower, under orders from Tusk – which could hardly be interpreted as anything other than an assassination attempt – denied his plane permission to land; but as one writer on X put it, “the Polish military immediately took control of the airport’s military zone, arranged for the president’s plane to land safely in the capital, and provided security escort for President Nawrocki, with special forces personnel accompanying him throughout”.

Nawrocki then made his way to the Constitutional Tribunal, where the police had been commanded to keep him out, but, depending on which story you believe, either let him pass without incident or at first tried to deny him entry. (According to the Economist, which proffered a reliably pro-EU version of events, Nawrocki and his entourage “forced their way into the building, pushing Ms Korwin-Piotrowska out of the way”. After entering the building, Nawrocki removed Tusk’s five judges and reinstated the Tribunal president whom Korwin-Piotrowska had dismissed. And as word of all these developments spread to the Polish people, the streets around the Court began to fill with protesters – because the overwhelming majority of Poles share Nawrocki’s nationalism, not Tusk’s EU-toadyism. In 2025 they elected Nawrocki by a large margin; Tusk entered office not because the people voted him in but because there was no clear winner of the 2024 parliamentary elections, whereupon his party (which had come in second), in coalition with two other parties, appointed him to the position. In short, Nawrocki is the choice of the people; Tusk is a party animal, a coalition creature, an EU puppet. As with so many champions of globalism in the Western world, he has relentlessly presented his aggressively anti-democratic posture as a valiant defense of democracy.

The Polish people know better. That’s why they’ve gathered – peacefully, singing their national anthem – around the Constitutional Tribunal. Although various sources, including Lara Logan, described the coup attempt on late Sunday evening as having failed, Filip Styczynski, a Nawrocki partisan, posted a video outside the court on Monday evening stating that things remained at an impasse. One thing, however, is clear: the established media in Western Europe, which take it as their sacred task to squelch or misrepresent stories that make globalism look bad, have done a bang-up job with the developments in Poland; as more than one observer has pointed out, the facts about Tusk’s attempted coup would hardly have gotten out of Poland if not for X and other social media. It will be more than interesting to observe the fallout of this conflict. At stake is the profound desire of most Poles to keep Poland defiantly Polish – safe, clean, proud, free, and unapologetically devoted to its history and culture and traditions – rather than to allow it to become another increasingly Islamized hellscape like its EU-compliant neighbors to the West. If Nawrocki prevails, is it possible, or even likely, that Poland will quit the EU with all due dispatch – thereby weakening the authority of the unelected van der Leyen over other EU member states and hence, dare one hope, encouraging the citizens of those member states, too, to step out from under that well-coiffed, vainglorious dictator’s boot? Over the weekend Hungary joined Poland in kicking the Migration Pact to the curb. What’s next?

Also in that suddenly fascinating part of the world:

November 3, 2026

The Polish coup attempt, explained

Filed under: Europe, Government, Law, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

On his Substack, Gawain Towler condenses several years of political infighting within Poland to try to explain what happened over the weekend and why:

There is something rather splendidly 19th century about struggling to understand a constitutional problem the other side of Danzig. I’m trying to understand the Poland problem. On Friday night the President of Poland turned his aeroplane round somewhere over Spain. Karol Nawrocki had been on his way to Senegal on a state visit. By the small hours he was in Warsaw, shoving his way past a line of men (and a woman) in suits who were trying to stop him walking through the front door of his own country’s highest court.

The people in suits called themselves judges. Riot police stood in the road outside. A crowd had gathered, some of them in fancy dress, one in the full armour of a seventeenth-century Polish hussar. Objects were thrown. By morning the President was calling it a forcible takeover of the state, the Prime Minister was on television promising no compromise, and the chief justice of Poland’s Supreme Court was using the words “coup d’état“.

Inside, the suspended chief justice was heard asking whether anyone had a crowbar. At the door the President, a former amateur boxer who once worked as a hotel bouncer, looked at the judges blocking him and said, “You are not real judges”. Five words. It’s the whole argument.

You’d have struggled to find any of this on the BBC, I’ve looked and failed. Yet it’s the most serious constitutional crisis inside the European Union since Brexit, in a country of 38 million that is the EU’s fifth largest and Britain’s closest NATO ally on the eastern flank. And it’s ours as much as theirs. The judges who tried to bar their own President from the door hold their seats on the say-so of a court in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights, the same court that still binds Britain, the one that grounded the Rwanda flight. In a couple of weeks Andy Burnham sits down with the EU at a summit meant to pull us back towards Brussels. Nobody at the BBC has thought to ask what the Poles are learning about Brussels this week.

The building is the Constitutional Tribunal. Fifteen judges, elected one at a time by the Polish parliament, the Sejm, for nine years each, and sworn in by the President. Its job is to strike down laws that break the constitution. It can’t write a law, only kill one.

That sounds dry until you ask who decides what counts as a law. In Poland a ruling of the Tribunal is final and binding on everyone, but only once the government prints it in the official gazette. For two years Donald Tusk’s government has simply declined to print the rulings it doesn’t like. The court has gone on judging into thin air.

Control the Tribunal and you control which laws survive, which ministers can be sacked, which officials can be hauled before a court and whether the President’s veto means anything. Every other quarrel in Warsaw runs through this panelled room.

The row is older than most of the people shouting about it. In 2015 the outgoing liberal parliament elected five judges on its way out of the door in order to lay a constitutional landmine. The incoming conservative Law and Justice party, PiS, refused to swear them in and put its own people on the bench instead. Brussels howled, opened disciplinary proceedings against Poland and spent eight years calling the court a sham.

Then Tusk won in October 2023 and the shoe changed foot. His coalition elected new judges. The new President, Nawrocki, elected in June 2025 and no friend of Tusk, refused to swear most of them in, exactly as the other side had done a decade earlier. He has since refused to appoint 46 ordinary judges as well and has hinted he may appoint none at all for his whole five-year term. The European Court of Human Rights ordered the Tribunal to seat four of Tusk’s nominees anyway.

So on Friday night Tusk’s judges, several of them never sworn in by anyone, and one of them the man Tusk calls his right-hand man, walked into the building and announced that the sitting chief justice was suspended. Not by any vote, not by any court, by a notice on a website.

The government’s answer is that this is the old catch-the-thief trick. Waldemar Żurek, the justice minister, says the nationalists spent eight years wrecking the constitution and have found religion only now it suits them. He’s got a point, and it’s the best one his side has. It just doesn’t make two wrongs a right.

Whoever you blame, one fact is awkward for Tusk. The President has the fresher mandate. Tusk was elected in 2023. Nawrocki was elected two years later, and the most recent time Poles were asked, they chose his side.

And Tusk has managed something nobody else could. He has united the right. Outside the court on Friday night Jarosław Kaczyński, the PiS founder, posed for a selfie with Grzegorz Braun, the Polexit campaigner he’d sworn never to govern with. Sławomir Mentzen of the Confederation party told the right to bury its quarrels until Tusk is gone, and his deputy Anna Bryłka said toppling the Prime Minister was now the “fundamental common goal“. Two years spent dividing them, undone in a night.

November 2, 2026

Poland? Attempted Coup? What’s going on?!

Filed under: Europe, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Steven Barrett – Barrister
Published 31 Oct 2026

A description of the lead up to, and the fundamental disagreements about the EU that led to armed police on the streets of Warsaw threatening Judges.

H/T to Perry de Havilland at Samizdata for the link.

On X, Brivael le Pogam posted:

🚨 European union and globalists just crossed a line it can’t uncross. And almost nobody noticed. 🚨

⚠️ Friday night in Warsaw, the president of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal was suspended for a month. Within hours, police sealed off the building. The head of the country’s highest court was left standing outside the gates of his own court. Protesters cut the chain on the gate with a saw. The President of Poland turned his plane around mid-flight to Senegal and rushed home in the middle of the night.

Donald Tusk’s response: “Restoring the rule of law is our duty. There is no other way.”

Read that again. Restoring the rule of law with riot police around a constitutional court.

⚠️ Whether you like PiS and its judges is not the point. The point is the precedent. A government just showed that you can push out the head of a supreme court through an internal maneuver, secure it with uniforms, and call it “the rule of law.” The next government, whoever it is, now has the playbook.

And Brussels? Not one word of condemnation.

The same Brussels that froze billions for Poland for years in the name of judicial independence. That triggered Article 7. That unlocked everything within weeks the moment the “right” government took power.

⚠️ The message to 450 million Europeans is crystal clear: the rule of law is no longer a rule. It’s a label. You stick it on your allies and peel it off your enemies.

And that’s exactly where everything breaks.

A civilization rests on one thing: trust in the rules. That the rule applies to you the same as to me. That a judge doesn’t depend on who won the last election. When that trust dies, everything else follows. Slowly at first. Then all at once.

Look around.

⚠️ Security: a high-intensity war on our doorstep for over four years, armies we let wither for three decades, a defense that still depends on Washington, and a continent unable to decide anything fast.

⚠️ Economy: energy we can’t afford, industry packing up and leaving, not a single tech giant at American or Chinese scale, growth running in place, and a regulatory machine that produces more rules than companies.

⚠️ Politics: governments hanging on by a handful of votes, voters who no longer believe anyone, and trust in institutions at rock bottom everywhere.

At the top, an elite that spent twenty years telling us everything was fine, that the project was irreversible, that the only real danger was “populists.” They’re taking on water from every side. And they know it.

When a system feels its legitimacy slipping through its fingers, it does exactly what Warsaw just did: it replaces persuasion with force, and calls it virtue.

It never starts with a spectacular collapse. It starts with one institution bypassed “for a good cause.” Then a second. Then you stop counting.

🚨 Warsaw, October 30, 2026. Remember the date.

The other dominoes are already tipping.

Also on X, Dariusz Wiewiórka points to the pipelines, essential to Germany, that run through Poland as the key to understanding the dispute:

I’ll explain to you exactly what’s happening in Poland.

After the destruction of Nord Stream, the German industry fell into an extreme crisis and is simply dying without cheap Russian gas. Due to the war in Ukraine, it’s through Poland that the last two functioning pipelines from Russia to Germany are running. Yamal with a capacity of 33 billion m³ and the Druzhba oil pipeline. Germany, to save its industry, must take control of Poland, and that’s exactly what they’re doing. The rest is just background.

October 10, 2026

QotD: JFK’s soft coup to destroy Diefenbaker and install Pearson

In the winter of 1963, an American crossed into Canada travelling under a passport that was not his own.

His name was Lou Harris. He was John F. Kennedy’s personal pollster, one of the handful of men who had just put a president in the White House, and he was moving under a false identity because the job he had come north to do could never be seen to be done. He had come to take down the Government of Canada.

It worked. Within months, John Diefenbaker’s nationalist Conservative government was gone, and the Liberal campaign that replaced it had been quietly run on American polling, American media tactics, and American psychological warfare, with Harris directing from the shadows. No shots were fired. No tanks crossed the border. Most Canadians lived out their lives never knowing it happened at all.

That is not a theory. This is documented history, laid out in painstaking detail in John Boyko’s Cold Fire: Kennedy’s Northern Front, and once you know it, you cannot look at this country the same way again. Because here is the question nobody has had the nerve to ask in the sixty years since: if Washington toppled a Canadian government in 1963 and paid no price of any kind, why on earth would it have stopped?

It didn’t stop. That is the argument of this essay, and I intend to prove it with receipts. What began as a Kennedy operation against one stubborn prime minister became the permanent condition of Canadian politics. Blue America captured our governing party, its money, its methods, its personnel, and eventually its policy. Red America, more quietly, built our opposition, supplying the ideas, the operatives, and the reflexes of what now calls itself Canadian conservatism. Two parties, two foreign patrons, one country in between, and not one law against any of it. By the end, you will understand why every election feels like choosing between American factions. Because it is. And you will have, in plain terms, the only program that can end it.

Start where the occupation started: with the prime minister who said no.

Diefenbaker’s crime, in Washington’s eyes, was sovereignty. JFK despised him for defending Canadian autonomy, and teamed up with Lester B. Pearson’s Liberals to permanently rewire this country’s trajectory. Harris and his fake passport were only the covert half. The overt half played out in public, and it is somehow more shocking. The breaking point was Diefenbaker’s refusal to accept American nuclear warheads for the Bomarc missiles Washington had parked on our soil, and refusing to put our forces on alert on Washington’s schedule during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He insisted a Canadian government would decide these things in Ottawa. For this, on January 30, 1963, the United States State Department did something no ally had ever done to another: it issued a press release publicly calling the Prime Minister of Canada a liar about the state of defence negotiations. A foreign power’s foreign ministry, openly contradicting our head of government, in writing, to force his hand. Within a week, Diefenbaker’s government fell on a non-confidence vote. Within months, Kennedy’s friend Ben Bradlee put Diefenbaker on the cover of Newsweek in a hit piece so vicious it read like an obituary. The pollster in the shadows, the press release in the open, the friendly magazine on the newsstand. Every layer of American power, aimed at one Canadian who said no.

What happened to Canada was not an isolated incident. It was one front in a global campaign of regime change Washington ran throughout the 1960s. The same decade they were meddling in Ottawa, they were toppling governments worldwide to secure their sphere of influence. In 1960, the Eisenhower administration laid the groundwork for the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, finalized in Mobutu Sese Seko’s military coup. In 1961, the Kennedy administration financed race riots and engineered an electoral coup in British Guiana to depose the democratically elected Cheddi Jagan. By 1963, Washington was backing the violent coup against South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. A year later, the Johnson administration ran Operation Brother Sam, providing military backing to the coup in Brazil that replaced President João Goulart with a military dictatorship.

By installing Pearson, Washington broke Canada’s nationalist resistance using the exact playbook it deployed on developing nations, locking us permanently into a continentalist framework.

And look at what the new management delivered, and how fast. Within two years of taking office, Pearson gave Washington the warheads Diefenbaker had refused. In 1965 he signed the Auto Pact, integrating the commanding heights of Canadian manufacturing into the American industrial system, the economic annexation the National Policy had been built to prevent, accomplished with a signature. And in the same year came the new flag. Understand what that meant to the men who fought it. The Red Ensign, the banner Canadians had carried up Vimy Ridge and across the beaches of Normandy, was struck, and with it the visible sign that this country belonged to a British inheritance rather than an American continent. Diefenbaker fought the flag change with everything he had left, and he was mocked for it as a relic, because the men mocking him understood exactly what he understood: a country’s symbols are its memory, and a country stripped of its memory will accept a new identity from whoever supplies one. The supplier was already chosen.

That 1963 intervention laid the structural tracks for Pierre Trudeau to dismantle our traditional British and Loyalist inheritance entirely, replacing it with official multiculturalism, a weaponized Charter, and a hyper-progressive legal order. The horrors you see today are not random accidents. They are the long-term realization of the colony Kennedy and Pearson engineered decades ago.

But here is what even the people who know the Diefenbaker story get wrong. They think 1963 was a coup against Canada’s right. It was bigger than that. It was a proof of concept. Washington learned that Canadian politics could be run from outside, cheaply, legally, and without consequence. And in the sixty years since, both American political tribes have taken the lesson. Blue America perfected the Pearson playbook and used it to capture our government. Red America ran a quieter operation and captured the opposition. Not two conspiracies. One condition. A satellite country whose entire political spectrum, left flank and right flank, answers to a foreign capital’s internal quarrels.

Upper Canadian Cavalier, “The Occupied Dominion”, Upper Canadian Cavalier, 2026-07-06.

August 5, 2025

Inside the CIA Coup That Changed Iran Forever! – W2W 38

Filed under: Britain, History, Middle East, Russia, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

TimeGhost History
Published 3 Aug 2025

In 1953, a battle for Iran’s soul erupts on the streets of Tehran. Prime Minister Mosaddegh defies British oil interests, outwits Soviet intrigue, and faces down the Shah — but a secret Anglo-American plot changes history forever. As coups, street mobs, and betrayal plunge Iran into chaos, the nation’s fragile democracy is crushed and a brutal new order rises. This is the untold story of oil, espionage, and the coup that reshaped the Middle East.
(more…)

March 2, 2025

The Mexican Revolution – Bandits Turned Heroes

The Great War
Published 11 Oct 2024

The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 was a conflict of shifting alliances and assassinations, peasant revolutionaries, an attack on US soil, and US intervention in Mexico. The decade of struggle cost hundreds of thousands of lives, resulted in new constitutions and governments, and — for some at least — turned bandits into heroes.
(more…)

February 22, 2025

How the US Turned Iran Into a Dictatorship

Filed under: Britain, History, Middle East, Military, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Real Time History
Published 4 Oct 2024

In 1953, Iran is at a crossroads. After decades of interference by foreign powers eager to exploit its oil reserves, the government decides it will throw them out and take control of the country’s wealth. But with the super powers’ Cold War paranoia and thirst for oil, it won’t be easy – especially once the CIA gets involved.
(more…)

February 11, 2025

“As it turns out, you can just cut things”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

John Carter outlines the left’s long march through the institutions and explains why a conservative counter-operation of the same kind would utterly fail. Instead, Donald Trump (of all people) launched a political blitzkrieg that used none of the strategies of the long march — because the establishment knew intimately how those worked, as they’d used them for generations to become the establishment:

Alexander Cutting the Gordian Knot
Fedele Fischetti, 18th century.

But a counter-revolutionary long march through the institutions was always a doomed project.

The left understands the method quite well, having perfected it themselves, and its defences against counter-infiltration were well advanced. It was never enough merely to say the right things, and not say the wrong things – the left knows how easily such signals are faked, as these are mere words, and words have no meaning to an egregore which sees in discourse nothing but the currents and tokens of power. Much of the seeming insanity of the Cancelled Years is best understood as the imposition of elaborate, difficult to fake displays of loyalty: offering your child’s genitals to the hungry gender gorgon, opening your veins for the gene therapy injection. Then of course there is DEI, whose explicit intent was to simply deny opportunity to those most likely, on a demographic basis, to oppose the left. There is very little point, as a young white man, in keeping your mouth shut if you will be locked out simply because you are white, no matter what you say.

The psychological demands of stealthy infiltration are spiritually toxic. Anyone attempting this path finds himself embedded in a social context in which all of his friends and colleagues adhere to values which he privately despises, and moreover, he knows that the instant they discover his true beliefs he will be not only fired, but ostracized and isolated. Worse, he’s constantly placed in the position of betraying his own convictions, of going along with and even actively supporting things he knows are wrong, because failing to do so would be immediately suspicious. Since the left is a hive mind, he must “pretend” to give up his agency … and insofar as you are what you do, there is very little difference between pretending to give up your agency, and actually doing giving it up. Living like this is miserable. It requires iron discipline, and there is very little reward. Some of you doubtless have direct experience of this.

The most important reason that a long march was never viable, however, was that there was not enough time.

The West is in crisis. Public debt has broken up through the exosphere, its rise ever more vertical as the deficits fuelling it continue to expand, and we can all see in its meteoric rise that its inevitable descent will hit the land like rods from God. Third world invaders pour into our countries by their millions at the open invitation of seditious governments whose open aim is to reduce native white populations to second-class minorities in their own homelands within the space of a generation. These two crises of the Great Inflation and the Great Replacement could never be solved by the tactics the left used to bring them about. Even if such a long march could have succeeded in the face of the barriers the left so astutely erected, by the time it came to fruition the victors would preside over wreckage.

The left’s tactics were those of a chronic disease, gradually wasting the patient, leaching the strength from his limbs. You cannot cure a patient by becoming an opportunistic infection in your own right.

So what to do? Many, despairing, looked to civil war. A coup d’état, likely followed by blue states separating from the Union. Battle lines would be drawn, brother would be set against brother, cities would be ruined, vast pits would be excavated and filled with the stinking dead. Such a war would never have been limited to continental United States. It would have dissolved the Pax Americana, with brushfire wars springing up across the globe as great powers sought to expand their territories by grabbing resources or strategic trade corridors. Those powers would have gotten involved in the Civil War themselves, backing one side or another, prolonging the conflict in order to ensure the Union remained shattered forever.

On J6, the American government teetered on a precipice. Had Trump applied so much as the gentlest pressure with his baby finger, it would have toppled over. The other side would then have screamed that he was a tyrant who had seized power by force; his own supporters would have rallied to the cause that the election had been stolen; America, and the world, would have been bathed in blood. So Trump pulled back, allowed the heroes of J6 to be imprisoned, and permitted the sclerocracy to impose four years of malevolent mismanagement on the American people.

Many were furious with Trump. He’d lost his nerve; he was a coward.

As it turned out, they were all wrong. It was a strategic withdrawal.

And now, instead of a Long March, we are getting a blitzkrieg.

I’ve been silent for the last month partly for personal reasons that deprived me of the time and energy to write, which I won’t elaborate upon here save to note that it’s nothing anyone has to worry about. But I’ve also been silent because I haven’t been sure what to say. The last weeks have been one of those ‘weeks when decades happen’ periods, and that pace of change doesn’t appear to be letting up. Executive Orders flying off of the big man’s desk, birthright citizenship being struck down, entire government departments getting defunded, the J6 heroes being pardoned, trade wars starting and then stopping before they start, the military heading to the border, DOGE siccing broccoli-headed zoomers armed with large language models to rip through the sprawling financial records of acronym agencies like a cyclone of destruction.

As it turns out, you can just cut things.

These are all great, wonderful things. We are winning, and the pace of winning is dizzying. It’s like we’ve spent the last several years slamming again and again against a seemingly immovable wall, bashing our brains out upon it like an enraged tiger, only for that wall to suddenly turn to sand upon our final desperate push, leaving us sprawled and disoriented on the ground.

That is at least what it has felt like to me. The people on the inside of the Trump administration are not disoriented. Far from it. They are executing a detailed, thorough plan. They’ve identified the enemy nerve centres and are neutralizing them precisely, rapidly, and ruthlessly. Handpicked squads of very competent young men have been turned loose inside the Beltway. It is clear that they are not being micromanaged, but are being left to develop their own action plans on the fly as the tactical situation evolves. This is manoeuvre warfare, with small, nimble, lethal teams dropped into the heart of enemy territory and being given maximum latitude to pursue the campaign’s strategic objectives.

January 4, 2025

Can Javier Milei Make Argentina Great Again?

Adam Smith Institute
Published 3 Jan 2025

In November 2023, Argentina elected Javier Milei, a libertarian economist armed with a chainsaw and a bold plan to rescue the country from decades of decline. Facing 142% inflation, a crumbling peso, and 40% poverty, Milei slashed spending, deregulated markets, and delivered a historic budget surplus — all within a year.

Sam Bidwell dives into Milei’s radical reforms, exploring the challenges that have made them necessary. He traces the country’s rise as a global economic powerhouse in the early 20th century, its decline through years of government intervention and Peronism, and its resurgence under Milei’s leadership.

Discover how this fiery libertarian turned Argentina’s economic fortunes around — and what the world can learn from his audacious blueprint for recovery.

🔗 Subscribe for more insights on global economics, history, and leadership!
🔗 Check out our website for more economics content: https://www.adamsmith.org/

TIMESTAMPS

00:00 Start
00:53 Golden Years
02:59 Decline of Argentina
05:20 Peron
08:47 The Legacy of Peronism
11:56 After the Falklands
15:38 Javier Milei
18:17 Challenges
24:31 Lesson for the UK and the wider world

November 10, 2024

The Sixties, Cicero, Catiline, Cato and Caesar – The Conquered and the Proud Episode 9

Adrian Goldsworthy. Historian and Novelist
Published Jul 3, 2024

Continuing our series on the the history of Rome from 200 BC to AD 200, this time we look at the turbulent decade following the consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 70 BC. These years saw Pompey being given major commands against the pirates and Mithridates. Men like Cicero, Caesar and Cato were on the ascendant. Cicero’s letters can make the decade seem calm, but further consideration reveals the threat and reality of political violence, seen most of all in Catiline’s conspiracy which led to a brief civil war.

In this talk we explore the themes we have already considered and consider how imperial expansion continued to change the Roman Republic.

This talk will be released in July — and as this is the month named after Julius Caesar, it seemed only appropriate to have a Caesar theme to most of the talks.

Next time we will look at the Fifties BC and the start of the Civil War in 49 BC.

September 11, 2024

“You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye”

At The Upheaval, N.S. Lyons reviews The Total State: How Liberal Democracies Become Tyrannies by Auron MacIntyre:

Even when our nation’s dysfunction becomes too obvious to ignore, average Americans tend to comfort themselves with the story that it at least remains a democratic, constitutional republic. For such Americans, it’s probably been a confusing summer.

One moment the sitting president was, according to the near-universal insistence of mainstream media, sharp as a tack — all evidence to the contrary declared merely dangerous disinformation. The next he was suddenly agreed to be non compos mentis, unceremoniously ousted from the ballot for reelection, and replaced, not in a democratic primary but through the backroom machinations of unelected insiders. Overnight, the same media then converged to aggressively manufacture a simulacrum of sweeping grassroots enthusiasm for that replacement, the historically unpopular Kamala Harris. To call this a palace coup via The New York Times would seem not to stray too far from observable events.

What, some may wonder, just happened to our sacred democracy?

For those on the growing segment of American politics broadly known as the “New Right,” none of this was a surprise. The basic premise of the New Right — whose ranks notably include now-vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance — is that the governance of our country simply doesn’t function as we’re told it does. In fact, the United States has not operated as a constitutional republic for some time now; it is only the façade of one, effectively controlled by an unevictable cadre of rapacious plutocratic elites, corrupt party insiders, unelected bureaucrats, and subservient media apparatchiks — in short, a wholly unaccountable oligarchy.

Among the sharpest recent guides to this argument—and, in my view, to our current broader political moment—is a slim new book by the columnist and influential young New Right thinker Auron MacIntyre, titled The Total State: How Liberal Democracies Become Tyrannies.

MacIntyre provides a dispassionate dissection of how, without any cabal or specific conspiracy, an elite class captured all our major public and private institutions, hollowed them out, set them all marching in lockstep against the American middle-class, and made a mockery of the notion of constitutional “checks and balances”. The resulting “total state” now operates in increasingly flagrant contradiction to the interests of the American people and democratic government while “wearing the old regime like a skinsuit”.

Essential to understanding this total state is the concept of managerialism, an idea first pioneered by an older generation of political thinkers like James Burnham which has been recovered from relative obscurity and re-employed by the New Right. In this framing, America is today effectively run by a “managerial elite”, which presides over a broader professional managerial class — think college administrators, corporate HR managers, and non-profit activists. Fundamentally, the business of such people is not producing or building anything, providing any essential service, or even making critical leadership decisions, but the manipulation and management — that is, surveillance and control — of people, information, money, and ideas.

The story of the fall of the American republic is the story of the managers’ rise to power everywhere.

In part, this was the inevitable outcome of technological and economic change following the industrial revolution, which made it necessary to expand the ranks of people schooled in managing large, complex organizations. But, as MacIntyre demonstrates, it was also the result of a deeply misguided urge, pioneered by early progressives, to de-risk and “depoliticize” politics by handing over decision-making to technocratic “experts”. The hope was that these experts could rationally and neutrally administer government and society from the top down, through the same principles and processes of “scientific management” first applied to the assembly line.

This proved disastrous.

August 27, 2024

QotD: Who were the good guys?

Filed under: Germany, History, Media, Military, Quotations, Russia, WW2 — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The Valkyrie plot was really a thing that happened (the cognoscenti call it the Schwarze Kapelle), and it’s got all the makings of a great spy thriller … except one: There’s no good guy. Claus von Stauffenberg was a better guy than Hitler, I suppose, but that’s a bar so low it’s subterranean. Von Stauffenberg was a Wehrmacht colonel who’d seen action in pretty much every theater up to that point, including the invasions of Poland and Russia. It’s safe to say that one does not rise to the rank of colonel via combat in the Nazi armed forces without being involved in some shady shit. Indeed, as Wiki informs us, von Stauffenberg was fine with the way things ran in Poland, and initially declined to participate in the resistance out of a sense of personal loyalty to the Führer.

A movie can get away with showing mostly shades of gray, but in the case of the Valkyrie plot, both shades are pretty damn close to black.

Nor was the 2008 movie, starring Tom Cruise, an isolated case. A few years earlier, Jude Law and Ed Harris squared off as dueling snipers in Enemy at the Gates … set during the Battle of Stalingrad. Who do you root for, the Nazi or the Commie? The producers opt for “commie”, obviously, but their attempts to humanize the Jude Law character are embarrassing — even if we accept Law’s character as totally apolitical, no movie featuring a political commissar in a vital supporting role, not to mention “cameos” by Khrushchev and Stalin himself, can fail to remind viewers that everyone involved was awful. Even the most gripping battle scenes (and to be fair, some of them were pretty good) can’t make up for the fact that the world would be a far, far better place if they somehow both could’ve lost.

Those are high-level failures, conceptual mistakes, the kind that professional storytellers simply shouldn’t make. Not only that, though, both movies have unforgivable mistakes in the execution, at almost every level. Tom Cruise, for instance, is comically miscast as Stauffenberg. I’ve written before about how weird it is that casting directors seem to obsess over finding actors who look like even obscure historical figures. Cruise looks a bit like Stauffenberg, I guess, but there’s simply no way a guy with his … ummm … distinctive acting style should be anywhere near a historical drama. Tom Cruise only ever really plays Tom Cruise, so “Tom Cruise dressed up as a Nazi” is really jarring.

And that’s before you consider the accents. Maybe Tom Cruise can’t do a German accent, I dunno. I seem to recall he did an Irish accent in a movie once, and that turned out ok, but again, whatever character he was playing was just “Tom Cruise with an Irish accent.” So maybe if you feel you must cast him as a German, letting him use his “natural” American accent is the way to go. But if you’re going to do that, please, for pete’s sake, make everyone else do an American accent, too. I know Kenneth Branagh can do one. So either cast guys who can do the right accent, or, failing that, who can do each other’s accent. Otherwise you get a huge, distracting mess.

Enemy at the Gates was actually worse: Law, Joseph Fiennes (the commissar), and Rachel Weisz (the love interest) all used their native British accents … but they’re different kinds of British accent, at least in Law’s case. Meanwhile, Ed Harris (the Nazi antagonist) uses the “neutral” American accent, while supporting player Ron Perlman, who is American, does a comically over-the-top Russian … as do the guys playing Khrushchev and Stalin. It’s just weird. In both movies, you’ve got supposedly tight groups of friends (or, at least, co-conspirators) talking to each other in wildly different accents. That kind of thing is bad enough in a movie like Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, which made no pretenses to historical accuracy; it’s movie-destroying in a supposedly serious, historically-based thriller.

Severian, “Storytelling Fail”, Rotten Chestnuts, 2021-07-13.

August 24, 2024

How the CIA eventually got Patrice Lumumba assassinated

Filed under: Africa, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

The CIA decided early on that the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was being controlled by their Soviet opponents and needed to be killed:

Patrice Émery Lumumba, first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 27 December 1960.
Unknown photographer

I’m still making my way through David Talbot’s 2015 book The Devil’s Chessboard, a history that explores the life of CIA Director Allen Dulles and the sordid history of the agency.

There are too many grisly anecdotes to recount showing how the CIA was involved in unlawful and unethical acts all over the world, but one that sticks out was the book’s treatment of Patrice Lumumba, an African nationalist who served as the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo before he was killed in 1961 — with a shove from the CIA.

Lumumba was a thorn in the side of the agency, and his left-leaning politics led CIA officials to believe he was a stooge for the USSR (he wasn’t, as the CIA later admitted). So it was determined that Lumumba had to go—one way or the other.

First, a coup was arranged to have the democratically-elected Lumumba, who was demanding full independence for the Congolese people, removed from office and placed under arrest. To this end, the CIA tapped a young military colonel named Joseph Mobutu, who was friendly with Belgian intelligence (the Congo had long been under Belgian colonial rule) and would go on to rule for decades until he was ousted himself in a 1997 rebellion.

Then the CIA began exploring options to eliminate the popular Lumumba. Being the CIA, a single method was not chosen. Instead, various methods were explored to take out the Congolese leader and multiple people were tapped, including a pair of hitmen the agency had hired from Europe’s criminal underworld.

Talbot explains how the CIA equipped one of these cutthroats with a tube of poisoned toothpaste. Why toothpaste? Because one Dr. Ewen Cameron, at the behest of the CIA, had analyzed Lumumba and noted his immaculate white teeth. This led him to suggest a simple way to eliminate the troublesome leader: poison his dental products.

“In the end, the CIA did not go through with the toothpaste plot,” writes Talbot, “apparently deciding that poisoning a popular leader while he was under UN protective custody in his own house would be too flagrant a deed—one that, if traced back to the agency, would lead to unpleasant international repercussions.”

Instead, days before the inauguration of John F. Kennedy, the CIA arranged to have Lumumba chartered off on a plane to Katanga, a province that had broken from the Congo and was ruled by factions hostile to Lumumba.

This all but sealed Lumumba’s fate, CIA officials later testified.

“I think there was a general assumption, once we learned that he had been sent to Katanga, that his goose was cooked,” CIA station chief James Devlin, who helped orchestrate Lumumba’s fall, quipped to the Church Committee years later.

Devlin was right. During his flight to Katanga, Lumumba was beaten to a pulp. Then he was driven by jeep to a farm and beaten by members of rival political factions. The men, Talbot makes clear, had clear ties to US and Belgian intelligence.

“Eventually he was killed, not by our poisons, but beaten to death, apparently by men who had agency cryptonyms and received agency salaries,” said CIA agent John Stockwell, who was sent to the Congo in the aftermath of the assassination.

The Soviets managed a propaganda win out of the CIA’s clumsy wet work, renaming the Peoples’ Friendship University of the USSR (primarily used for training non-Soviet citizens from “fraternal socialist” and “unaligned” nations in Marxist-Leninist views) to the Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University.

August 21, 2024

The pro-Kamala coup

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

At UnHerd, Edward Luttwak walks through the steps behind the scenes that led to Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate for the 2024 election:

We are stuck with the French phrase coup d’état because nothing else describes so well the sudden removal of an old ruler by secret manoeuvrings — and their replacement with a chosen successor who happens to be endowed with every possible virtue. Of course, Kamala Harris is not a dictator because she must still face a nationwide election. But secret manoeuvrings did make her the presidential candidate of her Democratic Party, a position that is also intended to be filled by primary elections up and down the country before delegates agree on the victor at the Party Convention.

Nor was her vice-presidency enough to secure her candidacy. Far from it, given the unpromising electoral record of that most peculiar office, not inaccurately described as “not worth a bucket of warm spit” by John Nance Garner, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vice president. In fact, in all of American history, only seven vice presidents were elected to the presidency (eight replaced a dead president). This reflects the habitual role of vice presidents: emphatically not presidents-in-waiting but rather politicos serving as symbolic figures who are selected to attract voters that the president cannot attract with his policies.

[…]

What happened next could not possibly have occurred if there were not a single directing hand behind the scenes. Suddenly, the very same voices from Nancy Pelosi down, who had just told the American people that Biden was fit and ready to win in the upcoming elections and rule for four more years, said the very opposite: that Biden should immediately announce his withdrawal from the elections. Nor is it any mystery who pulled the switch: Barack Obama, the only American President of recent times who has continued to live in Washington DC after leaving the White House — and it is not for the Potomac river-fishing that he has stayed there.

[…]

Obama had definitely not wanted Harris in that position, fearing that she would come under attack for her San Francisco career launched by an older mayor who was also her romantic partner. After Biden had locked himself into his vice-presidential choice of a black woman, Obama proposed his former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice. But even the faithful Biden could not accept that: in his own eight vice-presidential years, Biden often tried to influence foreign policy only to be overruled by Obama’s appointees, who knew very much less than he did after his decades of attentive service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And none was more arrogant with him than Rice. And so, even faithful Biden would not accept her, which meant that Obama could ensure Biden’s withdrawal, but not his replacement with his own candidate.

So, what is the party left with? Because Kamala Harris did not win even one primary, and her vice-presidential role was more unremarkable than most, it is possible, just possible, that this week’s gathering will not unfold as a Chinese Communist Party Congress, and one or more delegates will call for a choice. And because there are in fact candidates ready and waiting among the Democratic governors, eight of them women, an open convention need not devolve into chaos or coup — but rather into a democratic election.

August 18, 2024

Hirohito Announces Surrender – War Continues – WW2 – Week 312 – August 17, 1945

Filed under: History, Japan, Military, Pacific, Russia, USA, WW2 — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

World War Two
Published 17 Aug 2024

Hirohito broadcasts Japan’s surrender to the world- despite an attempted to coup to prevent it from happening, and much of the world celebrates, but the war isn’t really over. The Soviets are busy invading Manchuria, and there’s revolution in Vietnam and Indonesia.

00:00 Intro
00:22 Recap
00:49 Attempted Coup In Japan
04:12 Hirohito Surrenders
08:54 Japanese Surrender In China
12:05 Soviets In Manchuria
17:52 Revolution In Vietnam
20:33 Summary
21:07 Conclusion
(more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress