AMERICA'S BIG MISTAKE IN UKRAINE AND TAIWAN///pART 2

By Hugh Murray 

 China just signed a deal with the Solomon Islands in the Pacific, not long after surprising America by signing another deal with Samoa.  China has cash to help build infrastructure, pay of bribes to politicians, and do other things, like perhaps construct a Chinese naval base located there.  The UP reports today that China is negotiating with 7 other island nations in the Pacific right now.  Well, it is a good thing the Hawaiian Islands are already American territory or perhaps China might soon have a base there.  Is Pearl Harbor up for sale now?  These new treaties will give China room to get to the other side of the Philippine Islands, possibly interfere with American shipping to Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, and if war comes, restrict our plans to defend Taiwan. 

 

     China was once the world's premier naval power.  But first an aside: during the American Revolutionary war, a young Andrew Jackson fought beside his brother against the British.  They were captured.  When a British officer commanded the 13-year-old Andrew to polish the gentleman's boots, the young Andrew refused.  The officer drew his sword, slashed Andrew's left hand to the bone and hit him on the head - leaving scars on both head and hand.  In the late 1300s, there were wars in China a leader of a Mongolian group killed in fighting the Chinese, and when his young son was questioned by his dad's opponents, the youth spoke defiantly.  He too was punished.  But there are cultural differences.  This youth was castrated, became a servant in the court of the victor's, and rose in rank.  By the early 1400s, this boy grown to manhood, becomes Admiral to the largest fleet ever to sail - some 28,000 sailors sailing from near Suzhou down the South China Sea, the Spice islands, India, Sri Lanka, even Arabia (Admiral Zheng He is a Muslim and goes to Mecca), and to East Africa.  They return to China with many goods and animals like giraffes that were unknown in the Middle Kingdom.  The Admiral, with several major expeditions to the Indian Ocean and Africa, may give the Chinese a claim to the South China Sea.  Compare his huge expeditions with those that came later: Magellan fewer than 300 men\; da Gama 170;  and Columbus, a mere 90 men.  Yet, which voyages changed the world?

     (One more aside: it is interesting to note that both He in China and Jackson in America begin on the bottom rungs of society, and in both lands, both rise to the top or near the top.  Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans and was later elected American President; He in China fought in the military there and became the most famous Admiral or one of the largest fleets on  several successful expeditions.  But he never became emperor.  Both societies may have been more open to talent than we are aware of.) 

 Moreover, by 1433 China had a new emperor, and soon he decreed that there should be no more ocean-going ships to sail, or to be built, and all those in existence and all their plans should be destroyed!  Surely China did not dominate the South China Sea after 1450.  China ceased to be a naval power.  There are cultural differences, and often these have huge consequences.  In the 1890s China even lost a war to Japan, a nation only "opened" to the world by the American navy's Commodore Perry in 1853.  Japan then quickly sought to catch up with the west, learning from imported military figures from Prussia and naval ones from Britain.  When China lost to Japan, it had to cede Formosa (Taiwan) to the Japanese.  The island remained Japanese until 1945, when Japan lost WWII.

     Formosa, no longer Japanese would go to the official Chinese government, the one recognized by the new UN organization and all major powers, the Nationalist government headed by Chiang Kai-shek.

      In 1944 there was no A-bomb, and even as Nazi Germany seemed destined for defeat, America faced the huge problem of invading the Japanese home islands.  FDR made promises to Stalin in order to get him to declare war on Japan.  It was agreed he would do so within 3 months of the German surrender.  In August 1945 the US dropped 2 A-bombs on Japan, the Soviets entered the war against Japan, quickly over-running the depleted defense forces in Manchukuo,  Japan surrendered.  Soviet troops were in Manchuria, dismantling factories to bring them to the USSR, but taking the Japanese weapons, and instead of giving them to the "official" Chinese government, gave them to the Communist rebel regime of Mao Zedong.  A Nationalist faction under Wang Jingwei, that had collaborated with Japan was totally discredited, but civil war increased between the "official" Chiang Nationalists and Mao's Communists, now supplied with weapons by the Soviets.  American Pres. Truman sent Gen. George Marshall to end the conflict, and he demanded Chiang form a coalition with Mao, or Marshall said there would be no aid.  This policy allowed the Communists to conquer more of China.  Finally, Marshall okayed help for Chiang, but Communists in the FDR Administration, like H D White in Treasury, obstructed any real aid to Chiang.  The result - in 1949 Mao broadcast from Beijing the creation of the Peoples' Republic of China.  Chiang, with the remnants of his defeated army, fled to Taiwan, protected by the US Navy.  Taiwan became what was left of the Republic of China.  This was the origin of the 2-China policy.

      In 1950 North Korea invaded its southern neighbor; Truman decided to send American troops to aid the South, and the war was on.  Gen. Douglas Mac Arthur was able to land forces behind the lines of the invaders, encircling the North Communists, and soon the whole peninsula was in anti-Communist hands.  Then in cold winter, the Chinese Communist "volunteers" crossed the Yalu using their large numbers and enduring heavy losses, but pushing the anti-communists back to the approximate border of before.  And so it remains.

     Having been unofficially at war with the PR China, there were few relations between the 2 nations.  Then, the Vietnam war, found America in a difficult war.  Even though there were now many reports of a rift between the USSR and the PRC, America was on the outside.  Diplomat Henry Kissinger got Pres. Richard Nixon, a Republican, to try to put a wedge between those 2 Communist lands  Ping pong diplomacy.  The US urged less Chinese support for the Vietnamese, which did occur.  Under Pres. Carter, the US formally recognized a 1-China policy, and the Rep. of China was now simply Taipei.  The US overthrew the royal leader of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, who was soon replaced by the radical Khmer Rouge.  Both China and the US seemed happy with that, while Communist Vietnam (ally of the USSR) was furious that the Cambodians were murdering Vietnamese.  The Khmer Rouge then began a great extermination policy of its own people too, killing up to 2 million.  Anyone who had glasses was suspect.  To what extent did the US secretly work with the PRC in Cambodia?  As Vietnam was trying to overthrow the leaders of Cambodia?  China and Vietnam also had their own small war against each other along their common border.

      The late 80s, Tiananmen - the CP will continue to rule China.  But deals with the west for trade, very cheap labor assured will mean low prices in America.  Under Clinton and Bush, more trade deals, and China joins World Trade Organization, keeping its home market safe by requiring foreign corporations to  form partnerships (where Chinese can steal secrets on manufacturing).  When in the 1990s China cannot get missiles off the ground, the Clintons make deals, receive campaign "donations," and Chinese rocket problems are solved.  PRC makes honey deals with high ranking American politicians, the Biden family, the Clintons, Feinstein, Republican Senate leader McConnel.  The CPR leadership learns a weak link of democracy - corruption.

      Kissinger worked to separate Russia and China.  Biden, with his reaction to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, has made the Russo-Chinese relation ever closer.  Just as the Biden economic war against Putin may be making the US far weaker, the the ruble stronger today with the dollar than when Biden announced his policy.  Worse, the Biden, Democrats and Rhino Republican policies of giving Zelensky all he wants, simply keeps the war going in Ukraine.  Inflation is a problem in the US.  Now we just voted $40 billion more for that war.  UKRAINE IS NOT A DIRECT AMERICAN INTEREST.  Worse, we are facing a battle about Taiwan, which we need to win.  Will we have sufficient weapons?  Money?  Manufacturing capabilities for continued weaponry?  (Remember, we are dependent on Taiwan for the chips so necessary in the new weaponry.  If China attacks Taiwan, or merely surrounds it and blockades it, will the USA  be able to manufacture anything??  China has built up its navy so it is powerful.  Untested, yes, but are we up for the test ourselves?  China was testing hypersonic missiles last year - Gen. Milley called it a "near Sputnik moment."  The other day the US Air Force reported we too have had a successful test (after some failures).

       China ignores the World Court's decision on the South China Sea; the court denied it is China's.  China rejected the court's judgement and instead built up islands in the sea, then broke its word and militarized those islands.  China has signed contracts with 2 island groups in the Pacific since April 2022, and is trying for 7 more deals.  Will the Pacific be China's new lake??

     Some maintain that the recent virus lockdowns in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Xian, and even Beijing have nothing to do with any virus, but they are exercises in control in case there is a major war (with the USA).

If China were to strike first, and not just in Taiwan, but hit our shores too, Would we be able to respond AND WIN?  What about Chinese money near the Panama Canal?

      Instead of bowing to Zelensky's demands, we should tell him to make a deal and end the war, while we prepare for our own defense.  To the Chinese we seem at a weak point - an elderly, maybe senile leader, high crime rate, inflation, instability, and general confusion, more worried about proper pronouns than how effective is your missile.  They want Taiwan by 2049, but why wait?  Especially if the balance of power has changed, if the most advanced nation is the Middle Kingdom, which rests between heaven and earth?  Perhaps they will conclude this year is the time for the Middle Kingdom to take its rightful place.  Are we prepared to shatter that "cultural difference," and prove that their proper place is NOT a superior one to all the rest of the earth.  Are we prepared to prevent a modernized, 1984 one-party state from becoming a modernized one-party world?  Our democratic republic has its flaws, but it is the last best hope for humanity. 

 

     To prepare for the big one, let us end the Ukraine war now.

AMERICA'S BIG MISTAKE IN UKRAINE///TAIWAN pART 1

   RFLECTIONS ON THE WAR AND THE BIGGER ONE COMING by HUGH MURRAY

 Ukraine's Vlod Zelensky is the well known leader who heads his nation in time of war.  The former television comedian is transformed into the new Churchill, urging his nation to fight on against the foreign invaders.  The media shows him as the man of the hour, the man of courage.  Or, is he simply the Greta Thunberg of Ukraine?

      Greta Thunberg began her activism for the environment at age 15, and her demands that adults see the necessity of protecting the environment, as she sees it, made her into a media spokes girl in the left wing media.  Her demands that governments do as she says is almost laughable, but since her message is that of the left, the media promote her, and legislators throughout the world listen to her and try to accommodate her demands.  If she were not presenting the left-wing message in a new package, the left-leaning media would never have promoted her.  She is the same old green message in a new, Swedish wine bottle.  Still trying to shame, insult, bully nations into doing what she wants.  Even in failure, she gets the publicity for her left-wing message.

     Zelensky is the latest version of Thunberg, accusing, shaming, demanding, that nations support his nation financially, legally, and militarily.  He is very popular in the US with Democrats and Rhino Republicans.  No matter his packaging, is Zelensky correct in his message?

     Ukraine was one of the provinces of the Czarist Russian Empire.  Allied with Britain, France, and the other allied nations in "the Great War" (WWI), Russia did poorly, and in early 917 there was a revolution that brought a Western type government to power, until the fall when Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized control.  German armies continued to invade while the Reds sought to expand their internal control in a civil war.  Forced to sign a peace treaty, Red Russia ceded chunks of territory to newly independent countries, like Ukraine, which were to become German satellites.  Half year later, Germany and the Central Powers surrendered to the Allies, and Germany had to withdraw from all its gains in the East.  Soon after, the Communist led Ukraine requested to join the Soviet Union.  Under Stalin the Reds sought to collectivize agriculture, and use crops to get funds to industrialize.  Ukraine, the traditional "bread basket" of Europe, became the center of a war against the successful farmers (kulaks), whose crops were taken, and whose family members starved or were sent to Gulags (to freeze or starve).  The policy led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, the first of many Communist experiment in economics that led to millions more deaths under Mao and the Khmer Rouge.  But as the left reasoned, to make an omelet one has to break a few eggs.

    During WWII, when the Germans invaded the Ukraine, many natives were happy to see the end of Stalin's rule.  The choice was between Hitler and Stalin, 2 monsters.  For the Jews of Ukraine, Hitler meant death, so they had no choice.  Others did; and there were those who sympathized with and even fought along side the German invaders during WWII.  For a movie depiction of the division, see "Europa, Europa," for Poles fleeing the German invaders.  Then news that the Soviets have invaded Poland from the East, and many Poles turn around to run toward the Germans, while others were still running away.  In the West it is easy for us to condemn those who chose one or the other, but we did not have to choose between 2 monsters, one worse than the other.  Our leaders, far from perfect, have generally avoided such savagery on such mass scales.

      After WWII, there was a kind of civil war in Poland and Ukraine for a few years before the Communists could regain complete control.

     After Stalin's death, Khruschev became the next leader of the USSR.  A Ukrainian, he changed to border of Ukraine, giving it Russian territory.  This made little difference as they were all part of the USSR.  Then Reagan and Gorbachev, the Wall falls, and so does the USSR.  The enlarged Ukraine becomes independent, with a large Russian speaking population.  Indeed, in all ot the break-away nations of the USSR, Russian minorities were suddenly stranded in places like Turkmenistan.  Ukraine was close to Russia, and had a corrupt, pro-Russian elected government, until a Western led coup in 2014.  To protect the Russian naval bases, Putin invaded the Crimea, and some eastern parts of the Ukraine declared their independence from that nation and looked to Russia.  Kiev has never recognized these Russian enclaves, even though a Minsk Agreement was supposed to do so.  The new Ukraine government continued some aspects of the old - like corruption.  But now US military sponsored scientific labs in Ukraine and other former Soviet lands.  The US was very worried that these labs would fall to Russian troops with the invasion this year.  Russia alleged they were scenes of biological and chemical warfare.  The US denied the allegations.  But why was the US military sponsoring these labs?

      Why is the US subsidizing the war in the Ukraine?  Without American backing, Zelensky would have to go to the negotiating table and make a deal.  Without the support of the Democrats (and its media) and the UniParty Republicans (mainly Rhinos), (and major support from most of Fox News) Ukraine would sue for peace.  America mobilized all its allies to get on board the train to Ukraine.  NATO (North Atlantic?), and for the economic war against Russia, even Japan.  India and a few others have resisted America's attempt to isolate Russia, diplomatically, and especially economically.

     Democrats and Rhino Republican maintain that the border of Ukraine is sacrosanct and must be maintained against the Russian invasion.  Yet, Democrats and many Rhino Republicans support the invasion of the border of the US by those crossing in from Mexico.  Pres. Biden and his Administration collude with pro-invasion organizations who teach foreigners how to lie so they will seem like legitimate refugees.  Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and various NGOs and religious organizations all partake in this fraud.  Some gain considerable US federal dollars by "helping" the refugees.  Lately, I think it is near a thousand a day who come across the border.  Some have links to drug cartels, some are returning after having been deported, a few are potential terrorists.  It is clear that neither Democrats nor Rhino Republicans care at all about America's southern border, but they are cheerleading the efforts to defend that of Ukraine.

      The Ukraine is corrupt, and according to Panama Papers Pres. Zelensky has many off-shore accounts too.  More important, American weapons manufacturers can make a mint if the US subsidizes the war in Ukraine, as it did in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq, as it did in Vietnam, etc.  So left-wing ideas about flooding the US with refugees (and the donor class Republicans favor cheap labor which comes with the thousands of illegal aliens(, and Uniparty (Dems and Rhinos) may get a% of the military contracts so they cheeer the blue and yellow flag and are delighted when Zelensky "speaks truth" that he needs more money and military aid.  Why, Zelensky is better than Thornberg in shaming us into doing what we already want to do.

       The problem is - the US has no real national interest in Ukraine.  Worse, a war is on the horizon in which we have vital interest, and we are ruining our own economy, sending military materiale to Ukraine, forcing Putin into China's arms, when we are about to face a conflict with the People's Republic of China. 

              END OF PART 1

Prof. Jason Jellison on Pat Buchanan and Russian leader Vladimir Putin

 (A friend who works in Asia had a different view of the Ukrainian war.  You might find it interesting.)  

Good Morning Hugh, As is so often the case, I strongly agree with Pat Buchanan.  What not only American leaders, but even American society is doing to Russia is very, VERY dangerous.  From my Far Eastern vantage point, I would warn any American/Westerner who would listen that WE (America & Western Europe) are backing a wounded Russia into a corner and I will warn anyone that even the most benevolent and loving of wounded wolves- once backed into a corner with few options- eventually has no choice but to finally bring out the teeth, claws, and eventually strike back.  From my side of the pond, what America is doing with Russia is utterly insane and truly redefines the word 'stupid.'  [One does not play games with, or insult, a superpower who possesses 6,900 nuclear warheads and better missiles than almost anything America reliably has on hand.] Also, Hugh, to be totally frank, the hypocrisy which America has fallen into simply stuns me.  Back in the Kennedy years, we nearly had a nuclear holocaust when the Soviets were caught installing nuclear missiles in Fidel's Cuba; a mere 90 miles from Florida (in our own backyard).  Yet, even on Fox News or The American Thinker, nary a word has been printed about the U.S. manufactured missile systems which we had quietly installed inside of Chernobyl's nuclear exclusion zone [which is also something like only 100 miles away from Russia's back doorstep].  Thus, the USA has fallen into such dramatic moral decay that we [several successive Presidential Administrations & Congresses spanning all major American political stripes] seemed to have not a care at all about funding somewhere between 25-30 biolabs which we 100% know for certain were continuing to research USSR-era biopathogens which were supposed to have been destroyed all the way back in the mid-1990's; and those same biolabs were almost certainly involved in some kind of Gain of Function [Wuhan-style] research for purposes whose final aims were probably far less than anything but Godly or Holy.  (I sincerely doubt our untrustworthy U.S. Federal Government funded those 25-30 biolabs because they wanted to help make sure the Russians did not come down sick with the flu or a light case of the sniffles.) So, to conclude my response, while I am largely neutral in this Civil War, I wish both Russia and the Ukraine Territory well.  However, Russia's military blunders in staging their Security Action (war) within the Ukraine were not just stunning and not just a geopolitical embarrassment, but also indicate that the entire Russian Military will need a complete overhaul before Russia even thinks of managing anything beyond the most elementary of basic national security measures. [...as in arresting illegal migrants &/or illegal trespassers.]  This was a military DISASTER & HUMILIATION FOR RUSSIA WHICH SEVERELY HARMED RUSSIA'S STANDING ON THE WORLD STAGE, no matter how one tries to spin it.  Bluntly, Russia was about as effective in the Ukraine Invasion as America has been effective in keeping illegal aliens from swimming over to our shores.  [UTTER DISASTER.] Hugh, I strongly respect President Putin as well as his government.  But, Mr. Putin's administration screwed up the Ukraine Affair six ways to Sunday.  As of the time of this writing, I will simply dispassionately state that the cost of this fiasco is somewhere between 20,000 to 25,000 dead Russian soldiers, two very badly wounded countries, organized campaigns of sexual violence on both sides and- for Russia- the former U.S.S.R. may soon largely lose a war which they should have easily won within a matter of only days.  Russia was incompetent & easily should have overpowered both the Ukraine, as well as its cowardly Western Godfathers who yank all of Zelenskyy's strings. After all, only one week after Trump was deposed in a stolen election, on February 1st, 2021, the Tatmadaw [Burmese Army] seized Burma and accomplished most of President Putin's kind of dreams in less than merely 4 hours because the Tatmadaw runs a competent, well-trained military.  Yet, as of the time of this writing, it may be months or even years before President Putin can secure & rule the Ukraine; at which point the Ukraine will be little more than a pile of smoking ruin which the Russians will have to rebuild at the cost of one big heap of Russia's very own Rubles.  They will also predictably face many years of a domestic insurgency so, even if Russia 'wins' this crazy thing called the Ukraine, I believe President Putin will find that just as soon as he erects a grand new building, it shan't be long before domestic Ukrainian resistance fighters find a creative way to crash all his new buildings straight to the ground. Okay.  I'll simply wrap up by stating that I will forward my ad hoc military analysis of Russia's profound strategic errors to you later today.  I actually am quite supportive of Russia but, to be totally honest, Hugh, either Putin himself (or his generals) not only screwed up a war which they very easily should have won, but now may largely lose the war.  Of course, in the event of a loss or some kind of stalemate, Russia might parade the U.S.-manufactured missile systems which the Russians dug out of the ground at Chernobyl & maybe also parade some of our U.S.-funded biolab concerns out in the streets for all of the world to see.  ...but at the cost of 20,000 to 25,000 dead Russian soldiers [so far] and a devastated Ukraine [the heartland of Russia], well, much as Sun Tzu warned over 2,000 years ago in The Art of War, that's not much for the Kremlin to gloat about. So, I guess I shall close by simply saying this:   For President Putin, he is about to potentially lose a war or preside over a disaster.  If I could have the honor of advising him at this particularly late hour in a fight which the Russian President CHOSE to start, I'd tell him either go all the way & finish what President Putin chose to start, or prepare to pay the consequences for a lost war.  (...and when you lose a war which you chose to start, the consequences of such a loss are simply not predictable.) Keep in touch, Hugh.

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LEFT WANT SOME BLACK HISTORY TO DISAPPEAR

  I just posted a comment on a site re the media and the US Govt and their refusal to recognize Black Nationalism and black extremism - which may best explain things like the cause of the black driver of the car into the Christmas parade, killing 6 whites, in Waukesha, Wisconsin in Nov or Dec 2021.  Many academics assert that blacks cannot be racists.  Of course they can, and they can be fascists too.  Hugh Murray

Blacks, like everyone else, can be racists, and can have thinking related to any political ideology. The largest black organization in the US in the 1920s, and which had influence far beyond, was the Universal Negro Improvement Assn., led by West Indian Marcus Garvey. He pushed for black dolls for black girls, the Black Cross nurses, and bought a ship for his Black Star line to return the American diaspora Back to Africa. He opposed the mulatto W.E.B. Du Bois and the then mainly white NAACP; and it may have worked to get the foreigner deported. The Garveyites in the 1920s appear to have worked with another large, similar organization of the 1920s, the KKK. Both sought to retain separation of the races. Even after his deportation, most Garveyites did not join the NAACP.

In the late 1920s, Stalin, a specialist on minorities, wanted the American Communist Party to become more active with blacks, and in the early 30s, a Finnish Party member was put on trial for racism in Harlem, tried, and found guilty by the CP, America's first show trial on racism. A CP front group fought the NAACP for control of the defence of the Scottsboro boys, young blacks accused of rape aboard a freight train in Alabama in 1931. Tho the NAACP hired Clarence Darrow, the radical International Labor Defense hire another top-flight attorney, who so successfully defended the blacks, that the ILD attorneys won 2 major ruling from the very conservative US Supreme Court, saving the lives of the blacks. The CP also promised a Black Belt of majority black counties in the South - an indirect appeal to the Garveyites.

By the mid-30s and Hitler's consolidation of power in Germany, Stalin decided to seek unity with moderates, colonialists, in the Popular Front. Some blacks felt betrayed and left the CP, like George Padmore and others who looked to Pan-Africanism. Garvey, angry at Mussolini for his invasion of Ethiopia (and at Stalin for supplying oil to Italy), Garvey asserted that his UNIA were the first fascists.

In the late 1950s the Black Muslims grew, and like the Garveyites, wanted racial separation. They were opposed to integration, the NAACP, CORE, SNCC. The Black Muslims made deals with the KKK and other segregationists. Malcolm X was ordered to negotiate with the KKK. After CORE began its Freedom Rides in 1961, George Lincold Rockwell, drove his counter - his "hate bus" from Virginia to New Orleans. Rockwell headed the small American Nazi Party. In New Orleans, he and his group also picketed the film Exodus, about the founding of Israel. The following month, Rockwell and several of his fellow Nazis, were invited guests at a large meeting of the Black Muslims in Washington, DC.

But because none of this fits the liberal distorted history of race in America, the media, the academics, the politicians pretend it does not exist.  Under President Biden, he wants to suppress white supremacy and ignore possible black supremists - even though the enormous amount of black on white crime and murder may indicate black supremacy is more of a problem that the white variety, which is more politically correct, especially to the far-left wing and corrupt Biden regime.  It may be politically correct, but historically incorrect.

"I LOVE LUCY" PRESENTED AN ALTERED VIEW OF THE ALL AMERICAN FAMILY

 

LUCILLE BALL'S LASTING INFLUENCE -

IN A FIELD WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT

by Hugh Murray

I had been arrested in the first lunch-counter sit-in in my native New Orleans in September 1960. We were a small group, 5 blacks and 2 whites, all of us members of the newly formed activist organization, CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. One reason for its appearance in New Orleans and other cities in the South, the NAACP in New Orleans and elsewhere sometimes opposed non-violent direct action, and it opposed our sit-in. In 1961 CORE drew national attention when it sponsored the Freedom Rides, in which CORE members would purchase tickets to ride ordinary Greyhound or Continental bus tickets, ride like other passengers, but then, when the bus stopped for rest, CORE members would attempt to integrate the eateries and rest rooms located in the bus terminals. The courts had declared segregation in interstate travel to be illegal, but CORE sought to test the reality. In the deep South, many CORE Freedom Riders were badly beaten and arrested in these tests.

Not everyone was sympathetic to integration, and George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party, decided he would bring his Hate Bus and some followers from his base in Virginia down to New Orleans. New Orleans was also the final destination of the Freedom Riders, but with beatings and arrests along the way, many did not complete the journey.

When Rockwell's bus arrived in New Orleans, the signs that covered his vehicle caused a disturbance - “Gas Jews, Queers, Commies” or something similar. The New Orleans Police demanded that he cover the provocative signs.

In May 1961 the film “Exodus” was playing at one of the movie theaters in New Orleans, and Rockwell and his Storm Troupers decided to picket the theater. I asked a young woman studying law at Tulane U. if she would go with me so we could see (and perhaps boo) the Nazis. Janet Smith was, like myself, a member of the Unitarian Church in New Orleans. She lived near the university, just off St. Charles Ave. I parked across from her building in my car, and it was pouring rain. I rushed to her building and got her and back to my car, when I discovered I had locked my keys inside the car. Could not get the side window vent open, would take forever to get help, so we took the nearby St. Charles streetcar.

The streetcar is not the fastest form of transportation, but we had time before the film began. Soon after the trolley turned on Lee Circle we got off. The water had risen up nearly 2 feet, touching the hem of her dress, and my long pants that I had rolled up lto my knees. We walked only one block, and the deep water was now merely a wet sidewalk. And the rain had lightened. When we got to the theater, we were too late to see the the police arrest the uniformed Nazis, but some plain-dress sympathizers handed us fliers The pickets were breaking up, the drama was over, and we had missed the main event. Back on the streetcar, we read the flier - Do Not Invite These Reds into Your Home. Top of the list was Lucille Ball. We laughed. Well she did have red hair.

The American Nazis were not in New Orleans that long, for by the end of the next month, June 1961, George Lincoln Rockwell and several of his members, were invited guests, in Nazi uniforms, to the mass rally of the Nation of Islam held at Uline Arenal in Washington, D.C. (The arena had a capacity of 8,000, and in 1964 was the venue for the first Beatles' concert in the USA.) If some missed the point, Rockwell and his Storm Troupers were again, invited guests, in uniform, to the mass Saviour's Day event of the Nation of Islam in February 1962 at Chicago's International Amphitheater. Rockwell was even invited to the podium to address the crowd of over 12,000.

The Smithsonian Magazine on line, perhaps as part of Women's Month, March 2022, published “Who Was the Real Lucille Ball?” 22 March 22, by Jackie Mansky, part of “Women Who Shaped History.” The author discusses Ball as an actress, a comedienne, a business woman, and a hard worker. The article describes some of the interplay among the 4 main characters of the “I Love Lucy” program, Lucy, her real live husband Desi Arnaz, William Frawleyz, and Vivian Vance, who played neighbors Ethel and Fred Mertz. Yet, perhaps the author omitted a most important part of the real Lucille Ball.

If you go to Wikipedia, you will find that while residing in California, Lucille Ball went to register to vote in 1936, and she registered, not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a Communist. Her brother and mother registered as Communists too. In testimony, she said she so registered to satisfy her grand father, but there was other testimony, some saying she was on the central committee of the Communist Party in California. She denied ever being a party member.

In the 1930s the Communist Party was well known for pressing equal rights for blacks. They led the fight to free the Scottsboro boys, accused of rape aboard a freight train in Alabama in 1931, made in into a international cause celebre, and took the case to the conservative US Supreme Court twice where significant judgments were rendered. The CP and its front groups were involved in many racial cases round the nation.

In the 1930s Ball was often 2^nd fiddle in major films, but might be the star of a b film. One of the “queens of the b films.” She also did radio work to supplement her income. Beginning in 1948 she would be the wife in a new radio comedy, “My Favorite Husband,” on CBS. Except for the first of the series, her co-star would be Richard Denning, her favorite husband.

In 1951 CBS wanted to transfer the program to the new medium of television. Ball was quite willing, but adamant that this time her husband would have to be her real husband, Desi Arnaz. The Smithsonian article relates how much of the show was Lucy's attempt to get work in show business, or just to get work. Though during WWII, with men drafted and away from industry, which now needed more workers to build ships, tanks, planes, and everything else. So women were recruited for jobs outside the home, unlike anything before. However, after the war, when men returned, they wanted the jobs, and women were being pushed out of the job market and back into the home. This tension produced much of the humor of I Love Lucy.

But there is something else, something important, so obvious that we do not see it. In 1951 the majority of American states had laws forbidding interracial marriages of one kind or another. The typical American family, in all the films, and in the new tv, the typical American family was Anglo or Irish or generic white. Desi as a husband was different. His music was different. And his accent was very different. Singing “Babaloo” was not typically American. Richard Denning would have been the typical all American husband. But Lucy demanded Desi. The 1950s were sometimes called the age of conformity; it was also the age of assimilation. Immigrants were to assimilate, adopt the clothing of Americans, drop the accents of the distant homelands, become true Americans. Desi, playing Ricky Ricardo, was not assimilated. His accent and antics were part of his character, and the American public began to love Lucy and her “unassimilated” husband. And with the popularity of I Love Lucy, as it became the #1 program for 3 years, it undoubtedly changed the notion of the ideal American family. THAT is no small accomplishment.

I have no idea if Lucille Ball was ever a member of the Communist Party or not. But she must have been influenced by some of the racial and ethnic ideas circulating on the left. Remember, in 1931 the Communists held a show trial in Harlem, accusing a member of “racism.” In Communist circles, racism was a great crime, and forcing assimilation may have taken on some of that disapproval. By dropping Denning and demanding Desi, Lucy was hoping – not only for a successful tv show, but to expand the notion of what an all-American family was.

I have argued elsewhere that the influence of the American Communist Party is far greater that most people are aware of. Much of the political correctness and cancel culture of today can be traced back to efforts of the small, but extremely influential Communist Party in the US. Some of that influence, I would conclude has been good for the nation. Some, like the narrowing of free speech, the firing of people of alleged racism, the toppling of monuments of our heroes, and stealing atomic secrets, has been disastrous. However, in this particular case, expanding the idea of what a good husband could be like, I would say the result has been good.

THE “NEAR SPUTNIK MOMENT” - REFLECTIONS

         By Hugh Murray

After China launched its hypersonic missile in July 2021, one which circled the globe and returned to China to come close to its target, American Gen. Mark Milley called it a “near Sputnik moment.” America had been shocked by the Soviet launch of its first satellite into orbit in 1957, and America's military is similarly stunned by China's rapid advance in hypersonic technology that may be a game changer in the military balance of power. Such missiles, traveling at 5-times the speed of sound, might sink our air-craft carriers before radar could detect, much less destroy, the incoming projectiles. I described this in my previous blog post, a review of Andrei Martyanov's DISINTEGRATION. Here I shall discuss other aspects of this “new” sputnik.

When the original Sputnik first orbited, much of America was truly shocked, as there was massive media coverage of the new moving star in the night sky. In 1957 America was enjoying unheard of prosperity in the history of the world. We were #1. The Great Depression of the 1930s was over; the sacrifices of WWII, the loss of lives, the shortages, the rationing, all seemed to end with Allied victory. The fears of a post-WWII depression proved wrong. True, some like the appliance makers Powel and Lewis Crosley, who in 1920 introduced a cheap radio and soon became the world's largest radio manufacturer, a few years later owned the world's most powerful radio station of 500 thousand watts, and in 1939 introduced a cheap, compact car, sold at department stores. Thinking there might be an economic downturn, Crosley returned to its small, cheap, compact autos after the war while competitors issued larger, more comfortable vehicles. By the early 50s Studebaker introduced its airplane influenced auto (which did not sell well), but the Crosley disappeared. Others added more chrome. Bigger, speedier, with cheap unrationed gas, America was on the go. And real estate developers were attracting them to the new suburbs, combining the airiness of the country with nearness the city with access by the big cars. Pres. Eisenhower, who helped defeat Germany, was impressed by its autobahn. Under Ike the federal government invested huge sums to build a national highway system in America.

Most factories and people transitioned well from armed services and war work to new peace-time employment with good wages. At first, they were rare, expensive, perhaps seen inside a bar or a special place, but prices of the new televisions dropped, soon they were the new entertainment center, and inside the home. Air-conditioning changed the South from people sitting out on the porch, to inside watching TV. Kitchen appliances changed house work, as women who had had their first jobs during the war were replaced by men, but found house work easier. These appliances provided VP Nixon ammunition to defeat Khrushchev in the famous kitchen debate in Moscow. America was clearly #1, and living better then any other people in the history of the world.

While all of this was happening, our image of Russia and the USSR was of the dark, dreary, poor dictatorship, backward in everything – except weapons, propaganda, brainwashing, and spying. The only reason they had the A bomb and H bombs was because spies had given them our secrets. The Russians surely could not have done it on their own, Americans concluded.

This is why Sputnik 1957 was such a shock. How could they steal this from us, if we did not have it at all? How could a land of shoddy, simple products beat the US into space? It made no sense. Then, the first explanation – it was the Germans, the German scientists captured after WWII and taken to the Soviet Union, it was they who gave the Russians the ideas and technology to create Sputnik. When America responded by placing in orbit a tiny baseball sized satellite, an American cartoonist portrayed the 2 satellites passing each other in space, and speaking to each other in German. Of course, one of the leaders of the American space program was Werner von Braun who had helped develop the V-1 and V-2 rockets for the Reich.

Americans quickly realized we were in a new area of competition with the Soviets – space. And we were behind. America responded. Schools placed more emphasis on math and science, universities gave more scholarships in these fields. Nerds gained esteem. Politicians got in the act, and in the 1960 Presidential debate between Nixon and John Kennedy, the Democrat accused the Republicans of allowing a missile gap to develop. (It may not have been true, but after Sputnik, it was credible). Kennedy won, and promised America that we would be first to the Moon. And in 1969, just 12 years after beginning late and behind, America landed a man on the Moon; we won the race.

By contrast, the Chinese hypersonic missile feat of 2021 has received little publicity in America. And it is not just the news of 2021. On 7 March 2022 Tony Capaccio wrote for Bloomberg News, “U.S. Efforts to catch up with China and Russia in developing hypersonic weapons may be set back after Lockheed Martin Corporation's air-launched missile suffered 3 consecutive test failures that left it on a tight schedule.”

On 1 December 2021, when VP Kamala Harris addressed the new Space Force, she stressed that the new priority should be, nothing to do with hypersonic weapons, but climate change. She also wanted to get more students into the STEM courses.

But unlike the 1950s, can America's new educational establishment accommodate getting the best students into STEM?

At a recent televised press conference of the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team, one player declared how proud he was of the diversity there as he looked to the others being filmed. They were all black players. Diversity once met varied, but in some areas of America now, it means people of color, or simply blacks. The left proclaims Diversity is Our Strength. If it were an all-black squad, this would violate the rules set by government in other areas of life, like the workplace and university enrollment. To the government, diversity is quotas in one form or another promoting proportionality in most fields. Should quotas be enforced to require diversity on basketball teams? Whites are still a majority nationally. So each major basketball team should have a majority of white players. About 20% Hispanic, 14% Black, and about 6% Asian. If this were required of all basketball and football teams, would it improve the play of the teams? Their standing? Each team would decline in skills and play as diversity was imposed.

So why do we play this quota game in corporations, and especially at major universities? And even more and more in the STEM departments?. Do you think this will improve those departments? Make them more able to catch up with China? In the 1950s, universities were allowed to choose the best qualified students. Any could apply at some excellent schools, and most accepted were white males. And America got to the Moon before the Soviets. Filling seats in hard subjects with lesser qualified candidates, simply because they are black, Hispanic, trans, women, Amerindians, deprives the department of the best qualified, and will result in resentment by the quota people who cannot follow what is happening, and encourage racism and sexism in the truly qualified, who observe that some quota hires cannot keep up.

If America wants to win the hypersonic race with China and Russia, we should engage with our best performers, not those who did poorly but fit the race or gender requirements of our politically correct comisars. Racial and gender favoritisms holds America back. And we are in a serious race for survival. Restore merit and the color blind ideal; end racial and gender quotas, preferences, disparate impact law, diversity, and equity. Those are all terms for racial and gender discrimination. If we return to merit, we have a chance against Russia and China. We have a chance to win.

Why is the new hypersonic Sputnik important?

The perfect storm may be on the horizon. From the time of the Nixon and Kissinger trip to “open” China in 1972, a major objective of American foreign policy has been to split the USSR and China. Russia and China surely had their differences, so generally the American policy was successful, until recent years. With the fall of the wall, the Soviets withdrew its forces from the east European nations and the West pledged not to expand NATO beyond the Elbe River. However, NATO did expand to Poland and other former members of the Warsaw Pact. As the book RED HANDED shows, many influential American politicians were less worried about China, because they were being heavily bribed, directly or indirectly. The Biden family had received a large sum, through Joe's son Hunter, from the Ukraine. When Putin invaded the Ukraine in 2022, Pres. Biden and the West strongly favored Ukraine.

Before the invasion, Putin attended the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics in February 2022. He may have dozed for part of the event, but the visual was the reality – Russia and China stood together. American policy of keeping them apart seems to have failed. China is still not condemning Putin's thrust into Ukraine. Ukraine as a distant nation means little to the United States. Even if Russia would annex all of it, that would not change the balance of power. But America needs Taiwan to remain independent from mainland China. Taiwan has only been a part of mainland control for about 2 years since 1894. China sees Taiwan as part of its territory, and America agreed to a one-China policy when Nixon went to China and Carter confirmed it later in the 1970s. We divided China from Russia, but at the same time we were seemingly pulling the rug that held up the island nation, abandoning Taiwan to the mainland.

In recent years China made vast claims on the South China Sea, built up islands there and militarized them. China overtly threatens the Philippines and Vietnam and other nations on that sea. There is a string on non-Communist nations, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and then down to Australia and New Zealand. If Taiwan falls to Communist China, the chain is broken. If Taiwan falls, it is a main producer of computer chips, and our production of many products will be disrupted. If Taiwan falls, it will be treated as Hong Kong, with no democratic freedoms. Even though legally, we may have a weaker case, militarily, we must not let it fall to the repressive Chinese Communist Party.

The new Putin-Xi alliance makes it more difficult to contemplate a war we may have to fight – for Taiwan and for free Asia, and for ourselves. Ukraine will not change the balance of power much either way. Taiwan will. Many of our politicians are bought by Beijing. Will we be prepared for the storm that is coming?

AMERICA'S DISINTEGRATION?

 

DISINTEGRATION: INDICATORS OF THE COMING AMERICAN COLLAPSE

By Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press: Atlanta, GA, 2021)

Reviewed by Hugh Murray

     On December 1, 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris met for the first time with the leaders of the new U.S. Space Force. She outlined the Biden Administration's position on space, essentially continuing most of the Trump policies – however, there was to be one major new emphasis: “Climate Change.” When I heard this on the news, I laughed, and then was saddened. Why? First, because there were news reports in October 2021, a month before VP Harris's address, stating that the Chinese had launched a hypersonic missile around the earth, and when it returned to China, it came within a few kilometers of its target. That was major news. Later in mid-November 2021, Gen. Mark Milley would call the Chinese success “a near Sputnik moment,” meaning that the US was as stunned by the Chinese advance in 2021 as the Americans were by the Soviets launching the first satelite on October 4, 1957. Further information released in November was that such missiles travel at over 5 times the speed of sound, and can carry nuclear weapons. Because they travel so fast, radar may not be able to detect, much less defend against them. In 2021 we were entering a new age of weaponry. And VP Harris ignored the “sputnik” of 2021 to urge us to prioritize climate change!

Another reason I was saddened by Harris's remarks is because I had recently read Martyanov's short, excellent, provocative Disintegration, published in 2021. As a foreigner, Martyanov's sentences seem overly long, repetitious, but as a foreigner he views America in a different light, revealing weak spots often oblivious to us who live in our milieu. Indeed, he often sees weaknesses where we assume there is strength.

Is America's economy #1? Martyanov thinks it is padded to appear stronger than it is. He questions the position of FIRE, finance, insurance, real estate, in estimating the size of an economy. He thinks those bloat the statistics, and contends an economy's real measure is how it makes things. He blames Pres. Clinton, who was supported by the elder Pres. Bush, in passing trade legislation like NAFTA, and worse, working to get China into the World Trade Organization. The effect of these, especially the latter, was a giant vacuum cleaner to remove American industry and send it to China. With its cheap labor, one-part system, China would become the work-house of the world. And China would make things. The Council on Foreign Relations reported, ”While the US real economy started its prolonged dive, China's grew 8-fold since 2001.”(p. 84) America imports finished products from China, while we export petroleum and gas and agricultural products and chicken feet to China. Martyanov describes America becoming a 3^rd world economy.(90)

In her Feb. 23, 2022 article, Ann Coulter wrote: As Americans discovered to their dismay when the pandemic hit, we can't make our own masks, pharmaceuticals or aspirins. We can't make our own computer chips, razors, toys, sneakers, Levi's jeans...But boy, do we make weapons!” She mentions 4 large corporations who have earned huge contracts with the US government over recent years – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing.

Martyanov agrees with Coulter, to a point. But he questions now, how good are some of the weapons we make? And the ones we sell to NATO, Saudi Arabia, and other allies? He goes into detail about the commercial airliners that were American made and the stars of the skies. Boeing, when they updated one, they did not properly redesign it, trying to accommodate new factors on old designs improperly, skimping here and there, paying off so it looked liked they passed all the tests. Results, Boeing plane crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia resulting in hundreds of deaths. There followed law suits, the loss of sales and confidence while many air fleets were grounded in the desert. Is the same shoddy quality going into military aircraft?

Martyanov believes that the US is losing the arms race. He notes that on 14 April 2018 Syria shot down 70% if our Tomahawk Land Air Attack Missiles. Our weapons were not getting through as easily as they had in the past. It is not only on the offensive. After the assassination of Iranian General Suleimani, in retaliation Iranians fired missiles to attack NATO and US bases in the region. Shock: their missiles got through. It “demonstrated the impotence of U.S. Defensive anti-missile technology which failed to intercept a single Iranian ballistic missile.”(166)

Following WWII America did not win the Korean War, nor the one in Vietnam, not in Yugoslavia. Martyanov adds that America has lost all its wars in the 21^st century. Is he correct that the the balance of power has changed?

America is a naval power and the gems of the fleet are the air-craft carriers that defeated the Japanese in the war for the Pacific in WWII. Martyanov concludes that with the arrival of hypersonic weapons, the American super-carrier is dead as a viable weapon.(163) Such missiles changed warfare forever.(164) Radar could not track, much less defend against such weapons, and the huge carriers would be easy targets and sunk.(165)

Well, what about our submarine fleet? The New York Times 8 November 2021 reported: “Metallurgist Admits She Falsified Test Results for Steel Hood. She was testing the metal to be used in hulls of American submarines, letting the lesser quality steel pass tests, and thus, endangering the lives of the seamen, and in nuclear subs, perhaps the lives of many others. Elaine Marie Thomas falsified strength and toughness tests from1985 to 2017. How many subs did her subversion infect?

VOA News 14 July 2021 had an interesting report too. Seaman Apprentice Ryan Mays was charged with setting a fire on the ship Bonhomme Richard while it was in dock in San Diego. The fire destroyed the warship, a loss of $1.2 billion and $4 billion to replace. One might blame recruiters, but more important, who was in charge? How could one man start the fire and no one noticed for days while the ship burned until lost? Perhaps the officers were out checking on and climate change.

Martyanov's point is that the US is not necessarily the most powerful military on earth any more. And our economy? Bloomberg reported in 2019 that manufacturing had reached the lowest portion of the American economy in 72 years.(107) We make less, and we lose the skills that are honed in making things. We complain when other nations fail to import large numbers of our automobiles – Ford, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, these were once the envy of the world. Martyanov notes that the American car manufacturers no longer dominate their home market. We export treasury bills and dollars; that is we export inflation. We are a seafaring nation, yet when constructing large commercial container ships in 2016, we produced 10; the rest of the world 1,408.(53) In steel, China out produces us 11 to 1.

He admits the US has some of the best universities in the world, and we lead in STEM Ph. D.s, but of those 37% are temporary visa holders; 25% Chinese nationals. He brags that the STEM doctorates in Russia are Russians. Moreover, despite Kamala Harris's talk of stressing STEM studies, how can the US maintain any lead when more education departments declare math to be “racist,” and it is racist for a white to give the correct answer in class, and some question if there is any one correct answer or even any truth. Is postmodernism compatible with STEM? Is a woke dominated educational system?

I certainly do not agree with Martyanov on many issues. He believes the US is no longer a nation – but a multicultural cacophony of rival tribes, nearing full Balkanization. Not only does the West not make things any more, it has ceased to produce babies. He blames decadence, gays. Yet, China now has a demographic problem too, and it has not had a pro-gay policy under communism. One need not agree with all of his assertions; Martyanov is provocative. His book surely contains insights that we should ponder if our NATION is to survive and thrive again.

I bring another point of contention between us related to his title. In 1960 seven of us participated in the first lunch-counter sit-in in New Orleans, We were arrested, found guilty, and became convicted felons. Our purpose was to allow Blacks to purchase coffee at the counter like any other patron of the store. The word of the time was INTEGRATION, to treat people without regard to race, color, or creed, to stress Pres. John Kennedy's declaration that “our Constitution is color blind,” to live in a land where the children of Martin Luther King would be judged by their character, not by the color of their skin. These ideals of integration for all citizens would surely have made our NATION stronger. However, these ideals were subverted by champions of division, treating people differently, quotas, racial preferences, diversity, and now equity. Martyanov contends that the multi-ethnic, racial, cultural, approach will end in a divided land, as Yugoslavia sundered into various smaller warring nations. I argue when you treat all equally, integrate without preferences for this group or that, then you can have a strong, united NATION. We can avoid disintegration and grow again.