The main problem with those on the postmodern Left is that they take things too seriously. If they were joking around‚ getting drunk‚ and sleeping off hangovers all day‚ they wouldn’t have time to legislate nonsense and limit freedoms‚ and we’d all be happier. All a conservative asks of his politicians in government is that they be late for work and as lazy as they can be. Any American would want that. Any American except leftist politicians‚ because they think they have one mission: to hate the half of the country that doesn’t think like them. Maybe it’s time to remind them what James Thurber says about those who work too hard: “Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy‚ wealthy‚ and dead.” READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: The Biden Case: Who Is the Thief and Who Is the Liar? The opposite of seriousness is humor‚ perhaps. But what is for sure is that the opposite of humor is hate. For a long time‚ the best humorists have been conservatives because progressive comedians put hate before laughter‚ and that ruins their work. This helps me to predict a conservative victory in the cultural battle. I will try to explain. What do James Thurber‚ S.J. Perelman‚ Dave Barry‚ and P.J. O’Rourke have in common? They constitute an invincible army: the army of laughter. When I think of Antony Blinken‚ that shattering definition by P.G. Wodehouse immediately comes to mind: “He had the look of one who had drunk the cup of life and found a dead beetle at the bottom.” When I think of socialist tax policies‚ Dave Barry comes to mind: “It’s income tax time again‚ Americans: time to gather up those receipts‚ get out those tax forms‚ sharpen up that pencil‚ and stab yourself in the aorta.” And if I recall the Hunter Biden scandal‚ I think of half a dozen writings by P.J. O’Rourke‚ such as: “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation‚ the first things to be bought and sold are legislators”; or: “Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is‚ in a democracy‚ the whores are us.” Maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on Hunter Biden; the Left promised to improve the purchasing power of disadvantaged girls and support the world of culture and the arts‚ and he did it his way by describing the payoff in the Venmo transaction to a stripper as for “artwork.” A famous Spanish cartoon from the last century depicted a ruler shouting to the masses‚ “Either us or chaos!” — to which the masses responded in unison‚ “Chaos‚ chaos.” Then the speaker would say‚ “It’s all the same; that’s us too.” Humor has always been effective against totalitarianisms. And what we are experiencing‚ from wokism to single thought‚ is a postmodern form of totalitarianism. The good thing is that you are no longer shot against a wall; the bad thing is that you will be stoned on Twitter‚ first‚ and they will get you fired from your job next. At least when they shot you‚ they saved you the paperwork of a thousand stupid notifications per hour and having to look for a new job at 40‚ with your face passed around the media titled “fascist‚” “homophobe‚” and “climate denier.” (READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: A Climate Change Believer’s Curse) The old class-struggle Left could be fought with reasoning. The postmodern Left of gender ideology‚ transsexualism‚ and blind faith in science as long as it tells them what they want to hear can only be fought effectively by laughing out loud. How else can you debate on television with someone who claims‚ with a very serious expression‚ that being a man or a woman is a personal choice‚ a feeling‚ and that biology is sociological fascism? The only effective way to kill that reasoning in the midst of a televised debate is to start scratching your ear with your foot and bark a little‚ proclaim that you now feel like a dog‚ and demand your right to pee lifting a leg against your opponent’s pants. Everything would be better if we listened to more of Hunter S. Thompson’s old confession: “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.” The satirical key to conservatism is that‚ before laughing at everything else‚ one laughs at himself. “We Americans live in a nation where the medical-care system is second to none in the world‚” wrote Dave Barry‚ “unless you count maybe 25 or 30 little scuzzball countries like Scotland that we could vaporize in seconds if we felt like it.” No room for hate there. That’s how cultural battles are won. The best critique of far-left environmentalism came from P.J. O’Rourke: “The bullying of citizens by means of dreads and fights has been going on since paleolithic times. Greenpeace fund-raisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than the tribal Wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. ‘Oh no‚ Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.” G.K. Chesterton offered us the funniest advice against relativism: “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.” And H.L. Mencken’s savage satire not only manages to win battles more than 60 years after the author’s death but prophesied what we are living today almost a century before it happened: “As democracy is perfected‚ the office of president represents‚ more and more closely‚ the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”  Translated by Joel Dalmau. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: The Fourth Annual Idiot of the Year Awards The Slow Demise of the Democrat Party The post The Humor War: Why Laughter Will Win Us the Cultural Battle appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When Hitler invaded France in 1940‚ the conventional wisdom was that the French had the best military in Europe. This was despite Germany’s crushing victory over Poland and several other powers considered to be second rate by most military observers. The disastrous rout of the French army along with its British allies came as a devastating surprise to the free world. Although there is no consensus about a single factor underlying the French failure‚ most historians seem to agree that there were several contributing causes. Unfortunately‚ all of them seem to be present in American society and its military today. As Mark Twain supposedly said‚ “History doesn’t repeat itself‚ but it often rhymes.” READ MORE: The Next Starfighter?: A Way to Take on Wokeness in the Military The points of intersection between France in 1940 and the United States in the first quarter of this century are disturbing. At the strategic level‚ France in in the 1930s was as deeply divided between the left and the right as America is today. The extreme Left favored Soviet Communism; the far Right admired what Hitler had done to Germany and Mussolini to Italy — it wanted to take France in a fascist direction. Most on the left and right were not quite as extreme‚ but this split drove everything‚ including military strategy‚ doctrine‚ and training. The second strategic driver was the horrific casualty count of World War II‚ which impacted France much more than Germany‚ as the latter had started and ended World War I with an advantage in population. Casualty avoidance in war dictated French strategy almost as much as it drives Americans today. Those two factors heavily influenced French operational and tactical art — or lack thereof — in the 1940 campaign. The French mindset was defensive and reactive‚ and the country put too much faith in technology. French tanks‚ aircraft‚ and artillery were generally superior to that of the Germans but were not used in an integrated manner‚ as was the case with the German Blitzkrieg. The French reliance on the Maginot Line to protect its eastern flank was understandable given the horrific casualties of World War I‚ but it reflected an unhealthy operational mindset of always reacting to what the Germans did. This might have been acceptable if the Nazis were one only step ahead of French decision making‚ but the Nazis were generally two moves ahead. The French simply could not keep up the pace. (WATCH: Your Data Isn’t Private — Even If You’re in the Military) Today‚ the United States puts undue emphasis on a technological advantage that grows more tenuous every year. It is one thing to let the other fellow start the conflict‚ but the U.S. is devoid of the capability to quickly counterpunch. If China invades Taiwan‚ America will lack the amphibious and pre-positioned shipping to reinforce or to launch an amphibious operation to retake any terrain gained by the Chinese in a timely manner. This defensive mindset has even infected the Marine Corps‚ once considered the most aggressive of our services. The current USMC operational concept for the South China Sea is a naval version of the Maginot Line that will neither deter the Chinese from attacking Taiwan nor contribute to its defense should such an attack occur. Another operational disadvantage that the French were burdened with was a cumbersome system of command and control called “deliberate battle‚” which allowed for no initiative on the part of commanders below the army level. This might have been acceptable if the Germans had done what the French expected and conducted a mechanized version of the 1914 Schlieffen plan from the north through the low countries. When the Germans put their main effort from the east through the supposedly impenetrable Ardennes Forest skirting the Maginot defenses‚ the French reaction was sluggish. Huge staffs at the army group‚ army‚ and corps levels also contributed the French inability to gain the initiative. Today’s high-level American staffs are even larger than their French counterparts of 1940. Although the Americans claim to practice maneuver warfare‚ nothing like that exists above the regimental level. We have a top-down command and control system that largely depends upon using airborne sensors to locate targets for precision strikes. It is attrition warfare at its finest. At the tactical level‚ the Germans were generally tougher‚ better trained‚ and far more ready for combat than their French counterparts. Some French units‚ such as the professional colonial troops and foreign Legion‚ fought magnificently‚ but overall combat performance was abysmal. French political schisms caused politicians to pander to the draftee soldiers‚ who represented a considerable voting bloc. Draftees served shorter terms than their German counterparts‚ and training was cut back drastically. The image of French soldiers basking under sunlamps in Maginot line forts during the 1930s has become emblematic of the level of readiness when the real shooting started. American readiness in 2024 is a mere ghost of the superbly trained troops of Desert Storm or the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003. Decades of emphasis on diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion over combat readiness have taken their toll. Few young Americans are willing to serve under senior officers who are obviously tokens or “firsts” due to gender and racial promotion preferences among senior government leaders. Recruiting standards across the board are being lowered‚ but even that is not getting adequate volunteers. We are probably not yet at the low point of Robert McNamara’s Vietnam-era Project 100‚000‚ but we are heading in that direction. (RELATED: Joint Force Quarterly Enters Wokeland) Most‚ veterans of my acquaintance — and I am one of them — no longer encourage young relatives and friends to pursue military service‚ fearing that they will be indoctrinated with the same leftist pap that permeates our colleges and universities today. Unfortunately‚ real military reform usually only comes in the wake of defeat. The Germans learned from losing following World War I while the French winners became complacent. The miserable performance of our senior military leadership in the last days of Afghanistan should have been a wake-up call‚ but it obviously was not. I sincerely hope that the American public realizes the danger of its rotting military before some adversary does it for us. Gary Anderson retired as the chief of staff of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab. He served as a special adviser to the deputy secretary of defense from 2003-05 and served as a civilian adviser in Iraq and Afghanistan. The post Is America Becoming France of 1940? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hunter Biden's Multiplying Charges Exemplify a Profound Threat to Trial by Jury

Why Trump Is Winning

Tagging Evangelical Christians as a 'Polarizing Extreme'

Give Us Educated‚ Skilled Immigrants Yearning to Support Themselves

Stand Up to Antisemitic Slogans‚ or Step Down

Not-So-Scary Truth About Climate Change

New Report Details Shocking Use of Sexual Violence in Iranian Prisons

As Trump Lead Widens‚ Prosecutors Step Up Pursuit