"Nobody’s going to understand or care that I’m too tired." The post Nina Simone once discussed the stifling pressures faced by musicians first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

"That show is still my number one." The post Led Zeppelin at the Silverdome ’77: how the record-breaking concert unfurled first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

How many Nazis does it take to ruin a country? The Nazi party never won a majority in a free German election. Yet their poison effectively contaminated the whole. There were resistance movements on a small and ineffective scale‚ but the society as a whole did what it was asked to do and beyond. Biden wants to force Israel to cave to Hamas … and to do nothing effective to change the Palestinian culture of Nazi hate.  The Nazis actively controlled the culture‚ expunging the things they didn’t like. And they mined a deep seam of hatred that ran for centuries‚ in which the Jews were held to be an enemy so cunning and so ruthless that they could thwart God’s plan for salvation while conniving to control‚ destroy‚ or ruin everyone else. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Jordan Peterson Reclaims Religious Beliefs That Promote Freedom) Historian Daniel Goldhagen chronicled the participation of ordinary Germans in the organized extermination of the Jews of Europe. He found that‚ far from being reluctant and only complying with orders under dire threat of force‚ ordinary Germans took the initiative in attacking‚ torturing‚ and killing Jews.  We are accustomed of thinking that such behavior is aberrant. Holocaust denial seems reasonable if we assume that all people are like us and abhor such behavior. We wouldn’t ever do such a thing‚ so obviously no one would. But they do. And for it to be on a large scale‚ there is always a cultural breakdown involved‚ a renunciation‚ a turning away from the values of the of Jerusalem with the best of Athens that has been the foundation of free societies. We are molded by our culture. When that culture is underlain with such concepts as “love your neighbor as yourself” or “we are created in the image of the divine‚” we are careful and critical when we examine problems. But if those principles are ditched in favor of the narrative that  certain people are by nature entirely to blame for the disasters in our lives‚ we quite naturally are angry with those people who we are told are hurting us. We would be willing to do all kinds of things to them as they are not of the same humanity as we are.. Goldhagen writes: The belief that the Jews had already greatly harmed Germans and would always work to injure them still more‚ at least partly explains the tremendous cruelty that Germans inflicted on Jews … Demonological antisemitism … helped to produce cruelty towards Jews on [a] vast scale; perpetrating such cruelty often became a norm with no exceptions … Such beliefs were the necessary cause of such widespread‚ frequent‚ thorough‚ and unmerciful brutality towards the Jews‚ for they removed the Jews utterly from the purview of the ethical code that protected non-Jewish members of society. It seems beyond serious doubt that it is the same with the heirs of the Nazis in Gaza. Deborah Danan quotes an Israeli who survived the October 7 in a safe room: “The reality proves that there’s no such thing as a bilti me’urav (uninvolved) in Gaza. All of Gaza is Hamas.” While that is too absolute to be literally true‚ it seems effectively true‚ as her Tablet article (January 24) makes clear: Around 700 Palestinians stormed Barad’s kibbutz of Nir Oz — less than a five-minute drive from Gaza — that day‚ CCTV footage shows. The overwhelming majority of those — estimated by Eran Smilansky‚ a member of the kibbutz’s security squad‚ to be around 550 — were civilians. They were largely unarmed and not in uniform. Some of those civilians carried out wholesale acts of terror themselves‚ including rape and abduction — and in some cases‚ the eventual sale of hostages to Hamas — while others abetted the terrorists. Others still simply took advantage of the porous border to loot Israeli homes and farms‚ including stealing hundreds of thousands of shekels in agricultural equipment. (READ MORE: Do Not Let Hamas Escape Into Exile) Videos show the celebration that greeted the raiders on their return to Gaza. Videos show large crowds cheering‚ people spitting at the hostages‚ others kicking and spitting on the broken body of a woman killed by her captors. Later‚ on the release of some hostages in return for many times their number of convicted terrorists‚ crowds jeered‚ howled‚ and spat at the captives. Video records a great deal of passion‚ savage‚ and perversity‚ entirely unforced.  Perhaps most damning is the observation of an Israeli from the devastated left-wing kibbutz Be’eri‚ home of many who actively believed in rapprochement with Gaza. On October 7‚ the Israeli’s son was taken hostage. His attitude towards Gaza‚ for decades charitable‚ had changed. His working hypothesis had been disproved by reality. He said to Danan: “I don’t differentiate between [Gaza civilians] and Hamas. Let me know of one Palestinian in Gaza who tried to save a Jew and maybe I’ll change my mind.” The culture of the elites‚ stealthily introduced to our schools and then to our entrenched government‚ trades in the blame business. They assign blame‚ not by the principles of our religious and philosophical traditions that formed our culture for centuries‚ but by a neat grid matrix of group identity. All the moral work is done by assignment — one belongs to a group and that group has its position either as a victim or an oppressor. No debate may be held on the assignments‚ as no oppressor would admit being one.  The Jews are an oppressor in this matrix. End of story. It dovetails exactly with the Nazi narrative‚ which is‚ with some small adjustments‚ the narrative of Hamas and the culture of both Gaza and the PA‚ informing every child from their first breath through their death as “martyrs.” The Jew is not human‚ the Jew is demonic. This is supported by taxpayer dollars through the UN‚ whose UNRWA agency provides textbooks for Palestinian schoolchildren. A 2017 study of these textbooks by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and two other organizations concluded: UNRWA‚ in fact‚ not only does propagate a non-peaceful line contrary to UN resolutions on the Middle East‚ and not only does allow the presentation of Israel and its Jewish citizens as illegitimate with heavy layers of demonization. UNRWA also betrays its moral obligation toward the Palestinian children and youths’ human rights and well-being‚ by letting the PA prepare them for a future war with Israel. That war has arrived‚ and many of those students are suffering from it. Yet our Administration totters and weaves about‚ equivocating‚ desperately trying to find a place where the grim woke victimology that Obama nourished can be crammed into a narrative of reasonable support for Israel‚ which is the desire of a large majority of Americans. Biden wants to force Israel to cave to Hamas‚ to allow it continued control‚ to claim a great victory‚ and to do nothing effective to change the Palestinian culture of Nazi hate. (READ MORE: Israel’s High Court Pulls a Dred Scott) This new Nazism cannot be accommodated at all. Let its military be utterly crushed and the culture of hatred given no place at all. As we de-Nazified Germany‚ so must Gaza and the PA be de-Nazified as well. The last thing to do is to reward undying‚ eliminationist hatred with sovereignty and international respect. Clean the cancerous culture out. No more October 7s.   The post First‚ De-Nazify Gaza appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Immigration has been a hot-button issue for years. But with Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent declaration that illegal immigration at America’s southern border constitutes an “invasion‚” the button has gone from hot to scorching. Many self-described but poorly-catechized Catholics — particularly of the terminally-online keyboard warrior variety — have decried Abbott’s stand at the border‚ mischaracterizing it as uncharitable and even unchristian. But the Lone Star State’s governor‚ himself a convert to Catholicism‚ clearly has an understanding of the Catholic Church’s teaching on immigration‚ borders‚ and national sovereignty. Even Pope Francis … emphasized in a 2017 interview‚ “Can borders be controlled? Yes‚ each country has a right to control its borders‚ who enters and who leaves.” The inextricable relationship between borders and national identity‚ culture‚ and sovereignty was for so long understood that few popes ever spoke on the relationship between borders and immigration before the World Wars. The great Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on borders and immigration in his 13th century masterwork the Summa Theologica. Relying on analysis of Sacred Scripture‚ Aquinas explained that while nations are called to exercise charity to foreigners‚ each nation’s chief responsibility is to its own people‚ with the dual aims of preserving national unity and the common good. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Understanding Pope Francis’s Comments on Hell) A nation’s relations with foreigners‚ Aquinas explained‚ may be “twofold: peaceful‚ and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.” That is to say‚ God’s Law demands nations respond differently to peaceful and hostile foreigners. While Aquinas emphasized that foreigners should be treated with dignity and not abused‚ he declared that a nation has the right to reject or repel immigrants it deems “hostile.” Furthermore‚ in order for immigrants to be adopted into a country‚ they must first adopt that country’s culture and way of life. “The reason for this‚” he explained‚ “was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst‚ many dangers might occur‚ since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” It is perhaps difficult to recall that Aquinas was writing centuries before democratic republics would come into existence‚ in an age of monarchs and knights‚ where the voting booth was not yet even a glimmer in man’s imagination. Many conservatives’ comments on immigration today are reminiscent of the Angelic Doctor’s reasoning. Centuries later‚ especially in the wake of World War II‚ immigration escalated exponentially‚ prompting Catholic leaders to speak on the subject in order to inform the consciences of the faithful. Pope Pius XII was one of the first pontiffs to directly and clearly address the issue of immigration‚ laying particular emphasis on not only the common good of a nation but the common good of the whole human race. Witnessing countless masses of refugees displaced by the near-global conflict‚ Pius XII asked Americans in a 1949 address‚ “Is the policy concerning immigration as liberal as the natural resources of a country so abundantly blessed by the Creator would allow and as the needs of other countries seem to require?” In his 1952 Apostolic Exhortation Exsul Familia Nazarethana‚ Pius XII wrote: Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people‚ the sovereignty of the State‚ although it must be respected‚ cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is‚ for inadequate or unjustified reasons‚ denied to needy and decent people from other nations‚ provided of course‚ that the public wealth‚ considered very carefully‚ does not forbid this. The pontiff was speaking of immigration of necessity — not of want‚ not of whim‚ but of necessity — the sort of immigration Aquinas would classify as “peaceful.” Families displaced by war and violence still seek shelter in nations blessed by God with abundant riches‚ and while every nation has a duty to its own people‚ it has also a duty to mankind as a whole. (READ MORE: Archdiocese Challenges Child Abuse Victims Act) But hundreds of thousands of fighting-age males are not necessarily fleeing war — and if they were‚ they would be cowards‚ leaving behind their women and children while they refuse to fight. Asylum claims are too readily accepted by the derelict government and its agents. Even fleeing economic impoverishment is not always necessary: America’s success is not predicated simply on its geography and topography‚ but on the will‚ imagination‚ and fiery spirit of its people; if America can produce a culture of success and prosperity‚ so also can other nations‚ if they are not readily abandoned by their own people. The late Pope Benedict XVI spoke of this principle in his 2013 Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees‚ saying‚ “[E]ven before the right to migrate‚ there is need to reaffirm the right not to emigrate‚ that is‚ to remain in one’s homeland.” That is to say‚ a right to emigrate‚ to leave one’s own country and attempt to enter another’s‚ may be mitigated or nullified if one does not avail oneself of the right to simply remain in one’s own country. There is the further problem of what Aquinas would classify as “hostile” immigrants. America’s southern border is being flooded with gang members and cartel agents‚ drug-smugglers carrying inordinately lethal doses of fentanyl‚ potential and even confirmed terrorists from across the Atlantic. And yet the present administration’s obscenely lax policies and practical weaponization of “parole” procedures have admitted millions of illegal immigrants into the nation — nearly three-quarters of a million through “parole” procedures in 2023 alone! Then there is the very nature of illegal immigration. Aquinas stressed the importance of respect for a nation’s laws and assimilation for its culture. So also did Pope Pius XII when he said that an immigrant “must be conscious of what he owes the people that welcomes him and tries to facilitate his progressive adaptation to his new way of life.” By the very mode of entry sought by illegal immigrants‚ they are flouting and violating the very first set of American laws they encounter. How can they be expected to respect the remainder of the nation’s laws or assimilate to the American way of life (which is being rapidly eroded by the immigration crisis) if they will not even attempt to enter the nation legally? In order to prevent the undermining and eventual destruction of a nation’s laws‚ culture‚ and way of life‚ stringent immigration regulation is necessary. Recognizing this as both a reality and a good‚ the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: Political authorities‚ for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible‚ may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions‚ especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them‚ to obey its laws‚ and to assist in carrying civic burdens. There are‚ of course‚ other factors to consider with immigration‚ such as the natural resources and economic state of the country receiving immigrants — the Catechism again explains‚ “The more prosperous nations are obliged‚ to the extent they are able‚ to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.” (Emphasis added.) This is why Pope St. John Paul II stated‚ in his 2001 Message for the World Day of Peace‚ “The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being‚ especially when in need‚ with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life.” (READ MORE: In 2023‚ Nicaragua Was No Place To Be Catholic) The regulation of one’s borders‚ then‚ is most certainly a principle not only permitted but advocated by the Catholic Church‚ going back centuries and centuries. Even Pope Francis‚ a vocal proponent of accepting and assisting refugees in particular‚ emphasized in a 2017 interview‚ “Can borders be controlled? Yes‚ each country has a right to control its borders‚ who enters and who leaves‚ and countries that are in danger — of terrorism or the like — have more right to control them more.” Although the circumstances of the modern world have changed what immigration looks like and even how it’s discussed‚ Catholic teaching addresses the unchanging moral dimension of the issue. The post Strangers in a Strange Land: The Catholic Church and Immigration appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden spoke at a Virginia campaign rally Tuesday billed as a talk about abortion and “reproductive freedom.” Pro-Palestinian activists in the audience‚ however‚ had other plans. They heckled Biden at least 10 times‚ calling the president “Genocide Joe” and shouting “Free Palestine.” Worse‚ they don’t see that Biden’s support of Israel since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks represents his finest hour. The Biden faithful tried to shout down the hecklers. “Four more years‚” some chanted. And: “Let’s go‚ Joe.” “This is going to go on for a while‚” the president shrugged. “They’ve got this planned.” This is going to go on for a while — and that could pose a problem for an incumbent Democrat who has been trailing former President Donald Trump in major polls. To win in November‚ the 81-year-old incumbent needs young and minority voters‚ some of whom have made public their intent to not vote for Biden in November because they sympathize with the terrorist group Hamas in its war against Israel. A December Harvard CAPS-Harris survey of more than 2‚000 registered voters found that Americans support Israel more than Hamas by a huge margin of 81 to 19‚ but that voters ages 18-24 are evenly split. (READ MORE from Debra Saunders: The Other New Hampshire Primary: No Debates‚ No Drama‚ No Biden) Last month‚ NBC News reported on a letter to the president signed by 40-plus White House and executive branch interns. The letter urged Biden “to call for a permanent ceasefire now‚ a release of all hostages including Palestinian political prisoners‚ and to support a diplomatic solution that will put an end to the illegal occupation and the Israeli apartheid.” Be it noted‚ Biden would not use terms like “Israeli apartheid” or refer to Israel’s military campaign against Hamas as “genocide.” Biden supports Israel and is keenly aware that the death and destruction happening in Gaza fall on Hamas. The interns did not sign the letter by name. Instead‚ they identified themselves as “Palestinian‚ Jewish‚ Arab‚ Muslim‚ Christian‚ Black‚ Asian‚ Latino‚ White‚ and Queer‚” but they identified the offices in which they work. So they care enough to badmouth their boss‚ but not so much that they want to put their names on it. Courage. Also‚ these kids clearly don’t understand the first rule for political staffers: Never forget that nobody elected you. When you’re job hunting‚ look for elected officials who share your politics. Later‚ if you disagree‚ you remind yourself that voters put them in office‚ not you. If you don’t like it‚ resign. If Biden is getting dissed by his own interns‚ what does that mean for his reelection effort? Mark Dubowitz‚ chief executive of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies‚ told me the issue could work in Biden’s favor. “The polling suggests that the majority of Americans support Israel over Hamas and these numbers skew even more favorably for Israel among older voters most likely to show up on Election Day‚” Dubowitz wrote in an email. “While the election won’t turn decisively on this issue‚ the data reveals that it won’t hurt Biden and may even help him attract support from the moderate Democrats‚ independents and disaffected‚ anti-Trump Republicans who are even more pro-Israel than the average voter.” (READ MORE: ‘Free Media’ for Trump Feels Like 2016 Again) Could someone please alert the nameless White House interns who somehow believe “the pleas of the American people have been heard and thus far‚ ignored?” They are so clueless they think they’re in the majority. Worse‚ they don’t see that Biden’s support of Israel since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks represents his finest hour. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Biden White House Interns: Nobody Cares What You Think appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

What do you think of when you hear the words “Nordic welfare state”? Government-run health care‚ with reasonable fees for regular check-ups but long waiting lists for certain life-saving treatments? Free university education‚ the proviso being that there may not be an opening in your chosen field of study? Rules that make it almost impossible to fire even the most incompetent employee? The ease with which some people  — including immigrants who’ve never even tried to learn the language or find a job — are able to collect social benefits throughout their adult lives? Or the high taxes that are needed to pay for the whole shebang? All of these are indeed major aspects of the Nordic welfare state. But in Norway‚ where I live‚ there are other aspects to the system that you may never have heard of. You might imagine‚ for example‚ that freelance writers operate more or less outside of the system. Au contraire‚ mon ami. In the lives of a great many novelists‚ poets‚ and playwrights‚ the welfare system plays an absolutely crucial role. (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Those Who Move to a Different State) I was reminded of this the other day when a quite extraordinary letter to the editor appeared in Norway’s largest newspaper‚ VG. Signed by several dozen of the nation’s critically acclaimed‚ prize-winning authors and headlined “The future of Norwegian literature is at risk‚” it was identified as an opprop — meaning “proclamation” or “announcement.” But I’m going to call it a manifesto‚ because that’s what it reads like. Think Declaration of Independence‚ although it was more like a Declaration of Dependence. You’ll see why in a second.  On the paper’s homepage‚ the story was promoted this way: “Great unrest in forfattar-Norge.” “Forfattar-Norge” literally means “Author Norway‚” which‚ yes‚ sounds odd in English. A proper translation would be something like “in literary Norway” or “among Norwegian authors.” But neither of these‚ especially the latter‚ really captures the corporate — or (better) communal‚ or (even better) collectivist – flavor of the original.  You see‚ in some countries‚ writers and other creative types actually think of themselves as individuals. I imagine some Norwegian writers do‚ too. But among a great many of them‚ something like the medieval guild mentality still reigns. You may recall from history class that in the Middle Ages‚ workers in various fields formed guilds to keep outsiders from practicing their crafts‚ thereby reducing competition and keeping prices high.  You’d think that knowing they’re living on handouts would give these highbrow scribblers a touch of humility. Nope. Such a mentality is utterly different in kind from merely being active on a literary scene. When I lived in New York‚ I went to book parties‚ took part in literary panels at bookstores‚ sat on the board of the National Book Critics Circle‚ and so on. But did I think of myself as part of “Author America” or “Author New York”? Hardly. I didn’t think of myself as part of anything. I felt like I was out there on my own‚ struggling to make ends meet by getting up every morning and spending the day banging out prose.  And I felt lucky — positively exhilarated — to be able to do so. Those book parties and such? They were just an occasional excuse to consort with my fellow free souls. The struggling writer or artist is one of the oldest clichés around‚ but when you’re starting out‚ especially‚ there’s definitely something exciting and romantic — and terrifying‚ too — about making that leap into the unknown‚ and trying to find out if you can pull it off.  In Norway it doesn’t work like that. Allow me to quote the subhead of the VG manifesto: “There is great unrest among Norwegian literary authors. We fear that the unique literary system in Norway‚ which even produced the most recent Nobel Prize winner in literature‚ will disappear. Now we ask that the politicians straighten this matter out.”   As noted‚ that’s just the subhead‚ but you may already have a question or two. What‚ for example‚ is this “unique literary system”? And what is it that’s threatening it? (READ MORE: Imperfect Criticism‚ Great TV: Remembering Siskel &; Ebert) First‚ as to the “unique system”: in Norway‚ a certain cohort of literary-type authors make their living‚ in very large part‚ through sizable grants from state-funded organizations. Some of these writers have to apply every year for their payouts. Others get guaranteed lifetime subsidies. In short‚ if these literary folk have a medieval guild mentality‚ the way that they make a living is right out of the medieval and Renaissance-era system of patronage. The difference is that today the Medicis who foot the bills are the workaday slobs who actually have to get up early‚ drag themselves from their modest homes in Nowheresville to some hated workplace‚ and scrape together enough mazuma to support their families — while also coughing up more than a third of their income in taxes‚ part of which ends up buying pinot noir for layabout littérateurs residing in the tonier parts of Oslo.  Of course‚ those uncouth‚ semi-literate slobs whose taxes cover the costs in this scheme don’t get to decide which writers get their money. Who does? The writers themselves. Who else‚ after all‚ is more qualified? Here’s the deal: this year writer “A” is on the Writers’ Union board‚ and he votes for a stipend for his beloved mentor‚ writer “B”; next year “B” is on the board‚ and okays a subsidy for his brilliant protégé‚ “A.” One hand washes the other. These progressive literary elites‚ then‚ may claim to bleed for the great unwashed‚ but their “system” exists solely to squeeze cash out of the proles and share it among themselves — and make sure that none of it‚ not a single krone‚ is ever spent on a book that one of those poor louts might ever want to read.  Anyway‚ on to question #2: what’s the point of the manifesto? What are all these VIPs upset about? Well‚ apparently the Norwegian government wants to alter the stipend process. What’s amusing is that‚ for all the vaunted literary genius of the manifesto’s many signatories‚ it does a surprisingly lousy job of explaining precisely what changes the government is calling for. All that the manifesto gives us to go on is a quoted passage‚ its provenance unidentified and its contents patently disdained by the manifesto’s signatories‚ which argues that the recipients of literary grants should not just be chosen by writers but also — gasp! — by readers. And not just readers of the refined and récherché; no‚ all readers. While literature must “provoke‚ be difficult‚ set the agenda‚ and challenge conventional frameworks‚” reads the quoted passage‚ these goals “must be balanced with offerings that are widely viewed as accessible and attractive.”   For the manifesto’s signatories‚ those are fighting words: they “simplify” reality; they reflect “a neoliberal disdain for considering and treating literature with an eye to quality”; and if set into system‚ they will lead to “a devaluation of the artist” and endanger the kind of literature “that can’t make it on its own in a marketplace.” The signatories go even further than that: they also oppose granting money for specific writing projects; they want “artists’ stipends‚ not stipends for text production.” Got that? Not only shouldn’t a grant recipient have to have (ugh!) readers; in theory‚ that exquisitely delicate artistic soul shouldn’t even have to write anything. They are artists too‚ after all‚ who‚ instead of banging away at a computer‚ sit for hour after hour in this week’s cool café exchanging profundities with their equally idle literary compeers. (READ MORE: The Glittering Cast of Vienna’s Postwar Émigrés) In the end‚ the manifesto could well have consisted of two sentences: We know what great writing is‚ because we’re the ones who produce it‚ you philistines. So shut up‚ cough up the dough‚ and let us‚ your betters‚ pass it out among ourselves. You’d think that knowing they’re living on handouts would give these highbrow scribblers a touch of humility. Nope. Instead‚ they radiate arrogance and superiority. And audacity. They even claim that the work of Jon Fosse‚ the highly unconventional playwright who won last year’s Nobel Prize in Literature‚ wouldn’t have been possible without Norway’s “unique literary system” — the idea being that such offbeat stuff would never make it in the marketplace. But even before Fosse’s prize‚ he was widely published and produced. I’ve read profiles of him that make it clear he’s doing more than OK financially. Why should my tax money go to him?  Why‚ for that matter‚ should I support manifesto signatory Linn Ullmann‚ daughter of Ingmar — ka-ching! — Bergman? Or signatory Dag Solstad‚ an old Commie propagandist? I’ve seen pictures of these people in their elegant living rooms and gardens and on lavish vacations. Why should I be underwriting their luxuries?  There’s one last factor here. I’d suggest that part of being a truly interesting and worthwhile writer is having known some degree of suffering‚ or at least some tough times — i.e.‚ exactly the kind of existence that a life lived on a stipend is intended to insulate you from. Which is why most of their writing‚ far from being remotely fresh or challenging or provocative‚ is instead deadeningly familiar: each publishing season in Norway brings a new crop of grim novels about the inner lives of brooding‚ sedentary intellectual types. Particularly in a time of crippling financial hardship for Norwegians (among other things‚ insanely high electric bills)‚ it seems the height of gall for self-styled literary artists to be informing the proles that it’s their duty — to those very artists! — to foot the bill for their unread masterpieces.  READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: All Hail Cate Blanchett Bradley Cooper Is Leonard Bernstein — And I Am Marie of Romania The post Norwegian Authors’ Declaration of Dependence (On Government) appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Attendees of last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos experienced something not typically witnessed at the elitist conclave — full-throated critiques of the group and its aspirations. The recently elected president of Argentina‚ Javier Milei‚ in an electric speech condemning collectivism and the failure of Western elites to defend the economic model that lifted approximately 90 percent of the world’s population out of poverty in a little over 200 years‚ called business leaders “heroes” while imploring them not to be intimated by a “political class … [desiring only] to stay in power and retain its privileges.”  Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts sounded similar themes on a panel discussing what to expect from a prospective U.S. Republican administration‚ pointedly describing those at Davos as “part of the problem.” Neither the Rentiers nor the Marks are worthy stewards of the enormous benefits free enterprise has bestowed upon the world. While political leaders‚ international NGOs‚ academics‚ and other public figures comprise a significant number of Davos attendees‚ CEOs and other business leaders may be the largest group in attendance.  As such‚ the proceedings garner significant interest from CNBC‚ Bloomberg TV‚ and other business media‚ focusing on the “capitalists” present at a conference otherwise given over to myriad collectivist objectives.  Who are — or rather‚ what are — these “capitalists”? One might think business leaders have chosen their careers out of free-market convictions (as suggested by Milei’s characterization of them as “heroes”).  Similarly‚ one might also expect those engaged in any given profession or career (particularly those having ascended to leadership roles due to their success) to believe in the merit of their work.  In truth‚ many likely see such efforts as simply making a living‚ and subscribe to other beliefs. (READ MORE from Richard Shinder: The End of Financial Innovation?) Accordingly‚ what are thought of as “capitalists” sit along an ideological spectrum which generally adheres to traditional notions of economic “left” and “right.”  Along this continuum are clustered three general groupings of business professionals. The easiest to characterize sit at the left end of the spectrum: the “Rent Extractors” or “Rentiers.” These are mostly corporatists‚ viewing the commercial realm as but one societal group or faction among several‚ and who individually see commerce as a means to a straightforward personal end — making money.  They are sometimes derisively called “crony capitalists” and are not known to be fans of competition‚ individual merit‚ or the tenets of classical liberalism more generally.  They typically inhabit larger enterprises‚ and now‚ sitting at the controls of these sprawling institutions‚ support policies having the effect of pulling up the opportunity drawbridge behind them.  This group animates the business wing and donor class of the modern Democratic Party. Next are those businesspeople who play their part in a protection racket writ large — let’s call them the “Marks‚” as in victims.  These are capitalists of little conviction or philosophical introspection — while perhaps less hypocritical than the Rentiers‚ their primary professional objective is to be left alone to go about the business of enriching themselves. The Marks will feint in the direction of whatever fad holds corporate America’s attention at the moment — be it DEI‚ stakeholder capitalism‚ the “energy transition‚” or ESG — in order to advance their careers‚ and happily direct corporate and individual philanthropy to causes set on the Marks’ own destruction‚ failing to comprehend that the logical endpoint of these policies is anathema to their very existence.  As with other prey species‚ they manifest a herd mentality and seek safety in numbers.  While they’d be loath to articulate their goals as such‚ in practice their desire is to earn enough money to hopefully insulate themselves from a degraded culture and the consequences of the policies supported by their professional cohort.  It is the Marks that Lenin had in mind when he said “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Last are the actual capitalists‚ or “Old Believers.”  They not only believe in the economic advantages of free enterprise‚ but more importantly (as highlighted by President Milei in his WEF speech) its moral superiority.  This group is largely comprised of men and women running small businesses‚ along with a fair number of entrepreneurs.  They are accustomed to having to compete in order to succeed‚ and consider government’s impact on their business more burdensome than helpful. (READ MORE: The New Collectivism of Big Government Elites) The Old Believers are less visible as public figures and traditionally less politically active — likely ensuing from a distaste for politics and the demands of their professional lives.  This low profile in comparison with the Rentiers and Marks has contributed to the belief in our contemporary politics that businesspeople are largely leftists‚ leading to rising anti-business sentiment on the populist right. What many observers fail to appreciate is that the critique of “Davos Man” made by Milei‚ Roberts and others comes from the Old Believers‚ and is directed as much at the Rentiers and Marks masquerading as Milei’s “heroes” as it is at the NGOs and outright collectivists in attendance‚ who make no pretense of their opposition to economic freedom and individual liberty. Those who enjoy the fruits of free markets while failing to protect them from predation either don’t understand the damage of the philosophies they promote (or at least tolerate)‚ or cynically believe they can remain a step ahead of the executioner by playing both sides‚ as with the businessman Viktor Komarovsky in “Dr. Zhivago.”  Neither the Rentiers nor the Marks are worthy stewards of the enormous benefits free enterprise has bestowed upon the world. In the U.S.‚ the institutional left’s contempt for commerce and embrace of collectivism make clear it will never again be a vehicle for promoting the classical liberalism embodied by the Old Believers.  But it is not too late for the political right — in the U.S. and globally — to fully embrace the message of Milei and Roberts‚ and not seek to outdo the left in a counterproductive populist rage directed at free enterprise that only bites the hand that feeds us. Richard Shinder is the managing partner of Theatine Partners‚ a financial consultancy. The post Capitalists Who Believe In Capitalism Are The Good Guys appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Savile Row‚ located in central London‚ was once the home of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS). Lord Curzon described the building as “cramped and rather squalid‚” but on January 25‚ 1904‚ the audience heard a paper read by Halford Mackinder entitled “The Geographical Pivot of History‚” which was later published in The Geographical Journal. After the reading‚ Spencer Wilkinson remarked that he “looked with regret on some of the space that is unoccupied here‚ and I much regret that a portion of it was not occupied by members of the Cabinet.” It was arguably the most important paper ever written on global geopolitics‚ and some of Mackinder’s ideas remain relevant to the 21st century world. It is rare that an article or policy paper on international politics maintains its relevance even for a few years. Born on February 15‚ 1861‚ in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire near the Trent River‚ Mackinder at an early age was drawn to history and geography and according to biographer Brian Blouet‚ he “was fascinated by the Franco-Prussian War” of 1870-71. Mackinder studied at Epsom College and in 1880 entered Christ Church in Oxford‚ where he joined the Oxford University Rifle Volunteers. He later studied geology‚ historical geography‚ and law. Mackinder became a member of RGS in 1886‚ and one year later delivered a lecture there titled “The Scope and Methods of Geography‚” in which he noted that “we are now near the end of the roll of great discoveries.” The future work of geographers‚ he said‚ was to study the relationship of geography and history and to trace the “causal relationship” between the two. In several papers that foreshadowed his “pivot paper‚” Mackinder noted the centrality of Eurasia to global politics and wrote that “the greatest events in the world’s history are related to the greatest features of geography.” (READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: The Arctic Thaw‚ Sino-Russian Partnership‚ and Control of the World-Island)  Mackinder was not just an “armchair” geographer. He participated in the first ascent of Mt. Kenya in 1899. Mackinder wrote a book about the expedition‚ and a scenic route on the mountain is today named “The Mackinder Valley.” He was instrumental in founding the School of Geography at Oxford. He authored several books on the geography of England‚ continental Europe‚ Asia‚ Africa‚ and other regions of the globe. He was also a Conservative Member of Parliament between 1910 and 1922. In Parliament‚ he urged Britain’s government to crush Russia’s newly installed Bolshevik regime which‚ if left alone to spread its virulent ideology‚ he predicted‚ would become a threat to the democracies.  But it was the paper he delivered to RGS in 1904 that immortalized his name and his ideas. Mackinder in the “pivot paper” drew a geopolitical sketch of the globe‚ identifying the vast Eurasian landmass as the seat of a potential world empire. He expressed dismay that Britain’s empire forged by sea power could be supplanted by a power or alliance of powers that gained hegemony in Eurasia and used its human and natural resources to become the world’s dominant land power and sea power — a 20th century version of the Roman Empire at its zenith. Technology was enabling continental-sized states to cohere politically and to expand physically. He foresaw that Germany‚ Russia‚ Japan‚ and possibly China could‚ either separately or combined‚ challenge the British world order. And he urged democratic statesmen to adjust their philosophical ideals to geographical realities. He was not‚ as some later argued‚ a geographical determinist. In the “pivot paper‚” he wrote that the global balance of power was shaped by technology‚ economics‚ relative population‚ and organization. Geography presented both challenges and opportunities to the world’s great powers. The ideas of the “pivot paper” would influence policymakers and statesmen throughout the 20th century. Some of those ideas remain relevant to 21st century geopolitics. Mackinder has influenced the strategic thinking of generations of scholars‚ analysts‚ and practitioners of geopolitics. In the 1920s‚ German geopolitical thinkers‚ led by Karl Haushofer‚ imbibed Mackinder’s theories‚ leading some scholars to blame Mackinder’s ideas for Hitler’s quest for lebensraum (“living space”). In 1942‚ Life magazine published a piece by Joseph Thorndike urging America’s leaders in the midst of World War II to study Mackinder. Mackinder’s book Democratic Ideals and Reality‚ which in 1919 expanded on his “pivot paper‚” was reissued in 1942 (and later in 1962‚ and then again in 1996 by the National Defense University)‚ and one year later the editor of Foreign Affairs asked Mackinder to discuss the relevance of the ideas in the “pivot paper” in the context of the Second World War‚ which Mackinder did in “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace.” In that 1943 essay‚ Mackinder foresaw a world divided between the continental empire of the Soviet Union‚ a North Atlantic alliance (six years before it was actually formed)‚ and the rise of the Asian powers of China and India. The best anyone could hope for‚ he explained‚ was a “balanced globe of human beings.” (READ MORE: The Folly of Empire‚ 20 Years Later) In the 1970s‚ Colin S. Gray revived interest in Mackinder with The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era‚ which placed the U.S.-Soviet Cold War struggle in the context of Mackinder’s global analyses. Gray followed that up with The Geopolitics of Superpower (1988). In 1994‚ former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger concluded his book Diplomacy noting the continuing relevance of Mackinder’s ideas. In 1997‚ former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi wrote The Grand Chessboard‚ which used Mackinder’s ideas to discuss the geopolitics of the post-Cold War world. In the 21st century‚ Robert Kaplan in The Revenge of Geography and in a brilliant paper he wrote for the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment entitled “The Return of Marco Polo’s World‚” examined the U.S.-China conflict in the context of Mackinder’s geopolitical ideas. It is rare that an article or policy paper on international politics maintains its relevance even for a few years. Mackinder’s “pivot paper” stands apart as a timeless analysis of the factors that influence — -and that have nearly always influenced — the global balance of power.  The post Mackinder’s ‘Pivot Paper’ Still Relevant 120 Years Later appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.