Sydney Sweeney appeared confident as she stepped out in Los Angeles on Saturday, shrugging off criticism following the disastrous box office performance of her latest film, Christy.The 28-year-old actress…

[View Article at Source]Propaganda about “freedom” proves to be thin gruel. The post Why Is This Second World War Vet Crying? appeared first on The American Conservative.

[View Article at Source]The inevitable logical end to any “civilizational politics” is a crusading foreign policy. The post A New Crusade in Africa appeared first on The American Conservative.

[View Article at Source]The Florida governor is adopting new positions to boost support—but one big problem remains. The post DeSantis Prepares His 2028 Pitch appeared first on The American Conservative.…

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs Why Is This Second World War Vet Crying? Propaganda about “freedom” proves to be thin gruel. In the lead-up to Britain’s Remembrance Day on November 11, a 100-year-old British veteran of the Second World War, Alec Penstone, provoked significant discussion after he told the popular news program Good Morning Britain that the sacrifice of his comrades-in-arms “wasn’t worth the result.” While the controversy itself was somewhat predictable due to Britain’s public cult surrounding its participation in the Second World War, Penstone’s comments are not out of the ordinary for British veterans of the conflict.  A point that has yet to be raised is the juxtaposition of the views of British veterans of the Second World War with Russian veterans of the conflict. Penstone’s attitudes towards the sacrifices made in the conflict would be alien to Russian public discourse.  Why is this so? If anything, one would expect the opposite; the British government of the time was infinitely preferable to that of the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is that the average soldier of the Red Army did not fight for the ideological abstractions of the Soviet state, but for the survival of his homeland, people, and nation. He fought because an invader was at his doorstep, not because of the Politburo’s belief in dialectical materialism or the dictatorship of the proletariat.   Indeed, the Russian name for the hostilities between the USSR and Germany, the “Great Patriotic War,” captures this view. It is a reference to France’s invasion of Russia, which is known as the “Patriotic War of 1812.” In 1941, much as in 1812, the Russians sought to defend themselves from a Western invader at the head of a multinational coalition whose stated goal was to destroy Russia as a world power.  The historical performance of the Red Army points to this view being widespread amongst its soldiers. As noted by Sean McMeekin, even in 1941, in the earliest stages of the Great Patriotic War, when the Soviets faced setback after setback, the Germans noted that the soldiers of the Red Army fought stubbornly. This contrasted with the Red Army’s reputation from the previous year in the war against Finland, when morale difficulties contributed to a disastrous performance by the Red Army; hatred of the Politruks engendered an ambivalence towards the Finns.  The difference between these performances suggests that the average soldier of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War saw himself as defending his country and was willing to fight for it with a courage that he was unwilling to display in the earlier conflict, where he saw himself as serving the Soviet state specifically. Many Russian veterans, including some of the few who are still alive today, will candidly recount the injustices of the Soviet system while recounting their experiences in the Great Patriotic War. This was also recognized by many of those most opposed to the Soviet state, such as Anton Denikin, one of the earlier leaders of the White Army, who from his exile offered to donate a wagonload of medicine to the Red Army. Indeed, the Soviet state itself recognized that this patriotism, rather than a love of communism, was the motivation for the sacrifices of those in its armed forces. During the conflict the Soviet state relegalized Orthodox Christianity and began promoting the Russian national patriotism that it had sought to eradicate over the preceding two decades. Russian heroes such as Dmitry Donskoi or Alexander Suvorov were returned to public commemoration, and the government brought back patriotic symbols such as St. George’s ribbon. The Soviet state also used the war as an occasion to shift the basis of its legitimacy from the false promises of the 1917 Revolution to its ability to defend its people from a foreign invader successfully. The state anthem was changed from one extolling world revolution to one extolling the glory of their free fatherland and marking its victory over the invader. The patriotism that guided millions of Russians has only increased since the fall of the Soviet Union. Since the fall of communism and the reemergence of Russia as a world power rather than as a nation submerged under an ideological state, Russian historical memory has increasingly detached the sacrifices of the Great Patriotic War from Soviet ideology and fused it to a broader understanding of Russian nationhood. To cite the most controversial example of this, Russia’s new armed forces cathedral fuses traditional Orthodox imagery with the full sweep of Russian history, with mosaics honoring both the Russian Imperial Army in its various campaigns and the actions of the Red Army during the Second World War. Indeed, the understanding of the Great Patriotic War seems to transcend the normal political divisions within Russia. Russians of various political views, including some who left the country over opposition to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, will echo the same view of the Second World War as pro-government outlets. So why might British veterans regret their sacrifices, unlike the Russians? The answer is hinted at in Penstone’s answer. “What we fought for was our freedom…. Even now, it is downright worse than when I fought for it,” Penstone said. Freedom, while good, is at its core abstract and subject to contradictory definitions. While Penstone may feel that his honorable service is betrayed as Britain has become increasingly authoritarian, others may feel that Britain has become freer by banning hate speech and importing large numbers of migrants. Abstractions are thin and changeable motivations—something our political leadership might remember when they tell the average American soldier, sailor, marine, or airman that we are about to “Make Iran Great Again” or to bring gay rights to Venezuela. The post Why Is This Second World War Vet Crying? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs A New Crusade in Africa The inevitable logical end to any “civilizational politics” is a crusading foreign policy. The historian Pál Engel once wrote that one clever trick Matthias Corvinus used was writing long letters to the Papal States about the necessity of a crusade against the Ottomans that always ended on an amusing note of considered helplessness: “In his letters he was at pains to point out that he could do nothing against the sultan without help.”  The inevitable logical end to any “civilizational politics” is a crusading foreign policy. Unfortunately, crusades tend to require hegemonic leadership, a coordinated, sustainable long-term effort, manpower willing to die for a hallowed cause, and most importantly, enormous amounts of money.  It is not clear that grand history is a favored academic discipline among the connoisseurs of “civilizational” politics within the upper echelons of the current administration, but in recent days there has been a significant movement towards “doing something” in Nigeria to defend Christians under attack from Muslim terrorists.  The push has congressional support in the House and the Senate; it recently even got the characteristically subtle nod from the president, who called simultaneously for using the American military in Nigeria and cutting off all foreign aid to save “our CHERISHED Christians!” who are being killed by “Islamic Terrorists.” Within moments, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted on X, that “The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.”  It is interesting, to say the least, how information travels within the White House, or how the Department of Defense decides on what constitutes a strategic priority or threat to the way of life or prosperity of the United States. But certainly there is no question that Nigeria’s Christians are having a challenging time. A widely cited report, often used by Senator Ted Cruz, states that over 50,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2009. (Granted, evidence that this is a targeted attack specifically on Christians, and not a generic Islamist problem against everyone, both Christians and Muslims, is sparse.) A recent essay in UnHerd partially explains the problems. Consider that Nigeria is a large state, with a population that is almost two-thirds that of the United States and half of the European Union’s. With approximately 230 million people, the state is roughly divided into Muslims and Christians; the northern half is populated by Muslims, who also form the majority of the ruling elite. For a country that large, the state capacity is immensely small: The police force of Nigeria is around 370,000 in total.  Nigerian Christians are also more pacifistic historically than their Muslim conationals, and naturally invite more predatory attacks. The relative pacifism attributed to Christian communities renders their victimization more tolerable within the elite’s pragmatic risk assessment, as such incidents pose minimal threat to regime stability.  Yet it will be difficult to find rational defenders of the history of American interventions based on either ideology or humanitarian concerns, from Bosnia to Somalia to the Middle East. The first two changed the demographics of many American cities, especially in Michigan and Minnesota. The last one, in some regards still ongoing, is a case study of how not to waste blood and treasure.  American foreign policy was not always this ideological or crusading. One need not go back to the founders: John Quincy Adams, for example, would have had a heart attack to hear that the U.S. is planning to embark on saving Nigerians from their domestic terrorism problem. As recently as 1971, Richard Nixon refused to intervene in Bangladesh. When asked, Henry Kissinger said that helping Soviet Jews emigrate to America was “not an objective of American foreign policy” but rather, “a humanitarian concern,” a statement that caused significant heartburn among neoconservatives who still hold Kissinger as a figure of special contempt.  The rational, realist, and possibly the best courses of action for Nigeria are thus: One, the U.S. spends an enormous amount of capital to build up Nigerian state capacity, which then deals with the problem within. The risk is that Nigeria is also a corrupt country, and all that money will be stolen in a manner similar to that seen in the 20 years in Afghanistan. Second, the U.S. allows a private mercenary company to provide order, in exchange for local governance and collecting taxes. Consider that Ron Paul once suggested a similar course of action against terrorists. Erik Prince’s company is already planning to do that in Haiti. The Russians also have recently used a similar template to provide order and buy influence and resources in Africa. Third, the U.S. can organize a local Christian militia and allow the CIA to arm it. The risk here is a full-scale civil war in the largest country in Africa.  Whatever the preferred course of action should be, it is not an American military intervention and the destruction of whatever is left of the state capacity of a nominally aligned country. Given recent American history, however, one cannot be too optimistic.  The post A New Crusade in Africa appeared first on The American Conservative.

An iconic track. The post What song held the number one spot the longest in 1986? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Gas Appliance, Pipeline Bans Threaten Energy Security

A Jarring Reminder of Our Nation’s Cultural Demise