Sunday, November 30, 2025
Why the secrecy? Could it be an illegal alien protection racket?
Victims in deadly car crash identified as carjacker with criminal history’s ID kept secret
The Somalia first Congresswoman
Trump’s Description of Ilhan Omar Is Blistering, and 100 Percent Accurate
On Friday, President Donald Trump offered yet another devastating characterization of one of the Democrats’ legion of America-Last, far-left politicians. All of Trump’s rhetorical cylinders were firing as he gave us this:
Fracas in Caracas and Six for Sedition
November 30, 2025
Fracas in Caracas and Six for Sedition
The president warned everyone to avoid the airspace over or alongside Venezuela this week.
“To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
We have positioned a serious armada on that country’s shore. Among the explanations for these moves the most plausible I can find is Jeff Childers', who once again documents his views with credible links.
The Caribbean communist country is practically daring us to do something about it. “China has poured millions into Venezuelan oil projects and loans,” the Guardian explained. Literally poured. That’s how much money China has. Meanwhile, the paper continued, “Russia has armed Venezuelan President Maduro with Sukhoi fighter jets, helicopters, tanks, and air defence systems.” And probably aggressive nesting dolls, too, but that’s not important right now.
So China and Russia are the first annoyance. But it’s like an addiction; Maduro can’t seem to stop himself. It’s not just Russia and China. The next major irritant is that Venezuela has also been cozying up to the mad mullahs and working with various Middle Eastern terrorist groups, like Hezbollah. Headline from the Atlantic Council, in 2020:
“The Lebanese terrorist group,” the story reported, “has helped to turn Venezuela into a hub for the convergence of transnational organized crime and international terrorism.” So
Add those vexing problems to the surge into the U.S. of Venezuelan cartel gangs —at least one directly connected to Maduro’s government -- and the tsunami of drugs washing northwards, and you already have a geopolitical powder keg a few hundred nautical miles from the border.
Were that insufficient to justify aggressive action, there’s the fact that its neighbor Guyana discovered that it sits on ten billion barrels of oil which Venezuela’s Maduro is laying claim to, signaling an intent to invade. No coincidence that our naval operation “sits squarely at the nexus of at least four issues of critical American interest.”
is partly about oil and protecting US oil companies, at a critical moment of a Bidenflation-fueled affordability crisis. It is partly about a resurgent Monroe Doctrine, as described in Project 2025, and kicking China, Russia, and Iran out of our hemisphere. It is about liquidating the linked plagues of drugs and cartels that are transforming our big cities into third-world hellholes and our vulnerable citizens into zombies. And it is about tamping down a communist dictator who is making our own hemisphere wobbly and war-prone.
In other words, contrary to corporate media’s narrative, there are lots of good reasons to move the military into the Caribbean. It’s literally our own backyard. And as James “Monroe” Doctrine would say, it’s our hemisphere. So,
As Maduro ponders his fate, six congressional Democrats are under investigation by 
the Departments of Defense and Justice. In an ill-considered and badly-timed move, they posted a video urging U.S. service members “to refuse illegal orders.” When asked for specifics, they could not name any illegal Trump orders. It is hard to avoid thinking they were encouraging the troops, in particular the National Guard, whose patrols have substantially reduced the nation’s homicides, to “abandon ship.” The six are:
- Mark Kelly, senator from Arizona and retired U.S. Navy Captain, whom rumor has it may be recalled to service and court martialed for his leading role in this.
- Elissa Slotkin, Michigan senator and former CIA analyst.
- Jason Crow, Colorado representative, former U.S. Army captain.
- Chris Deluzio, Pennsylvania representative, former U.S. Navy lieutenant and JAG officer.
- Maggie Goodlander, New Hampshire representative, U.S. Navy Reserve Lieutenant, former NSC official.
- Chrissy Houlahan, Pennsylvania representative, Air Force Reserve captain.
It may be that the creation and posting of this video is part of a coordinated plan to induce military personnel to disobey all orders, and particularly is directed to the National Guard troops assisting ICE’s actions against illegal immigrants. Almost simultaneously with the release of the video, a billboard was installed outside Fort Bragg (and apparently also near National Guard bases) reading “Did You Go Airborne Just to Pull Security for Ice?” The listed sponsor is “You signed up for.org.” That site gives detailed information on how dissident military should proceed in secret:
The site helpfully suggested two scenarios for National Guard soldiers to consider refusing “illegal” orders:
Use of military forces to carry out deportations, removals, or detention of immigrants.
Use of military forces against civilian protesters.(Presumably, Antifa.)
(In another section labeled “Outside the U.S.,” the website offered “attacks on vessels in international or foreign waters” as another potentially illegal order for our sailors to think about.
While some question whether a 1918 Supreme Court decision involving sedition aimed at civilians would preclude prosecution for seditious efforts aimed at military or naval forces. Bill Shipley argues that it does not. The relevant statute he cites supports his contention:
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2387, “Activities affecting armed forces generally.” That statute is quoted above, but the operative language is “Whoever… advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States…” shall be fined or imprisoned for ten years.
(A companion statute with a higher maximum prison sentence applies during wartime.)
About the time that the Six were encouraging the military to question orders, orders which they themselves did not claim were illegal, an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who had been admitted under the same rushed Biden era immigration policy (Operation Allies Welcome) of some 66,000 unvetted Afghans following the disastrous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kabul, drove 2,500 miles from Bellingham, Washington State to D.C.
Once there, he quite professionally tried to assassinate two young National Guard troops from West Virginia who were patrolling the nation’s capital over the Thanksgiving holiday season. One, Sarah Beckstrom, has died of her injuries. The other, Andrew Wolfe, is still in critical condition battling multiple gun wounds. The backstory of the assassin is a condemnation of the immigration plan which brought him here, the organizations that supported and sheltered him, and provides a warning respecting his fellow emigres shuffled around the country in the same misguided operation. It also, quite reasonably, raises the question of whether the Kelly video was part of a coordinated plan to interfere with the operation to sweep the illegal immigrants out of the country and restore order in cities overcome with crime.
The assassin wasn’t just any old jihadi. He was a skilled assassin trained by the CIA in Afghanistan, to discourage others from joining the Taliban.
When he was in Afghanistan, Lakanwal was trained by U.S. intelligence agencies and served in an elite “Zero Unit,” which was a blend of deep-black special ops and dirty work at the crossroads. He was stationed at “Firebase Gecko,” a military compound used by the CIA and Kandahar special forces. Zero Units were outside the military chain of command, and reported to the Afghan National Directorate of Security, or NDS, an intelligence agency propped up with CIA backing for Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government.
In other words, he was a highly-trained, licensed-to-kill spook with extremely esoteric skills. A sort of third-world James Bond, if James Bond had been a Middle Eastern terrorist.
“He previously worked with the US government, including CIA, as a member of a partner force in Kandahar,” CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed in a statement yesterday. That admission was a teensy bit understated. He did more than “work with” the CIA.
A former senior Afghan general told CBS News yesterday that the Zero Units “were the most active and professional forces, trained and equipped by the CIA. All their operations were conducted under the CIA command.” The CBS story reported these “units were known in Afghanistan for their secrecy and alleged brutality, and members were implicated in numerous extrajudicial killings of civilians.” Human Rights Watch has accused the Zero Units of the most serious and brutal rights violations (the CIA denies this and claims it is Taliban propaganda).
In 2018, the New York Times ran a feature story about Zero Units’ war crimes and excesses.
So, Lakanwal was a spook, a brute squad boy, and an assassin. He probably made a lot of local enemies. You can understand why he’d be nervous about sticking around after the Taliban took over.
According to the Times, a ‘childhood friend’ identified only as Muhammad said that Lakanwal suffered from mental health issues because of the casualties his unit had caused. “He would tell me and our friends that their military operations were very tough, their job was very difficult, and they were under a lot of pressure,” Muhammad said.
I’ll just say this once. It was reckless to the point of insanity to allow a trained radical terrorist with known mental health problems to operate unsupervised in the continental United States. Assuming, of course, that he was unsupervised.
A long, dramatic 2022 Propublica article about the Zero Units cited its fighters saying they saw Americans as infidels, never trusted us, but worked with us as a lesser evil or a useful path to a “new Afghanistan.”
Once here, without any mental health treatment for his trauma, this unhinged “dangerous radical” was settled unsupervised in hippy dippy Bellingham, Washington, assisted by a Lutheran NGO, World Relief, which received most of its funding from the U.S. Government. (The cut in USAID funding now may now have caused it to shutter or scale back its operations.)
Are there others out there like him, aiming at National Guard troops? What motivated him to do this now? (Another Afghan immigrant who was brought here under the same rushed operation was just arrested for threatening to bomb a building in Fort Worth, Texas.)Was his action part of a plan in which the video by the six congressmen and women played a role? Was the close timing of the video and the terrorist attack on the Guard a mere coincidence which will have unfortunate consequences for those who made it? Those questions deserve answers.
The left has no interest in Constitutional powers
Oregon Gov. Threatens to Investigate, Prosecute Federal Agents Enforcing Immigration Laws
Pfizer buries data showing mRNA flu vaccine bombed in trial with elderly, not much better under 65
Pfizer buries data showing mRNA flu vaccine bombed in trial with elderly, not much better under 65
More than a year after its promised deadline to investors, drugmaker puts alarming results in federal government's "virtual filing cabinet" and touts absolute difference of 0.32% for non-elderly adults in prestigious journal.
Something tells me they were never our allies
Afghan national from Operation Allies Welcome arrested, charged for threatening to bomb Texas city
An Afghan national was arrested this week after he claimed he was building a bomb and intended to target a building in Fort Worth, Texas, authorities said.
Mohammad Dawood Alokozay was apprehended Tuesday by the Department of Homeland Security after posting a video to his TikTok profile with the alleged threat. He is being charged at the state level.
Thanksgiving Controversy: What Nobody Tells You About Indians and the Natives of North America
Thanksgiving Controversy: What Nobody Tells You About Indians and the Natives of North America
Every time I hear about the tragedy (the tragedies) suffered by the Indians of North America (whether at Thanksgiving or at any other time), I bring up some variant of the following questions:
Do the calamities also include the theft of the lands of the Apaches? Does the genocide, real or alleged, of the Native Americans also concern the extermination of the Huron tribe (Huronia)?
This type of question usually boondoggles the leftist, whose eyes grow like saucers and who waffles trying to reply, since in his eagerness to sum up American and world history by meting out simplified explanations in one-sentence platitudes (that conveniently, and invariably, happen to be damning towards Americans, i.e., white Americans), he has neither had nor taken the time to think any details through as he attempts to display his alleged expertise as a modern-day genius. The most intelligent leftists will be — rightly — suspecting that the questions are in some way or another some form of trap…
The problem, of course, is that the lands of the Apaches were stolen by the Comanches.
While the Hurons were wiped out by the Iroquois.
Or, as Allan W Eckert put it regarding another neighboring tribe of the Iroquois (aka the League of the Six Nations of the Iroquois), this one from northwesternmost Pennsylvania,
the Six Nations annihilated [the Erighs or the Eries] — every man, woman, and child being slain, the tribe was wiped out of existence.
But apart from that — apart from those tiny and utterly inconsequential details that we can posthaste proceed to forget and ignore — it is surely indisputable to posit that all "Native Americans" are, and were, spiritual peacemakers in harmony with nature and with the Earth, as well as something akin to Tibet's Buddhist monks. (And with that said, let's turn off the sarcasm faucet…) Update: Hooka Hey to my white brothers Ed Driscoll and Glenn Reynolds and to my white sister Sarah Hoyt, all of Instapundit fame.
After conquering the Aztec and the Inca empires, in addition to large parts of South America as well as all of Central America, why did the Spanish armies not march further into North America (where the English had remained along the Atlantic coast while the French were focused on Québec and had barely crossed West across the Mississippi)?
The answer is the Comanche tribe, which was (I am prepared to apologize for the upcoming un-PC term beforehand) the bloodthirstiest people the Spanish superpower had ever encountered, and which brought the Spaniards' advance to an abrupt halt in Tejas (in Texas).
Indeed, in his position as a military historian and a professor at the Sandhurst Military Academy, John Keegan described the Comanches as the fiercest warriors the planet has ever known.
Incidentally, what do the names of the Indian tribes mean, anyway? They all mean the same thing (albeit in their respective languages) — the "people." And what was most tribes' names (again, in their respective languages) for their neighbors? Again, the same thing: The "enemy."
A few examples: The tribe which was called the Navajo by their neighbors (and thus by their enemies) called them selves the Diné, while the Iroquois (the "atrocious people" or the "murderers" — see the paragraph about the Huron tribe above for an explanation thereof) called themselves the Haudenosaunee (the "house builders"). As far as the Comanches are concerned (who call themselves the Nʉmʉnʉʉ), the name is derived from a Ute expression meaning “anyone who wants to fight me all the time” (i.e., the enemy).
As a brief aside, history recalls most of the tribes' names from what they were called by their neighbors, for the simple reason that white explorers and pathfinders would encounter the neighbors first and ask them the name of the tribe that they would meet when continuing their travels ahead.
Before we continue: here emerges an interesting question — cannot we say that the Native Americans show the extent of their indisputable humanity, as they seem to be quite familiar with that good ol' expression, the (wait for it) "enemy of the people" — just like "civilized" people did and do in Europe and the rest of the developed world (not least with Communists, Nazis, and similar bloodthirsty — please excuse the expression again — groups)?
In that perspective, this provides a response to the common question, isn't it sad that the Indians (such as famous chiefs like Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse or Geronimo) never managed to unite against their white oppressors. The answer is that the quote that is often attributed to Philip Sheridan — "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" (what the general actually said was somewhat different) — would better describe the tribes' description of one another (The only good Sioux is a dead Sioux, etc…) When a group of warriors happened upon a group of enemies (not excluding women out berry-picking), they would kill them all (see also the Little Bighorn) and scalp them all (unless, in some cases, there happened to be young children who could be integrated into the tribe). This explains the "intolerant" attitude of White settlers, explains Time-Life's The Frontiersmen. In the 18th century,
frontiersmen, who had seen the bodies of pregnant women slit open by war parties and the fetuses of unborn babies left impaled on poles beside them, were not inclined to ponder the political attitudes of any Indian if granted opportunity for revenge.On one memorable occasion, a group of Iroquois marched for days on end to raid another village while the latter's warriors were away (probably on their own raid). They launched their raid, and escaped with booty including a group of young boys as prisoners. When the raided camp's warriors came home a day or so later, the fathers, overcome with grief, immediately set upon chasing down the raiders on their own return home with their young prisoners boasting perhaps 24 hours' advance time. Every time they came to the remains of a camp where the Iroquois had bivouacked, they discovered to their horrors a thick pointed branch stuck into the ground upon which the Iroquois had in turn stuck… the decapitated head of one of the children. Cruelty? Sadism? Simply a form of cultural diversity? You decide…
Did the Indians really kill all of their enemies? No, that is not entirely correct.
Who doesn't know the “trail of tears and death," when Andrew Jackson expelled tens of thousands of Indians from East side of the Mississippi? During one 1,200-mile trek, "thousands … died from exposure, malnutrition, and disease" and the grounds were littered with the bodies of "red-skins" and "Negroes." Wait a minute, what did you say? "Negroes"? Blacks? What do you mean by that?! Oh, you didn't know? The Cherokees, who are often presented as one of prime examples that Indians were, or could be, civilized (they had their own alphabet and newspapers), practiced slavery. Yes sir. And do not forget that a number of these Indians enlisted during the Civil War — on the side of the Confederacy. For sure, this was one of the “Five Civilized Tribes” (besides the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Creek, the Seminole, and the Choctaw) and, as it happens, one of the main slavery rebellions and escape attempts of the 19th century was a slave revolt against the cruelty of one particularly nasty Cherokee slave-owner.
Leftists grow giddy over the Cherokees' written constitution, with the National Geographic gushing that America's 1787 document might be based on theirs, but the monthly neglected to write that it gave the vote to "all free male citizens" over 18, except "those of African descent." In his History of the American People, Paul Johnson adds that
White opinion — and black for that matter: the blacks found the Indians harsher masters than anyone — were virtually united in wanting to integrate the Indians or kick them west, preferably far west
Yup. I know, I know: I'm sorry I brought it up — slavery, as we all know, is only a shameful activity — everything is only a shameful activity — when practiced by Whites and (in the modern era) by capitalists, and never by "Reds" or Blacks (not excluding on the African continent) or for that matter, communists (also Reds, in a different way) in China or the Soviet Union, with their slave-based laogais and gulags.
Another common fact that many find shocking and outrageous is whites offering smallpox-infested blankets to the Indians. There are several things to mention about this "biological warfare". First of all, disease and contamination were obviously not as well known in the 18th century as they are today. And indeed, according to the (left-leaning) History Channel, there is no evidence that the attempt worked. Second, there is only one record of one single instance of whites distributing infected blankets, and that was at a fort (Fort Pitt later Pittsburgh) besieged by the Shawnee and the Delaware tribes during the French & Indian War in 1763 under the command of a British general, Sir Jeffery Amherst, all of which, moreover — just like the 1619 Project — occurred before the founding of the United States (although not by 250 years but in this case by 13 years).
Finally, it turns out that there may be an entirely different explanation. That braves, embarrassed by the fact that they had not taken enough scalps to bring home, hit upon the idea of going to a cemetery and digging up more or less recently deceased corpses (or at least their heads). For what reason? To scalp them and get a hero's welcome. (Again, this shows to what extent the Indians are/were human like the rest of us.) Unfortunately, the braves chose a cemetery with bodies of deceased diseased persons. Now, I ask you this question: which is more likely to spread sickness among a people — blankets below which ill people have lain or their very body parts, carved from their skulls after they died from the disease?
Those are historical facts liberals and Europeans don't know about and do not like to focus on, because if they can't depict the Indians (Edward Curtis' portraits) as harmless, Buddhist-monk-like beings interested in nothing but peace and harmony with the Earth and with the forces of nature — as angelic and innocent victims — it becomes much harder to depict (white) Americans as monstrous beings and their policies (past as well as present) as of a criminal nature beyond any iota of redemption.
The funny thing — which also answers the question regarding Indian unification — is that the various Indian tribes were better treated by the whites than by their "red" neighbors. You can say what you want about Wounded Knee or Sand Creek, or reservations, as well as Indian schools that took their kids away, they were better (or, if you prefer, less badly) treated than what their Indian foes had in store for them.
Thus it was natural that "Injuns" enlisted as scouts in the U.S. Cavalry to serve against their archenemies. In any case, it was such a warrior culture that made whites "reluctant," to say the least, to show "respect" for the Indians and their civilization (or lack thereof?) and which earned the latter, not entirely unreasonable, the moniker of "savages."
At this point, let's take an aside to bring up another historical victim of "Yankee colonialism and racism": when voiced by leftists, the whole Texas Revolution episode amounts to nothing more than "The Mexicans showed how generous they were and look at the scandalous way in which those perfectly civic gentlemen were repaid by the ungrateful Anglo-American ruffians who settled in Texas" (i.e., by the treacherous (former) inhabitants of the racist USA). The main article is What Nobody Tells You About the Alamo and the Texas Revolution of the 1830s.
Those leftists — American or foreign — never pause to ask why the Mexicans would invite foreigners to settle in (part of) their country in the first place. The answer is provided in an Instapundit post linking to the present historical article, where one
Finally: how exactly were the Indians' lands "stolen"? By the end of July 1804, after sailing 600 miles up the Missouri River (since leaving on May 21), the members of the Lewis and Clark expedition had not once met a single American Indian.
Even today, when a European decides to spend a holiday for a road trip through a country (or parts thereof) with 330 million inhabitants, he is amazed about how large and empty that nation is (even on the East Coast — try driving from the greatest metropolis on the continent, New York City, to Niagara Falls). In the book Under Bjælken about Denmark's Crown Prince and future King, Jens Andersen writes that "that which Frederik and his friend Holger Foss best remember [from their 1993 road trip through the U.S. in a red Cadillac Eldorado Convertible], besides the numerous encounters with helpful and hospitable Americans, was the colossal monotony — mile after mile."
Related: Beginning in the early 19th century, why did one tenth of the Danish population, one quarter of the Swedish population, and one third of the Norwegian population emigrate to the United States? Because so many these "white privileged" blondes with blue eyes were so dirt-poor that they did not want to live in, and did not want their children "to grow up in, slavery."
How, then, would it have been 150 or 250 years ago, when an Irish or German family in a chariot rolled slowly across a territory with 100 times fewer people? Most Indians were nomads and had never established cities or villages. Even for those who could be described differently, such as the Haudenosaunees (the long "house builders," that is, the Iroquois), it was necessary, due to a cultivation practice which ended up destroying the land, to uproot the village after at most 21 years and move it dozens of miles away. (So much for the "image of a Native American environmental ethic [which], however appealing, is more myth than reality.") Indeed, back in 1756, Bougainville wrote in his diary that "It is a shame that so fine a countryside should be without cultivation." Many years earlier, the chief agent of the Penn family, James Logan, had heard complaints that "it was against the laws of God and nature that so much land should be idle while Christians wanted it to labor on and raise their bread."
In a more general comment some 20 years later, Prussia's Frederick the Great said to Voltaire in 1775 that "agriculture comes first among human activities, and without it there would be no merchants, no courtiers, no kings, no poets and no philosophers. The only true form of wealth is that produced by the soil. The reclamation of uncultivated land is a triumph over barbarism."
Whether it is Bedouins, Gypsies, or those whom Alexis de Tocqueville called "the wandering race of aborigines," it has always been extremely difficult for nomads to live side by side with settlers. For instance, Indians, Gypsies (or Roma), or Bedouins are, or were, uniformly depicted as thieves. Today, this is automatically considered racist (ain't everything?!), but the universality of the charge should make you pause to think… And then you might come to this conclusion: when you have no permanent neighbors, a cavalier attitude towards those whom you rarely (and only briefly) encounter and towards their possessions — which they happen to have plenty of, precisely due to their not being nomads — then theft might in fact not a wholly illogical by-product of one's way of life.
From Roman times, at least, it has been a reasonable rule (no, not a white/European rule; an entirely common-sense rule) that you cannot claim land as your own unless you devote a minimum of time inhabiting it and tending to it.
Let us imagine a wagon slowly pulled by oxen in the vast no-man's land. What does the family from Scotland or Sweden encounter day after day, week after week, other than dense virgin forests or monotonous prairies? At one time, the family finds a spot, maybe by a creek, upon which it decides to settle down. Then, perhaps after five or six months after their cabin has been built and their fields plowed without their ever seeing another soul, white or otherwise, is it strange, when a single solitary warrior, perhaps two or three, appear one day and claim that this land belongs to their tribe, that they answer, "But we have done so much to cultivate these plots — can't you just ride around them?"
To this must be added another remark: that it can also sound strange (if not an outright showcase for double standards) that it should be sinful to "steal" and to build upon the (untouched) lands that "belong to" the "noble" Indians, while it feels completely natural to confiscate the developed property (fields, gardens, buildings, mansions, castles, etc) of the white world's yucky "noblemen," and in general try to milk the rich with one tax after another.
Finally, an apology. Or, rather, two apologies. I wish to apologize for the fact that I believe in facts and the truth, and I wish to apologize for the fact that I do not believe in the leftists' hysterical fairy tales.
Let us end this post with quotes from two books. In his History of the American People, Paul Johnson speaks about some of the events leading to the Trail of Tears:
The 15,000 Indians of this settled community [a self-declared Cherokee republic located in New Echota in Georgia] owned 20,000 cattle and 1,500 slaves, like any other 'civilized' Georgians. But its very existence, and still more its constitution, violated both state and federal law, and in 1827 Georgia petitioned the federal government to 'remove' the Indians forthwith. The discovery of gold brought in a rush of white prospectors and provided a further economic motive. The election of General Jackson at the end of 1828 sealed the community's fate. In his inaugural address he insisted that the integrity of the state of Georgia, and the Constitution of the United States, came before Indian interests, however meritorious.
A man who was prepared to wage war against his own people, the South Carolinians [chief among them John Calhoun], for the sake of constitutional principles, was not going to let a 'utopia of savages' form an anomaly within a vast and growing nation united in a single system of law and government. And, of course, with hindsight, Jackson was absolutely right. A series of independent Indian republics in the midst of the United States would, by the end of the 20th century, have turned America into chaos, with representation at the United Nations, independent foreign policies, endless attempts to overthrow earlier Indian treaties and territorial demands on all their white neighbors.
… In material and moral terms, assimilation was always the best option for indigenous peoples confronted with the fact of white dominance. That is the conclusion reached by the historian who studies the fate not only of the American Indians but of the aborigines of Australia and the Maoris of New Zealand. To be preserved in amber as tribal societies with special 'rights' and 'claims' is merely a formula for continuing friction, extravagant expectations, and new forms of exploitation by white radical intellectuals
The final quote of this post comes 
from a long passage in John Keegan's Warpaths, which starts with the military historian's remarks on the Indians' incapability "to defend what they held dearest, their freedom to roam as nomads inside territories they did not claim to own but nevertheless sought to use and enjoy by exclusive right":
Little wonder that the European immigrants who made their way onto the Great Plains in the nineteenth century, Slavs of Eastern Europe, Russians from the Steppe, peoples whose history was suffused with memories of oppression by galloping, sword-wielding, slaven, Magyar, Mongol, and Turkish nomads, should have felt so little pity in their hearts for those other Mongoloid nomads whose interest in life seemed to subsist in hunting, pillage, and war.
… There is much that is tragic in the story of native America's conflict with the European interlopers, particularly in the treatment of the Indians of the temperate forest lands east of the Mississippi by the young republic …
… Yet the pretensions of the Plains Indians to exclusive rights over the heartland of the continent cannot, it seems to me, stand. Their claim, the claim of less than a million people, to possess territories capable of supporting not only millions more directly settled, but of still more millions outside America waiting to be fed by those territories' product, is the claim not of oppressed primitives but of the selfish rich,
The Plains Indians were indeed primitives; but their primitivism was of the "hard," not "soft," variety. Here were not shy, self-effacing marginalists, like the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, the Semai of the Philippine jungles, or the pygmies of the African rainforests, but proud, warrior nomads, who had taken from the Europeans what they coveted as a means to support their way of life, the horse and the gun, and then refused Europeans any share of the lands which horse and gun equipped them … to exploit.
Related:
• If leftists (U.S. as well as foreign) can't depict the Indians as Buddhist-monk-like beings interested in only peace and harmony, it becomes much harder to depict (white) Americans as monsters
• Sound Familiar? Over Two Centuries Old, and Still Running Strong
Related History Posts:
• What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House?
• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder? (Wait 'til You Hear About… Georgia's Dark Secret)
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"
•
• Harry Jaffa on the Civil War Era: For Democrats of the 21st Century as of the 19th, "the emancipation from morality was/is itself seen as moral progress"
• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?
• A Century and Half of Apartheid Policies: From Its 1828 Foundation, the Democrat Party Has Never Shed Its Racist Past
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Why They Don't Tell You the Whole Truth: The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence
James Comey and the deep state coup
Pass the Popcorn: Kash Patel Has Intriguing News About Comey Case and Those 'Burn Bags'
Covid shots should never have been used for children
Strict New Rules Ahead: FDA Ties Coronavirus Jabs to Pediatric Deaths
Canada:This is a rather remarkable development that requires an understanding of what is true and accurate, versus what is stated as the justification.
Interesting Development – Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Announces New Limits on Foreign Steel and Aluminum, With New 25% Tariff on Steel Derivative Components
This is a rather remarkable development that requires an understanding of what is true and accurate, versus what is stated as the justification.
In short, Prime Minister Mark Carney is conceding defeat to President Trump and positioning the Canadian economy to be compliant with U.S-Mexico trade regulations.
However, Carney is not saying that, indeed he cannot; he’s spent over a year telling Canadians that President Trump’s trade and economic demands are not going to be accepted by Canada. However, what he is factually doing is exactly what President Trump has demanded.
Prime Minister Carney is saying he is restricting Steel and Aluminum imports from non-free trade agreement countries, and he is lowering the tonnage of Steel and Aluminum that will be permitted for import. His claim is that this approach will help drive up “domestic demand” for Canadian Steel and Aluminum, but that’s ancillary to the real objective.
President Trump has demanded Canada stop importing cheap steel and aluminum mostly from China; including manufactured component goods that are made with steel and aluminum (think autos). Canada would not stop, because they could not stop. Their manufacturing base, green energy and climate change economy, is more of a component assembly system now.
So, President Trump hit Canada with a 35% tariff, and things got ugly. In June Trump raised the tariff to 50%. The back and forth has gone on all year.
Carney now announces restrictions on imported steel and aluminum, as well as restrictions on imported derivative goods that come from steel and aluminum, in combination with a spending plan to bolster the Canadian steel and aluminum manufacturing base. This ends up shifting the Canadian industrial sector to making steel and aluminum products without Chinese import dependency.
THIS IS EXACTLY what President Trump told both Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney they needed to do in order to get their manufacturing base into alignment with the U.S. plan for industrial manufacturing. But Carney cannot tell the Canadians that part; instead, he tells them this policy shift will drive up domestic demand. True, but that’s not the underlying motive.
President Trump is going to exit the USMCA (CUSMA to Canadians) trade agreement. It looks like Carney now realizes that is going to happen, and when that happens his only hope for a bilateral trade agreement will be if Canada makes goods again, rather than assembles the component products from imports.
“We know that this decades-long process of our ever-closer economic relationship between Canada and the United States has ended, and as a consequence of that, many of our strengths have become our vulnerabilities, particularly in those industries that are most tightly integrated with the United States,” Carney said during his announcement.
CANADA – […] Among the new measures is further limiting foreign steel imports from countries without a free trade agreement with Canada — from 50 to 20 per cent of 2024 levels — a measure largely aimed at reducing Chinese steel imports.
The government will also reduce quotas for countries with which Canada has a free trade agreement – excluding the U.S. and Mexico – going from 100 per cent to 75 per cent of 2024 levels, and impose a global 25 per cent tariff on targeted imported products made from steel.
Carney made the announcement in Ottawa on Wednesday, as trade talks with the U.S. remain stalled after the fallout over Ontario’s anti-tariff ad last month. (more)
Carney cannot say, ‘trade with the USA is different now. As a consequence, if we want to be compliant with Trump’s demands, we have to limit imported steel from China. We cannot survive without the USA so we are limiting our steel imports from China, and instead of importing the component goods, we are going to train and retool our own manufacturing to be Trump-compliant.’ Yet, that is exactly what Carney is doing.
The net/net if Canada keeps following this path, is they will come into compliance with a reestablished manufacturing system that will align with the USA for a bilateral free trade agreement. This is exactly what Mexico has been doing all year, instead of fighting with Donald Trump.
The ‘elbow’s up’ is an illusion.
Carney is politically gaslighting the Canadian electorate because he cannot admit to them that Trump has crushed him.
It was always, a.l.w.a.y.s going to end up like this. There was no other way it could end. The narrative engineering is now completely about face-saving in front of the Canadian people.
This is a rather remarkable development that requires an understanding of what is true and accurate, versus what is stated as the justification.
In short, Prime Minister Mark Carney is conceding defeat to President Trump and positioning the Canadian economy to be compliant with U.S-Mexico trade regulations.
However, Carney is not saying that, indeed he cannot; he’s spent over a year telling Canadians that President Trump’s trade and economic demands are not going to be accepted by Canada. However, what he is factually doing is exactly what President Trump has demanded.
Prime Minister Carney is saying he is restricting Steel and Aluminum imports from non-free trade agreement countries, and he is lowering the tonnage of Steel and Aluminum that will be permitted for import. His claim is that this approach will help drive up “domestic demand” for Canadian Steel and Aluminum, but that’s ancillary to the real objective.
President Trump has demanded Canada stop importing cheap steel and aluminum mostly from China; including manufactured component goods that are made with steel and aluminum (think autos). Canada would not stop, because they could not stop. Their manufacturing base, green energy and climate change economy, is more of a component assembly system now.
So, President Trump hit Canada with a 35% tariff, and things got ugly. In June Trump raised the tariff to 50%. The back and forth has gone on all year.
Carney now announces restrictions on imported steel and aluminum, as well as restrictions on imported derivative goods that come from steel and aluminum, in combination with a spending plan to bolster the Canadian steel and aluminum manufacturing base. This ends up shifting the Canadian industrial sector to making steel and aluminum products without Chinese import dependency.
THIS IS EXACTLY what President Trump told both Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney they needed to do in order to get their manufacturing base into alignment with the U.S. plan for industrial manufacturing. But Carney cannot tell the Canadians that part; instead, he tells them this policy shift will drive up domestic demand. True, but that’s not the underlying motive.
President Trump is going to exit the USMCA (CUSMA to Canadians) trade agreement. It looks like Carney now realizes that is going to happen, and when that happens his only hope for a bilateral trade agreement will be if Canada makes goods again, rather than assembles the component products from imports.
“We know that this decades-long process of our ever-closer economic relationship between Canada and the United States has ended, and as a consequence of that, many of our strengths have become our vulnerabilities, particularly in those industries that are most tightly integrated with the United States,” Carney said during his announcement.
CANADA – […] Among the new measures is further limiting foreign steel imports from countries without a free trade agreement with Canada — from 50 to 20 per cent of 2024 levels — a measure largely aimed at reducing Chinese steel imports.
The government will also reduce quotas for countries with which Canada has a free trade agreement – excluding the U.S. and Mexico – going from 100 per cent to 75 per cent of 2024 levels, and impose a global 25 per cent tariff on targeted imported products made from steel.
Carney made the announcement in Ottawa on Wednesday, as trade talks with the U.S. remain stalled after the fallout over Ontario’s anti-tariff ad last month. (more)
Carney cannot say, ‘trade with the USA is different now. As a consequence, if we want to be compliant with Trump’s demands, we have to limit imported steel from China. We cannot survive without the USA so we are limiting our steel imports from China, and instead of importing the component goods, we are going to train and retool our own manufacturing to be Trump-compliant.’ Yet, that is exactly what Carney is doing.
The net/net if Canada keeps following this path, is they will come into compliance with a reestablished manufacturing system that will align with the USA for a bilateral free trade agreement. This is exactly what Mexico has been doing all year, instead of fighting with Donald Trump.
The ‘elbow’s up’ is an illusion.
Carney is politically gaslighting the Canadian electorate because he cannot admit to them that Trump has crushed him.
It was always, a.l.w.a.y.s going to end up like this. There was no other way it could end. The narrative engineering is now completely about face-saving in front of the Canadian people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
