Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show includes a plethora of sagacity, as per usual. In terms of current events, Brian and I talk about DJT's standing in the polls and the fact that both major parties' presidential candidates are likely to have a strong chance of victory (no matter how dreadful they are). We also discuss the historical significance of Charles III's coronation, the principled non-interventionism of RFK, Jr., the career prospects of Tucker Carlson, and the future of the Second Amendment. When we turn to "This Day in History", we analyze the Chicoms' successful strategy of tyranny and intransigence in 1989, the twist of fate that landed Winston Churchill at 10 Downing Street in May 1940, and the long, deep legacy of the Franco-Prussian War.
Unfamiliar with the lessons of history, are you? We'll fix that problem in 25 minutes or less, if only you would listen in to the Newsmaker Show!
https://wlea.net/newsmaker-may-10-2023-dr-nick-waddy/
***
In other news, CNN let a dragon into the lion's den, as it were, by inviting Donald Trump to star in one of the network's "town hall" events. He was, as anyone with half a brain would expect, brash and unapologetic. Will CNN continue to give Trump a valuable platform? They will if they want higher ratings. If, on the other hand, they want plaudits from progressives, they may not.
Tucker Carlson, as everyone knows by now, intends to move his show to Twitter...but Elon Musk denies that any specific, contractual relationship between Carlson and Twitter exists. How, then, would Tucker monetize a streamed version of his show? Would there be advertisers? Is Twitter itself commerically viable, since the Left and the corporate elite are working to undermine it? Will it, by and by, be banned in many countries for hosting content that is "hateful" or "dangerous" or "misinformation"? I'd like to think that Tucker has a bright future on Twitter, but at this point we can't be sure.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/musk-carlson-lemon/2023/05/10/id/1119365/
Finally, RFK, Jr. makes another good point below. He observes that we are experiencing an epidemic of mass shootings and moral callousness in this country, as well as profound mental health issues, and there may be a correlation between these social ills and the mass prescription of antipsychotic drugs. Certainly, never before in history have so many people been under the influence of such powerful mind-altering medications -- and, at the same time, never before has the political and economic influence of pharmaceutical companies been so extensive. Makes you think, doesn't it?
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Re: the Newsmaker broadcast: so much good fare! England is the fountainhead of the on balance most advanced civilization and its offspring, on earth. A true constitutional monarchy like that is an establishment to be celebrated and they surely know how to do it. Every step of the Abbey teems with British history; every hallowed foot radiates it. I think their monarchy is a redeeming institution proven essential to the upbeat British national character. I'm glad to be a Brit in spirit and ancestry. " Advance Britannia; God Save the King; send him victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us! "
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:RFK Jr. is mistaken to call the war a US-Russia conflict meant to disable Russia. Is anyone in American leadership possessed of the sociopathy needed to deliberately deliver Ukraine to this catastrophe?. If so, let them fear for their souls.If they truly do not understand what it is to present saturnine and brutal Russia with such a fundamental threat and affront as the very hint of UKRAINE! in Nato, they need do some (more?) reading on Russian history. I'd recommend the books and on line comments of Dr.Stephen Cohen, late of NYU and Princeton, for an objective and prescient view. Though he did not live to see the war, he characterized its prospect as a Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.
ReplyDeleteIf
Jack, I second your praises of monarchy, but I can see why so many people regard it as a holdover from a bygone era. It is! I would add, however, that many of the traditions and values that we've overthrown endured for centuries, even millennia, for good reason, and the brave new world we've created is by no means uniformly better than what it replaced. Monarchy, among many other things, taught men (and women) to honor and respect their betters. Is that such a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteJack, it's clear that our foreign policy/defense establishment doesn't have a clue about the historic and cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine. But I wouldn't dismiss the idea that the Ukrainians are essentially pawns in their eyes. Seems to me that, as soon as we identify Enemy No. 1, we immediately start looking for someone else to fight him. That's callous, but it may also be smart (except in this case it's dumb, because we've misidentified the primary threat we face).
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Mass shootings are the product of the catastrophic moral breakdown which has plagued America since the '60s. This is supported by the fact that in the '50s, when military guns and all guns were far more easily available, these insane "look at me!" acts were few.A very small minority of the mental and emotionally ill think it is their right to work mayhem should they wish. The dreamy left is the source of the moral relativism which frees their consciences. Blaming the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners and our conservative culture for this by burdening us with restrictions proven counterintuitive due to their failure is simply a manifestation of the left's loathing for the real America and a major part of the left's comprehensive power grab for eventual totalitarian command. We lawful gun owners will not tolerate being blamed for abominations we did not cause, many of which our advice could have prevented. When their government went too far in this Canadians enacted widespread civil disobedience. But they don't have a Second amendment; we do and we have a lawful Scotus which gives it its due.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Guns 100, a course the gun grabbers flunked: an assault weapon must, by definition, have full automatic capability. US and state laws already prevent all but a very few civilians from possessing assault weapons. If you equipped our forces with the semiautomatic firearms available publicly; they would be massively outgunned. The left disingenuously terms publicly available firearms of military appearance as icky "assault weapons" in order to deceive the many people of good will terribly concerned about attacks.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: A hearty second also, to your observations on the
ReplyDeleteBritish monarchy. Marxism comprehensively anathematized tradition; convenient, that! I wonder if Marx knows what terribly destructive use to which his now completely historically discredited doctrine has been put. So many traditions( not all, cultural marxists, not all, so calm down or take your pills): so many, are precious beyond measure. The Brits learned that when they very temporarily , ehh, disabled their crowned heads.Respecting one's duly established betters is an imperative of civilization. The British monarch is endorsed by a free and loving nation as a benevolent cultural "better" yes, I think. Conversely,the quixotic determination to force "equity" on a humanity incapable of abiding it has caused incalculable evil.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Re: Churchill as PM: I've read several accounts of the events leading to Churchill becoming PM; I recall in none of them descriptions of Lord Halifax being ill at the time and thus disqualifying himself. I double checked one of them, In Command of History by David Reynolds, a fascinating book length critique of Churchill's WWII memoirs. Chamberlain was terminally ill with cancer but had already determined to step down. Halifax served thru most of the war as Ambassador to the US. I've read that Halifax told George VI, a close friend who was eager to appoint him PM, that it would be impossible for him to work closely with the Commons since he sat in the House of Lords. One account holds that Chamberlain thought Labour would not serve with Churchill in the War Cabinet but then learned that Labour would not serve with any Conservative but Churchill. Churchill did have some liberal tendencies.So Chamberlain reluctantly recommended Churchill to the King. Churchill generously retained Chamberlain in the central War Cabinet and as Conservative Party leader in the Commons.Thank God a thousand times that Chamberlain and the King did their duty even though reservations about Churchill were widely shared and creditably so by many. (One might wonder if Edward VIII would have done the same) Halifax would have been as terribly mistaken as to have negotiated with Hitler, thereby guaranteeing Nazi hegemony over" Perfidious Albion ".By the way, I do not assume you are unaware of it but respectfully note that is Halifax next to Churchill in the picture you posted.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: At the time of the Tien An Men massacre China was already experiencing astonishing and beneficial economic change. I have to think that Teng Hsiao Ping, a survivor of the 6000 mile Long March of the '30s, was determined never again to tolerate the intense public humiliation and assault he was treated to by the youthful Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution of the '60s.He once said "it doesn't matter what color a cat is as long as it catches mice" He probably thought he had already done quite enough and that at considerable risk of his life. His mind was probably closed to any reprise of a youth led movement.
ReplyDeleteJack, I agree with your assessment that mass shootings (and regular shootings) are mostly a reflection of our society's moral degradation, as well as the alarming rise in mental health problems. RFK, Jr.'s claim that most mass shooters are consumers of antipsychotic drugs intrigues me and ought to be thoroughly investigated (it won't be, of course).
ReplyDeleteJack, have you noticed that the media now talks about "AR-15 style" guns? It's an apt term, since "style" is the only part of firearms that these people understand.
Jack, I believe that encouraging an attitude of dutifulness and submission in the British people is one of the salutary aspects of the monarchy. It's also one of the best features of Christianity, for that matter (and most other faiths). People need to be taught to "deny themselves" and to believe in something bigger than the self. When they lose sight of those lessons, horrible evils become possible -- nay, likely.
Oh, I'm well aware that it was Halifax next to Churchill -- that was the point. From what I've read, the main reason that Halifax didn't become P.M. is that he considered himself unfit for the job, and part of the reason for that was that he suffered (stress-induced?) stomach aches. So you're right, strictly speaking, that he may not have been seriously ill. That was an error on my part. Would Halifax have negotiated with Hitler? Hard to say. Would that have guaranteed "Nazi hegemony" over England? I very much doubt it. Nazi hegemony over the continent, however, almost certainly.
Was it the youth of protesters in Tiananmen Square that so troubled the communist grandees -- or the worldwide explosion in pro-democracy sentiments? Personally, I would regard their suppression of such unrest as quite rational. What's curious is that their intransigence (which worked, practically speaking), and the resulting international backlash, helped to cause other communist elites elsewhere in the world to yield to similar protests (which, as a political strategy, didn't work at all, in the sense that it led to the rapid obliteration of communist leadership). Timing is everything, and one has to wonder what would have happened had pro-democracy protests blossomed first in Moscow, or Havana, or Pyongyang, instead of Beijing. I sure don't know the answer...
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I did read that Halifax said he dreaded thethought of being a wartime leader. Those days must have harrowing in the extreme and can easily be expected to have been very hard on anyone's health, especially one with intelligence of what catastrophe might be imminent.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Yeh, "style" is the left's version of creditable, empirically sound, observation. Its subjective and thus infinitely mutable and is thus most satisfying to radicals. But you can tell it was a leftist with a degree because( he, she or ad infinitum)said "style
ReplyDelete"instead of "kinda". Re: " AR 15 style".
Dr.Waddy from Jack: I am, horridly, empathizing with Teng Hsiao Ping and its only speculation on my part; I haven't read enough about Tien An Men or other Chinese notables of the time to be able to cite support for my opinion but its on my list now. Teng was a real survivor but to have gone through what he suffered in the revolution and then to be savaged as he was by youth in the CulturalRevolution in a culture which so venerates age, had to be devastating. He had fought hard for the same principles they espoused in their way, but being somewhat human, he probably did not share Mao's dreamy taste for permanent revolution.He may have vowed "never again". Fidel and which ever Kim porker troughed up at the time would have gleefully squashed TienAn Men type demonstration. But Gorbachev? My Chinese geography prof met Cultural Revolution survivors in modern China and he said their accounts were terrifying.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Churchill at one point said to FDR in 1940 (paraphrase) "we may reach a point where we must negotiate and our only bargaining asset may be the fleet" . I think Britain sans the fleet would have been Hitler's to toy with as soon as he decided to renege on any "solemn" promise he had made. I'm certain that the terrible trauma caused by the Great War was still a powerful influence in 1940 Britain. It appears to have sapped the morale of the French Army. It was understandable and honorable for Halifax to have held that nothing justified a reprise of the theretofore unimagined carnage of 1914-1918 in any form especially when defeat was almost certain. Perhaps no one could have manifested Churchill's confidence in Britain's grit and his objective willingness to do the necessary but almost unthinkable. Who else would have had the guts to attack the French fleet? That had to have shaken the Boche.
ReplyDeleteJack, alas, we can't rerun history and see how things would have turned out with Halifax at the helm. Maybe his queasy stomach would have caused him to throw up on FDR, thus voiding the Transatlantic alliance. On the upside, we'd all be much more conversant nowadays with the works of Goethe, and that can't be all bad?
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, Churchill's actions in approving the attack on part of the French fleet in July 1940 may have been "gutsy", but they were not necessarily productive or prudent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir