No Minister

Archive for the ‘Britain’ Category

Generational Toxicity

with 3 comments

Over on the Bowalley Road blog Chris Trotter has really been letting the words flow wildly in relation to the news of the AUKUS pact that has been announced, with two articles in one week on the subject.

They’re the usual combination of themes one would expect from his Lefty age group: pro-China, anti-US, anti-nuclear, fears of a new Cold War, fears of NZ getting sucked back into another “Anglo Saxon Imperialist” world and so forth.

But it was actually this passage that intrigued me:

It is also quite possible that, by 2023, the United States will be embroiled in domestic strife bordering on civil-war. 

Followed by a lot of ignorant guff about the USA and the Republican Party. Now I’m not averse to the arguments about a possible second Civil War in the USA: it’s increasingly being discussed in non-fringe circles on both the American Left and Right. Even in popular culture I saw the “comedian” Sarah Silverman talking the other day about the nation splitting up because Democrat and Republican voters increasingly cannot stand dealing with eachother.

But there’s another aspect of this that should be taken account of: the growing war between the generations. Specifically between the Baby Boomers and … every other generation: Gen-X, Millennials and Gen-Z. Admittedly this more of a US thing than elsewhere: I don’t think NZ Baby Boomers ever fitted the label of being the “Me Generation” after Tom Wolfe’s famous 1976 article.

I’ve already covered some of this in two posts, Ok Boomer and Hand over the $35 trillion, you old fart, but a recent article by a Baby Boomer in the New York Post should be more of an eye-opener for Boomers, Millennials’ extreme hatred for Baby Boomers is totally unjustified:

Baby boomers who cried “Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30” during the Vietnam War should be scared to death of millennials. Because, at least among the Twitterati, they hate us — they really, really hate us.

Last week I took a beating from younger readers over an essay I wrote lamenting the decline of the “power lunch.” Although it only partly blamed the phenomenon on millennial habits — e.g., preferring avocado and kale to beef and baked potatoes — hundreds of thousands on Twitter either posted or retweeted such insults as “Old man yells at lunch table” (I’m 69), “What’s it like to be an antique?” and “We’re the ones doing the actual lunches while you’re having three-martini lunches.”

Millennials (and to some extent their Gen-X and Gen-Z brethren) hate their elders with a ferocity never before seen in our culture.

Generation gaps will always be with us. Historian Marc Wortman found a generational split over sending young men off to war way back in 1941. But unlike those of us who came of age in the 1960s-early 1970s, who merely disapproved of our elders’ “colonialist” wars and shag rugs, millennials (born between 1980-1994) can’t stand the air we boomers breathe.

Young hippies outdoors.

To some extent? This guy should go to some of the chat areas of Reddit and other non-FaceTwit Social Media.

He’ll quickly discover that Gen-Z are right up there on bringing the hate and Gen-X even more so given their proximity in time. Few things piss off X’rs more than being pegged as Boomers by being born in the 1960’s, as if we remember Woodstock and “Free Love”.

Unfortunately the article then delves into the reasons why and thus demonstrates even more how Boomers just don’t get it.

But if they spent more time studying actual history, which can’t easily be found on iPhones, they’d know that boomers were, and remain, the most socially and environmentally conscious generation America ever has ever known.

FFS. He thinks this is because of Greta Thunderhead and her influence on 16 year olds re Climate Charge.

Oh no, dear fellow, there’s a lot more to it than that. There’s only one sentence where he alludes to just one thing stemming from that wonderful “socially conscious” generation:

Maybe too much so — our universities’ overwhelmingly “progressive” agendas originated in the 1960s and have become more dominant ever since.

That’s because the Boomers who were the radical students of the late 60’s/early 70’s now dominate those universities as professors and administrators, and are hard at work teaching the next generations the same stuff, without any opposing arguments or ideas.

Being “the most socially and environmentally conscious generation America ever has ever known” isn’t an excuse or a defense, it’s an unwitting confession of guilt.

What this guy and the millions of Boomers like him miss is that this shite has now spread into every other part of the USA: the MSM, entertainment, government, bureaucracies and even corporates and the military.

I know of no American member of the younger generations who thinks that Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid will be there for them in their dotage of the late 21st century. Or a military that can actually win a war either. Not to mention housing costs, energy costs, career progression, jobs in general or the chance of getting married and raising a family because it’s so bloody expensive in more ways than just dollars.

What he also misses is that these younger generations, or at least a good chunk of them, might be objecting to having had these institutions trashed by the ideas of a generation that aggressively devalued the traditional things on which they rested, even as there are members of Gen-X/Millennial that have learned from their forebears and joined in with the trashing, as this guy points out:

As a college professor for over 35 years, I’ve gotten to know three generations of students: Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980), the Millennials (1981-1996), and now Gen Z (1997-2012). And because I teach rhetoric, I’ve read thousands of their papers, providing substantial insight into the way they think.

In general, however, I found that Millennials presented unique challenges. They were, as a group, the most entitled, judgmental, and arrogant of all the students I’ve taught, often basing an inflated sense of self-importance on scanty evidence.

Essentially, they are the “participation trophy” generation, the unwitting victims of countless artificial “self-esteem building” experiments by the education establishment, not to mention their own parents.

Ouch. But there is hope:

There is another generation of bright young people — Gen Z — following right on their heels and therein may lie our temporal salvation.

In comparison to their Millennial predecessors, my Gen Z students tend to be more open-minded, more interested in facts and logic, more inclined to question the status quo…

That partially explains the Fuck Joe Biden chants that have swept across college football stadiums in the last few weeks and even spread to the Yankees-Mets game in NYC of all places.

They also take a more nuanced view of history and are inherently distrustful of ideologues on either side. 

Let’s hope so, and that inheritances will add up to avoiding a different type of American Civil War.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 21, 2021 at 1:09 pm

Some type of heaven

with 5 comments

Home. Today is a Fell day. I’m up on my beloved Howgill’s treading a familiar path. My company is that of Shadow, sheep and swifts that whirl then twirl about the folds of gentle fells. Warm winds blow that tangle hair. Saturday a day for solitude and silence.

The photo above is from the Twitter account of a woman who has become a bit of a social media phenomena over the last few years.

Luckily for her the exposure is just enough to help her business of making woolen clothing from her flock in the Howgill Fells of Westmoreland in the Yorkshire Dales.

Her farm is just 37 acres. I find it incredible that she can make a living from it, but I’m glad she does. I’m reminded of the book, Durable Trades, which rated the number one trade as being “Shepard”, which I still doubt, but perhaps it’s true, judging by Alison O’Neill.

You can read an overview about her here, and look at this video made in 2014.

Her website is here at Shepherdess.

Written by Tom Hunter

September 20, 2021 at 8:07 am

Posted in Britain

Tagged with ,

Chinese Xi Snot Risk Calculations

with 4 comments

Here’s fun to while away the time in lockdown.

A website set up by Oxford University: QCovid Risk Assessment.

You have to scroll down the first page and hit the ACCEPT button for the license to use the software, but after that it’s a matter of punching in your age, weight, health factors and so forth.

It uses British data of course, including stuff on your location but aside from a couple of factors the rest should apply here if you’re not of Maori or Pacific Island descent (obviously Britain would not have a lot of Covid data for those demographics)

There’s also this disclaimer

PLEASE NOTE: This implementation of the QCovid risk calculator is NOT intended for use supporting or informing clinical decision-making. It is ONLY to be used for academic research, peer review and validation purposes, and it must NOT be used with data or information relating to any individual. 

I wonder how long they’ll leave this site up, since obviously individuals will do what I and other have done here.

Running my data through the system I find that my risks from Covid-19 are as follows:

1 chance in 11641 chance in 6211

In other words in a crowd of 10,000 people with the same risk factors as me, 2 are likely to catch and die from COVID-19 and 10 to be admitted to hospital during a 90 day period similar to the recent peak in Britain.

Of course the data is changing all the time as more is learned.

Still, I should probably be hiding under the bed with a mask on.

You can’t be too careful

Written by Tom Hunter

September 11, 2021 at 1:50 pm

Afghan Veterans: one British view (updated)

Tom Tugendhat is a Conservative MP in the British Parliament.

He is also a veteran of the Afghanistan War (2001-2021).

His speech to the House the other day is sobering and sombre, rich with pathos and sorrow, even though I cannot agree with the overall thrust of his argument:

He starts by talking about the impact of recent events on him and his fellow Afghan veterans, as they see their sacrifices churned into the dust, with himself feeling “anger, and grief and rage”, as well as “the feeling of abandonment“:

“I’ve watched good men go into the earth, taking with them a part of me, a part of all of us.”

I cannot but help think of how Vietnam veterans dealt with this?

But it is the following that got me, where he is clearly talking not of the Americans beside whom he fought but of other comrades in arms:

That connection links us also to our European partners, to our European neighbours, and to our international friends.

And so it is with great sadness that I now criticise one of them. Because I was never prouder than when I was decorated by the 82nd Airborne after the capture of Musa Qala. It was a huge privilege. A huge privilege to be recognised by such an extraordinary unit in combat.

To see their commander in chief call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim that they ran … shameful.

Those who have never fought for the colours they fly should be careful about criticising those who have.

The Afghan Army suffered some 60,000 deaths over the last twenty years, plus god knows how many casualties fighting against the Taliban and other such groups.

But the next statement delivers a clear message and somewhat disturbing one, based partly on that shameful assessment by President Biden, but undoubtedly on deeper things than just that:

“We can set out a vision, clearly articulate it, for reinvigorating our European Nato partners, to make sure that we are not dependent on a single ally, on the decision of a single leader, that we can work together with Japan and Australia, France and Germany, with partners large and small and make sure we hold the line together.”

The message is that the USA can no longer be depended upon and that Europe, perhaps with other like-minded nations around the world, must draw closer together.

If a sober, Conservative, America-friendly MP is drawing that conclusion, what must others be thinking?

But sadly, despite his sacrifices, courage, intelligence, decency, together with his earnestness about such international and multinational efforts, I think such plans will come to naught. He is talking as if the globalist world of economics, trade and immigration spawned in the wake of the end of the end of the Cold War, the world carried forward by Clinton through Bush to Obama, still exists in the same way. It does not.

It has been broken by too many economic losses in the heartlands of America, too much debt, and in Europe, too many multicultural clashes. Too many vast failures like the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, Iraq, and now this. Dashed hopes for the liberalisation of not just Afghanistan and Iraq but China also. We are not at The End of History, and the Last Man has turned out to be a rather primitive man; the same sort of man who has impelled empires for three thousand years.

He finishes the speech with a terrible image, and a hope that this is not the future:

“It is the image of a man whose name I never knew, carrying a child who had died hours earlier, carrying this child into our fire base and begging for help.

There was nothing we could do.

It was over.

This is what defeat looks like when you no longer have the choice of how to help.”

Without the USA leading, I very much doubt that Mr Tugendhat’s vision of helping can be anything more than an electronic League of Nations, and probably unwanted by those it thinks it can help. The European nations are already suffering low birthrates and despite solid economies in many cases their militaries are pitiful, with only France and Britain being solid, and then by only a low bar.


I guess I should have read up on what the rest of the British Parliament had to say:

MPs from all sides of the Commons were forceful in their criticism. Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said: “The US is, of course, an important ally, but to overlook the fighting of the Afghan troops and forces, and the fact that they have been at the forefront of that fighting in recent years, is wrong.”

Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: “The American decision to withdraw was not just a mistake – it was an avoidable mistake, from President Trump’s flawed deal with the Taliban to President Biden’s decision to proceed, and to proceed in such a disastrous way.”

Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, called Mr Biden’s remarks about Afghan soldiers “some of the most shameful comments ever from an American president”.

Since the days of Reagan I’ve grown used to hearing the British Left condemn American Presidents, usually Republican ones.

But I cannot recall such wide and deep condemnation from across the board in the British Parliament. I stand to be corrected but I think it is unprecedented.

Written by Tom Hunter

August 20, 2021 at 10:21 am

Afghan Veterans: one American view

In another post I’ve referred to the views expressed by a British Afghan veteran, now an MP, Afghan Veterans: one British view.

Now there are these comments made by an American Army veteran of the same war, courtesy of the Instapundit blog where the founder of the blog introduces it as:

THOUGHTS ON AFGHANISTAN, from a senior military officer with whom I am acquainted:

Click to read the whole thing but here are some key quotes from it:

I ask that you not use my name. I am a currently serving General Officer and what I have to say is highly critical of our current military leadership. But it must be said.

I don’t blame President Biden for the catastrophe in Afghanistan. It was the right decision to leave, the proof of which is how quickly the country collapsed without US support. Twenty years of training and equipping the Afghan army and all that they were capable of was a few hours of delay in a country the size of Texas. As for his predecessor, the only blame I place on President Trump was that he didn’t withdraw sooner.

We should blame President Bush, not for the decision to attack into Afghanistan following 9-11, but for his decision to “shift the goalposts” and attempt to reform Afghanistan society. That was a fool’s errand any student of history would have recognized. And yes, we should place blame on President Obama for his decision to double down on failure when he “surged” in Afghanistan, rather than to withdraw.

Of course in 2008 it was essential that the Democrats play The Bad War (Iraq) against The Good War (Afghanistan), in order to retain credibility with Democrat voters still feeling the pain of the 9/11 attacks.

He does hold Biden directly responsible for the way the withdrawal has been conducted, correctly in my view, but it is the Military Brass into which he tears:

Afghanistan was worse than Vietnam in another respect: the military’s leaders of the Vietnam era had no precedent to dissuade them from a disastrous path. Today’s military leadership has the precedent of not just Vietnam, but also Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. That much obtuseness must be punished and removed from the system.

General Milley must resign. Not only is he the Chairman of the Joint Staff, prior to that he was the Chief of Staff of the Army. While all services share the blame, the Army is the land domain proponent. The 20 years of failure in Afghanistan is an Army failure. Scores of other generals also deserve a thorough evaluation; many of them are complicit in the lies to protect a decades-long failed strategy.

Secretary of Defense Austin also must be fired. The recently retired Army general and former CENTCOM commander was, and still is, part of the culture that is impervious to the fact that 20 years of trying it their way did not work.

He discusses how the military has been warped by two decades of fighting wars against insurgents. If the complaint early on was that a Cold War military did not know how to fight the likes of the Taliban, the opposite is now the case:

The Army today could not win a major war.

recent open-source studies conclude that the US military already is unable to defend against …. a Russian incursion in the Baltics or a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Yet, winning a major war is the number one reason why an Army exists. It will take a generation to break bad habits, to think in terms of closing with and destroying the enemy versus winning hearts and minds. Keane sees raw numbers (and ignores the stark evidence that there was no progress over 20 years) and thinks that America’s Army can sustain that level of commitment. It cannot, and the opportunity cost to the culture of the force is much too great. Ignore him. Ignore Petraeus, McMaster, Stavridis, and the rest of their ilk.

I would like to think that the US Navy could win a major war, as well as the US Air Force, but in saying that I feel like those people who so recently talked of how an Afghan army of 300,000 could not lose to the vastly smaller, less well-equipped Taliban, and of course you would have to be a fool to ignore the fact that China is rapidly building a Navy.

He has a concise set of recommendations, starting with resources…

DoD must be halved. There are too many flag officers, too many agencies, departments, and directorates. It is the only secretariat with independent but supposedly subordinate secretaries. There are too many Geographic Component Commands—each led by a 4-star virtual proconsul whose budget dwarfs what the Department of State spends in their regions.

Unreformed, DoD is an inscrutable labyrinth which invites fraud, waste, and abuse. The excess attracts unscrupulous camp followers. Amazon did not choose Crystal City to locate its new headquarters because of low rents and ease of transportation access for its 25,000 employees. It chose the Arlington, Virginia neighborhood because it is two blocks from the Pentagon. That building controls the distribution of three-quarters of a trillion dollars every year. Most of it is wasted.

Of the ten richest counties in America, seven lie around Washington D.C. It is not a source of great mineral wealth or industry. It is not Silicon Valley. Given that it is a place that produces only paper and hot air there can be no other conclusion that it is the wealth of corruption.

He has legal recommendations also:

Congress must reevaluate the authorities contained within Sections 12301 through 12304 of Title X. The president has too much latitude to, on his own authority, mobilize tens or even hundreds of thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists without congressional approval. It must be the policy of the United States that we do not place our service members in harm’s way without first making the case to the American people. This also means ending the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force as well as strengthening Congress’ role in the War Powers Act such that, absent an actual declaration of war, there can be no war.

I doubt any Congress has the stomach to take back those powers, and I cannot see any President encouraging them to do so.

He doesn’t let other parts of the US Federal government off the hook either:

Let us not forget the intelligence agencies. They reported that Kabul was at risk of falling in as little as 90 days. That report was from last Thursday! The capital fell in less than 90 hours. Failure must be punished. And punishment in a bureaucracy means mass firings and a smaller budget—not more money so that they might be better the next time. Congress must consolidate and collapse our intelligence agencies. And when its reorganization is done, if the overall size of the nation’s intelligence apparatus is a quarter of what it is now, that still is too large.

Harsh. But we are now in a time of harshness. I agree with much of it.

Written by Tom Hunter

August 20, 2021 at 8:00 am

Posted in Britain, Military, US Politics, USA

Tagged with ,

Barfight or Twitter Fight

Two recent posts on war and the possibility of a future war, reminded me of something that’s been floating around online for almost as long as the internet itself.

In the distant geological age of the 1990’s Interwebby thing, jokes would explode across email inboxes around the planet. This often resulted in embarrassment as people, not knowing email etiquette (looking at you Don Brash, you idiot), would simply forward these things to some group email they had or worse, hit “Reply All”.

I had a personal experience of the latter one day in Chicago when a couple of very intense young men appeared in my cubicle to ask if I had forwarded some piece-of-shit email. I had not, since I actually understood not just etiquette but what could happen to email apps with an ever-expanding shit storm of Reply All, especially with an attached app. They were from Computer Operations and thus people to be ignored usually, but on this occasion they had every reason to be pissed. My client’s system crashed 20 minutes later.

In between cut n’paste jokes, one piece of email humour that did the rounds was funny only to people who studied history, especially military history, but it was so clever that it’s actually been stored in online history forums, including ‘’.

But it’s nice to see that the same theme has now appeared, twenty years later, in a different guise, wherein WWI starts in the nasty, toxic sewers of Social Media, complete with all the lingo of the youngins.

I also liked this addition.

Meantime for you oldies, the original bar fight version is here. But I may as well just paste it, just in case that government server ever gets killed, along with its backup.

Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria’s pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria’s trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what’s Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.

Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there.

Turkey punches Russia in the back of the head when Russia isn’t looking. Britain and France tell Turkey that’s not on and once they’ve sorted Germany out Turkey’s next.

Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia, New Zealand, and Britain punch Turkey, and get punched back. There are no hard feelings though because Britain made Australia and New Zealand do it.

France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

The last Russian reference always cracks me up.

Written by Tom Hunter

July 16, 2021 at 6:30 am

Daily Reading List

Adolf has no wish to read the lies of the Left and, accordingly, the following are not included in his daily reading list:-

ABC, SMH, Age, Guardian, NYT, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, NZ Herald, Stuff, TVNZ, RNZ, BBC, Economist,

His reading list includes:-

Kiwiblog, No Minister, The Australian, Skynews, The Straits Times, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Powerline, PJMedia, Instapundit,

Great Britain is not represented and Adolf would appreciate suggestions for a reliably non-leftie publication.

Over a period of twenty years, Adolf recalls being mighty impressed with the quality of reporting displayed in the Fiji Times. Not for them the shifty presentation of Leftist opinion as ‘news.’

Written by adolffinkensen

July 15, 2021 at 2:24 pm

Those Were The Days

When men were men and women loved them for it; and black buggers could take the piss out of black bastards and laugh at each other

A good friend sent me this transcript. Be warned -it’s not for the faint hearted.

This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the 70’s. Ronnie Barker could say all this without a snigger. The irony is, BBC received not one complaint. The speed of delivery must have been too much for the whining herds.Try getting through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your pants] as you read……. 

This is the story of Rindercella and her sugly isters.

Rindercella and her sugly isters lived in a  marge lansion. Rindercella worked very hard frubbing sloors, emptying poss pits, and shivelling shot. At the end of the day, she was knucking fackered. The sugly isters were right bugly astards. One was called Mary Hinge, and the other was called Betty Swallocks; they were really forrible huckers; they had fetty sweet and fatty swannies.

The sugly isters had tickets to go to the ball, but the cotton runts would not let Rindercella go. Suddenly there was a bucking fang, and her gairy fodmother appeared. Her name was Shairy Hithole and she was a light rucking fesbian. She turned a pumpkin and six mite wice into a hucking cuge farriage with six dandy ronkeys who had buge hollocks and digbicks. The gairy fodmother told Rindercella to be back by dimnlight otherwise, there would be a cucking falamity.

At the ball, Rindercella was dancing with the prandsome hince when suddenly the clock struck twelve. “Mist all chucking frighty!!!”  said Rindercella, and she ran out tripping barse over ollocks,so dropping her slass glipper.

The very next day, the prandsome hince knocked on Rindercella’s door and the sugly isters let him in. Suddenly, Betty Swallocks lifted her leg and let off a fig bart.  “Who’s fust jarted?”  asked the prandsome hince. “Blame that fugly ucker over there!!” said Mary Hinge.

When the stinking brown cloud had lifted, he tried the slass glipper on both the sugly isters without success and their feet stucking funk. Betty Swallocks was ducking fisgusted and gave the prandsome hince a knack in the kickers. This was not difficult as he had bucking fuge halls and a hig bard on. He tried the slass glipper on Rindercella and it fitted pucking ferfectly.

Rindercella and the prandsome hince were married. The pransome hince lived his life in lucking fuxury, and Rindercella lived hers with a follen swanny!

More such cleverness from the man and his writers here.

Written by adolffinkensen

July 7, 2021 at 1:59 pm

Posted in Britain, Humour

Tagged with

A revolt against “rules for thee”

With all the vaccinations that have happened in Great Britain you’d think that its leaders would finally be easing off the whole lockdown and mask insanity, and for a while they were.

But then the dreaded “Delta Variant” of the Chinese Sinus AIDS virus turned up, started trundling around the planet, and promptly turned the spines of several leaders to jelly, starting with British PM, Boris Johnson:

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is under fire after delaying his nation’s full reopening. So-called ‘Freedom Day’ had been scheduled for June 21st, but Johnson retracted the date just days before, saying the Delta variant that has been ripping across other parts of the globe may become a threat — if the island nation were to let down its guard too soon.

Now all that would have been bad enough, but there was an added element of anger this time.

Last year the now infamous Voice Of Doom, British epidemiological “expert”, Neil Ferguson was caught hopping across London for bonking fun with a married woman, all while telling people about the need for strict lockdown behaviour.

2020 – meet 2021:

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been a huge proponent of draconian lockdowns. The UK has been much more strict about lockdown enforcement than American officials are allowed to be in a constitutional republic. British citizens have not even been allowed to visit friends or family, with Hancock regularly delivering lectures about the irresponsibility of leaving home to socialize, as the country continues to battle COVID. But the final straw came for many when Hancock was caught visiting with and smooching his married mistress, in a clear violation of his own COVID restrictions.

That did it.

Tens of thousands of people filled the London streets and also threw hundreds of yellow tennis balls, which had ‘not very nice’ messages on them, over the fence into the grounds of Parliament.

The so-called “Freedom Day” for Britain is now supposedly July 19. We will see if Boris and company have the courage and the scientific nous to stick with it or whether they’ll show that they just can’t let go of all the wonderful control over people that they so love.

Written by Tom Hunter

July 5, 2021 at 2:00 pm

Remembered History vs. Actual History

Of course that’s what all historians struggle with, along with ordinary people.

But there are usually some big things from history that both the public and the professional historians agree about, at least in broad terms.

One of those things is the degree of unification that existed between the Western allies immediately after the war, at least in opposing the USSR.

There are various markers for this shift in focus, since obviously in the immediate aftermath of the defeat of Nazi Germany there was still much public goodwill in the West to “Our Great Allies”, the Russians. Much of Stalin’s pre-war horrors were forgotten or simply ignored in the afterglow of victory.

But the standout marker for many people, and historians, is Churchill’s famous Iron Curtain speech delivered at a university in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946. By then he was no longer Prime Minister, but the unity that had been essential between Great Britain and America during the war, and which would be the lynchpin in creating NATO with the other nations of Western Europe, as well as coming this early in what would become known as the Cold War, probably makes this speech the key turning point:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

However, I came across this surprising poll result conducted by the Gallup organisation shortly after the speech.

That’s an astoundingly large percentage for “No” from a public supposedly on board for anti-communism in general and containing the USSR’s version specifically.

There are probably several reasons for this.

Foremost is the simple fact that March 1946 was less than one year since VE Day and that simply not enough time had passed for the American public to grow cool towards the Soviets.

But it may also have been that Americans, especially then, did not take a great deal of notice of happenings in the outside world and had not noticed the Soviet’s actions in Eastern Europe as Churchill did, or if they did, thought nothing of them. Part of that shows in the large proportion of Americans who simply were not aware of the speech.

Then there was the cultural resistance to maintaining a large military force, particularly a standing army. or having military alliances in the absence of war. After each of their largest wars, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and WWI, the USA had largely disassembled the military it had built up to fight those wars, so that on each occasion when new wars threatened, the military was found to be incredibly weak by the standards of European and other powers.

Finally the shunning of foreign military alliances was culturally bone-deep, probably extending back to the founding of the country (even with the acknowledged and desired French help in that period) although it was not really articulated by any leader until President John Quincy Adams made a specific foreign policy speech in on July 4, 1821,

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.

She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

Wise words from a two hundred year old speech. Until I started writing this I had not realised how appropriate it would be on this July 4, 2021.

That poll result hints at such ideas still holding fast in the core of the American soul as late as 1946.

But after seventy years domination by the Liberal Internationalists, I wonder if, here in 2021, a combination of cultural, spiritual, military and economic exhaustion may return the USA to the spirit of two centuries ago? Certainly President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Administration showed some of these ideas regaining strength, even while his foreign policy was more like Andrew Jackson’s, and still fell far short of Isolationism.

Written by Tom Hunter

July 4, 2021 at 5:00 pm