Today is Thanksgiving in the United States. The story of Thanksgiving that we remember, with the turkey meal, etc, is based on the Thanksgiving celebration held by the settlers of the Plymouth Colony in 1621. They had a lot to be thankful for. These Pilgrims had decided to immigrate to the New World so that they could practice their religion freely. They had intended to settle at the mouth of the Hudson River, but their departure from England on the Mayflower had been delayed, and the trip across the Atlantic had been rough. They reached America farther north than they had intended, at Provincetown Harbor in November 1620. While they did not have a legal right to create a colony in what is now Massachusetts, no one really wanted to spend the winter at sea. So on December 21, 1620, the Pilgrims began to build the settlement at Plymouth.
Would you spend any more time in a leaky ship like this than you had to? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The first winter at the new colony was tough. By Spring, about half of the colonists had died. By what must have seemed incredible luck or divine providence, the colonists were able to make contact with two Natives who could speak English. One of these was named Samoset, and he had learned some English from English trappers and fishermen. He introduced the Pilgrims to the other man, Squanto, who had a truly remarkable life. Captured by Englishmen, he was taken to England and instructed in the English language in the hope that he could serve as an interpreter. When he was brought back to New England, he was captured again, this time by members of John Smith’s expedition who planned to sell captured Indians as slaves in Spain. In Spain, some friars learned of this plan and had the Indians freed and instructed in the Catholic religion. Squanto was able to make his way back to England and then across the Atlantic. There, he discovered that his whole tribe had been destroyed by the diseases, probably smallpox, that the Europeans had brought to the New World.
Squanto was willing to help the Pilgrims and taught them what they needed to know to survive in New England. The harvest in the summer of 1621 was good enough that the Pilgrims did not need to fear starvation that winter. They had a feast that Autumn to celebrate their good fortune and give thanks to God. This celebration was not considered particularly remarkable. Thanksgiving celebrations were fairly common at the time, especially among people who had successfully made the difficult and dangerous voyage across the ocean. It was not really the first Thanksgiving.
The First Thanksgiving, painted by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (1863–1930).
There were proclamations of thanksgiving at various times in American history, especially during the Revolutionary War, but the holiday we know of as Thanksgiving really began in 1863 when President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation that a national day of Thanksgiving was to be celebrated on the final Thursday of November. It might not seem that there was all that much to be thankful for in the middle of the Civil War but the tide was turning in the North’s favor after the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that July, and the country was continuing to grow in strength and prosperity despite the horrors of the war. Lincoln’s proclamation set the date for the national holiday that has been celebrated ever since. Franklin Roosevelt set the date a week earlier in 1939, in the hope that an earlier date would mean a longer shopping season for Christmas, thus helping the economy, still mired in the Great Depression. This was not without controversy, and in October 1941, Congress officially set the date of Thanksgiving on the fourth, and almost always the last, Thursday in November.
So, enjoy your turkey, but remember to be thankful to God. If you happen to be an American, you really are one of the luckiest people on Earth.
There has been much discussion about the video posted by six Democratic Members of Congress to remind troops of their obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders. Many on the right have accused these Democrats of inciting mutiny or sedition. Perhaps this take seems overwrought.
“Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert?”—Lincoln, on calls by Democratic elected officials for rebellion and sedition on the part of the military, June 12, 1863 pic.twitter.com/tgmwdcjNRH
But perhaps not. At first glance, this seems innocuous enough. Every soldier and sailor is trained to disobey unlawful orders in basic training. Surely, a simple reminder of that duty is harmless. Yet the video raises some questions. Who decides whether an order given is illegal? Can any private announce that he is not going to obey an order he believes to be unlawful? Can a general or admiral decide that the policies of the Commander in Chief are illegal and refuse to implement them? What happens to military discipline or the concept of civilian control over the military?
In fact, this video is far from harmless. It is part of an ongoing effort by the Democrats to delegitimize President Trump and to undermine the chain of command that gives the president the final authority over the military. Ultimately, the Democrats are endeavoring to weaken civilian control over the military, at least so long as Trump is president. They may well wish to attempt some sort of military coup against President Trump.
The efforts to delegitimize Donald Trump as President began as soon as he was elected. The Democrats concocted evidence, with the aid of our intelligence agencies, to demonstrate that Trump won with Russian assistance and is a Russian asset. They have ceaselessly compared Trump to Hitler and have claimed he is a fascist dictator. More recently, the Democrats have tried to link Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein and have accused him, without evidence, of being a pedophile. And now, they are strongly implying that Trump is giving illegal orders that the military forces under him have a duty to refuse.
The Democrats want to suggest that Trump is not the legitimate president. Either the elections he won are fraudulent due to the efforts of the Russians or Elon Musk, and/or Trump is abusing the powers of his office to set himself up as a despot. Either way, Trump is not the legitimate President. If Trump’s presidency is illegitimate, we need not confine ourselves to legitimate means to remove him from office. We need not wait for his term to end or to go through the process of impeaching and convicting him. An illegitimate president can be deposed by any means necessary, including assassination or insurrection.
The undermining of the civilian chain of command is a more serious matter. For the past year, the media and the Democrats have been trotting out retired (Clinton and Obama-appointed) flag officers who have sharply criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to reverse the destructive policies of previous administrations. While these retired generals and admirals have every right to criticize Trump, the efforts to showcase these critics are intended to suggest Trump’s policies are unprecedented or out of bounds. Even worse, the media has been publishing anonymous complaints from active duty flag officers. And then there is the video.
The idea that the Democrats seem to be groping towards is that the armed forces, and not the President, should have the final word on defense policies. They seem to be suggesting that the military should be able to determine the validity of the President’s orders and decide for themselves whether to follow them. Even worse, the Members of Congress in the video seem to regard the military as some sort of final guardian of the Constitutional order, ready to step in should the civilian government overstep its constitutional bounds.
This idea is dangerous. It weakens the constitutional order that the Congress People claim to want to protect. There are places where the military is seen as the guardian of their nation’s heritage or institutions. When the civilian government is seen as corrupt or working against the national interest, the military will seize power. Some examples of countries with this tradition include Turkey, Pakistan, and Nigeria. None of these examples is an exemplar of democratic governance.
The idea that the armed forces should serve as a check on the civilian government is completely foreign to American political tradition. It has no place in our national discourse. The Democrats who seem to be supporting such an idea are playing with fire.I have already observed crazy leftists on X fantasizing about a military force marching into the White House and placing the president under arrest. This video, posted by six foolish Democrat,s is dangerously close to making this fantasy mainstream.
Disappointing but expected is how I would describe the results of last week’s off-year elections. It would have been nice for the Republicans to flip the governor’s seat in New Jersey and retain the governorship of Virginia, but the odds were against us. These Democratic victories in Democratic strongholds were to be expected and are not necessarily a portent for next year’s midterm elections.
Some Republicans have been panicking, fearing that Trump’s appeal is beginning to wane. This reaction is premature and counterproductive. As I have said, the election results were what might be expected. Still, there are lessons to be learned. The Republicans have to learn to get people to the polls. The Democrats have perfected the art of shipping their people to the election sites. The Republicans only manage this when Trump is on the ballot. Trump won’t be on the ballot again. The Republicans must somehow maintain the same degree of enthusiasm after Trump is gone.
That won’t be easy. Most of the people who vote Republican want to be left alone. The large number of people who have crossed over from the Democrats have done so because the Democrats have finally gone too far in interfering with their lives. By contrast, the remaining Democrats, rich and poor, are wards of the government. One way or another, they depend on the government. Politics in the form of wokeness is their religion. They are motivated to vote in a way normal people are not.
We also need to address the issue of fraud. There were the usual reports of blue state election irregularities. This could be evidence of fraud or simply Republicans being sore losers. The problem is that there is no way to know. Because the Democrats in the blue states refuse to enact any ballot integrity measures, there is no way to be confident of the results in these states. Until we require voter ID, same-day voting, at the polling sites, with necessary and uncommon exceptions, in all fifty states, there will always be some question about the legitimacy of the results.
There were some disturbing results in last week’s elections. The victory of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani does not bode well for the future either of the city or the country. Just twenty-four years after the Islamic terrorist attack on New York City, the people of that city elected an Islamic terrorist. Mamdani isn’t simply a man who happens to be a Muslim. He is a man who supports terrorist groups like Hamas. He is an anti-Semite who will be leading the city with the largest population of Jews outside of Israel. I feel as if we fought the War on Terror, and the terrorists won.
Zohran Mamdani-Muslim and Communist
Even worse, Mamdani is a Communist. He is the sort of extreme Socialist who proposes policies such as high taxes on the wealthy, city-run grocery stores, free bus service, and rent control. These policies have not been successful anywhere else they have been tried. There is no reason to believe they will be successful in New York. Mamdani has also demonstrated a hostility to law enforcement. New Yorkers will end up poorer and more endangered by his policies.
Even more disturbing is the election of Jay Jones as Attorney General of Virginia. I would have thought that sending texts expressing a desire to murder a political opponent and his children would be some sort of deal breaker, but apparently not, at least not for the Democrats. As far as I know, not a single Democrat condemned Mr. Jones for his hate-filled texts. No Democrat urged him to withdraw his candidacy. And, the Democratic voters did not have a problem with electing a psychopath to office.
Jay Jones-Psychopath
These election results are bad news for Republicans, but worse, I think, for Democrats. It is increasingly clear that the worst elements of the Democratic coalition are gaining ascendancy. The rising generation of Democrats is more extreme, more leftist, more socialist, and less willing to follow political norms than their predecessors. They are more open about their hatred of America, more willing to support America’s enemies at home and abroad, and more willing to engage in violent action. This is no longer the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. It is not even the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. The contemporary Democratic Party has become a combination of a criminal organization, a socialist revolutionary cell, and an Islamic jihadist group. It is as if the Mafia, the Bolshevik Party, and al-Qaeda had come together to form a political party dedicated to bringing down America.
This is not good. One might hope and expect that a party that becomes more extreme will find it increasingly difficult to win elections. Continual losses will pull that party back towards the center, or at least towards sanity. We cannot expect that in the contemporary Democratic Party. The young leaders have not shown any interest in moving back towards the center. They are safe enough in their blue zones and see no need to compromise their principles. The danger is that an extremist, charismatic, and willing to conceal his views, will be elected to national office. We have had enough trouble from one such chameleon, Barack Obama. We certainly do not need another.
Today is Veterans Day. This day began as Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, being the day that Germany signed the armistice that ended World War I. President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first Armistice Day in 1919 to celebrate the courage of the men who fought and died in that war. The day was changed in 1954 in order to honor the veterans of all the wars of America.
I don’t have anything else to say except Thank You to all of the veterans who have served your country. You are better men and women than I am.
There are two words beginning with the letter F that are used far too often. One of these F words is a monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon word that refers to sexual intercourse. I have heard people use this word as a noun, verb, adjective, and adverb, all in a single sentence. Soon, I expect to see it used as a pronoun. Perhaps people could use one of the many alternate words in the English language, just for variety.
The other overused F word is, of course, Fascism. According to leftist social media commentators, Fascism in the United States presents an existential threat to Our Democracy. Donald Trump is a Fascist. Trump’s MAGA supporters are Fascists. The Trump administration is a Fascist regime.
This anxiety about Fascism in the United States seems strange. There is no Fascist Party in the United States. There are no politicians who call themselves Fascists. Such Fascist groups that exist, like the Patriot Front, are probably either creations of federal law enforcement or so heavily infiltrated that they might as well be. At any rate, it is doubtful that any Fascist group has more than a handful of members. At most, there may be perhaps ten thousand open Fascists in the whole country.
Fasces-the symbol of Fascism
It would seem that anxiety about Fascism is directed towards a largely imaginary threat. Today’s Fascists may not openly identify themselves. There may be many who secretly hold Fascist beliefs. The first step, then, is to define what Fascism is and what it is not. After that, we can assess whether Fascism poses a real and growing threat.
Fascism is notably difficult to define as a political ideology. Unlike Communists, fascists did not engage in the kind of ideological nitpicking that is common among Socialists. Fascism is not the product of centuries of intellectual development, as is Liberalism. Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, stressed that Fascism was a doctrine of action over words. Fascism was pragmatic rather than dogmatic.
Benito Mussolini
It might be more effective to define what Fascism isn’t, rather than what it is. To begin, despite what liberals believe, Fascism is not conservative. Conservatives want to preserve and maintain existing institutions. Fascism is a revolutionary doctrine. Fascists aim to fundamentally transform existing institutions. German conservatives wanted to bring back the Kaisar. Italian and German conservatives wanted to maintain or restore the privileged positions of the Church and aristocracy. Both Italy and Germany are countries composed of formerly independent regions with diverse dialects and cultures. Conservatives wanted to respect this regional diversity. Fascists endeavored to form a single united state, disregarding differences in class or region.
Franco of Spain was a Fascist dictator who wanted to preserve, or perhaps revive, the pre-Republican institutions of Spain. But Franco was never a doctrinaire Fascist. He was a conservative who was leading a military coup against the liberal government of Spain. He adopted Fascism as a political cover. He was closer to being an authoritarian strongman of the caudillo tradition than a totalitarian dictator.
Francisco Franco
Fascism is also not right-wing. On the standard political spectrum, Communism is usually placed on the extreme left, while Fascism is on the extreme right. This conception of the political spectrum comes from the National Assembly of Revolutionary France.
The National Assembly of 1789
It should be evident that a system created in the late seventeenth century does not translate well to the present. Considering that both Communist and Fascist states are totalitarian countries with strict censorship, secret police, concentration camps, absolute dictators, and a regimented society, it makes no sense to place Communism and Fascism on opposite ends of any political spectrum. They should be next to each other.
This makes no sense.
Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Communists theorized that Fascism was the end stage of capitalism. Fascism was the capitalists’ last, desperate attempt to escape the class struggle and the revolution. But Fascists have almost the same contempt for the free market as any Socialists. Capitalists do well under Fascism. That is because Fascist governments have sought to co-opt the capitalists rather than dispossess or destroy them.
If Fascism is neither conservative nor right-wing, then what exactly is it? Fascism is a totalitarian ideology. Mussolini characterized Fascism as a system that grants total control to the state over the nation. As he famously stated, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Fascism was conceived as being fundamentally different from all former systems of government in that, unlike authoritarian states past and present, Fascism would leave no room for any private life. The Caesars, Pharaohs, and monarchs of old cared little what their subjects thought and did, so long as they obeyed the laws and paid their taxes. Fascism and Communism did care. No institutions not under state control could be permitted.
Fascism is a form of Socialism. This point is controversial. Most people regard Fascism as opposed to Socialism. After all, both Hitler and Mussolini persecuted members of the Socialist and Communist parties. This confusion arises because Socialism is often conflated with Marxism. Because Marxist thought has come to define Socialism, this is an easy mistake to make. Yet there have been many forms of Socialism. There are Christian Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, National Socialism or Fascism, and others
The one thing all these factions have in common is that economic decisions are made through political means rather than through the free market. In most cases, the state owns a significant portion of the means of production, including large enterprises, factories, farms, and mines. In the most extreme case, Communism, the state owns everything. Under Fascism, private ownership is permitted, but only so long as the owner follows the directives of the totalitarian state.
Fascism is nationalist. This nationalism is more than mere patriotism. For the Fascist, the nation is more than a group of people who happen to live in the same place. The nation is seen as an organic unity. Fascism is opposed to Socialist notions of class struggle because the emphasis on class divides the nation. Liberal ideas of democracy, political parties, contested elections, and political debate divide the nation. Free market capitalism, with its competition, divides the nation. The ideal of Fascism is for everyone in the nation to be pulling in the same direction, under the leadership of an absolute ruler who embodies the national will in his person.
Now that we have determined what Fascism is and is not, we should ask whether there is any party, group, or individual that shares the characteristics associated with Fascism. The Democrats have increasingly embraced Socialism. But the Socialism they espouse is the classic Marxist, class-based ideology. The Democrats seem to be more intent on dividing Americans by class and race than in promoting the national unity beloved of Fascists. The MAGA movement takes pride in its patriotism, and conservatives have generally supported the military and law enforcement. While there is a superficial resemblance to Fascism here, simple patriotism is not the same as the obsessive nationalism of Fascism.
So far as I know, no one is proposing converting to a totalitarian state. Trump’s critics accuse him of authoritarianism, but he is far from being even a classic authoritarian strongman, let alone a totalitarian dictator. Since there is, in fact, no danger from Fascism, perhaps it is time we stopped using the F word, both of them.
David's Commonplace Book 