A government with a permanent deficit and a bloated military. A bogus ideology pushed by elites. Poor health among ordinary people. Senescent leaders. Sound familiar?
Have been thinking about the foursome, China, Iran, North Korea and Russia, allied and at our throats for years. Am pleased to see and read someone else who gets it.
If I agree with everything written in this piece, I would find it difficult to argue for the US level of involvement in other countries affairs (money, military bases and political meddling) that Niall has advocated for in the last few years. That said, a great and provocative effort to tie these disparate ills.
One of the most important things we can do is to stop the full scale indoctrination happening now at almost every “credentialing” college for Teachers. It flows down from there to the high schools, middle, kindergarten.
The comparison of naval forces shows a reliance on the media's doomsday proclamations. China has built many small craft, including diesel submarines but of their thee aircraft carriers, only one is a fleet carrier. The US has 11 carrier groups. The comparison is that China has more weapons as they have ten clubs when the US only has six machine guns.
To compare the US legal system to the USSR legal system is a joke. One can credibly claim that Bragg was extra motivated to go after Trump because he is a political opponent, but Trump made that easy by breaking the law. And Bragg had to make the case in front of a Grand Jury and a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers money could buy, but even they couldn't convince a single juror that Trump was innocent of the charges. I have a hard time respecting someone who can't distinguish between a completely corrupt justice system and a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law.
Matt Mullen, above, is unwittingly verifying -- through stunning cynicism and remorseless partisanship -- exactly what Mr. Ferguson argues. His straight-faced obfuscation is an indicator of terminal moral corruption, both individually and in the social caste he claims is worthy of our respect. But what he is really counting on is not respect, but our gullibility and then our surrender. Find another platform, Mullen. It doesn't work here.
Distinguish between a justice system that worked and a highly partisan DA who fulfilled a partisan campaign promise and has now created a dangerous precedent.
If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
The "predicate crime" Trump was accused of intending to cover up -- without which "cover-up" allegation the whole case was nothing but an expired, non-prosecutable misdemeanor -- is New York Election Law § 17-152, itself a misdemeanor, which has never been charged against anyone at any time, as far as anybody knows.
One possible reason (and a good one) for the previous non-use of section 17-152 is that section 17-152 is unconstitutionally vague.
Section 17-152 states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." That's the whole section. Unlawful means is not defined -- in section 152 or elsewhere in the Election Law.
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague (under the US Constitution) if it gives the average person no reasonable notice of the allegedly prohibited conduct. In section 152, "unlawful means" is not reasonable notice of anything. A law is also unconstitutionally vague if it is so vague that it invites arbitrary enforcement. That the first-ever use is against a political opponent in an election season is rather suggestive on this point.
This is just one of the more easily explained problems in the prosecution of Trump.
If you are correct, the case stands a good chance of being overturned. But if it isn't overturned, I'm confident you will say that it is just more proof that the corruption goes deeper than we thought. Would you accept the verdict if the Supreme Court refused to overturn the verdict? I doubt it.
The prosecutors should never have brought such a case. The judge should never have accepted it and required the defendant to respond. And at the close of trial, it should never have been presented to the jury for decision. Juries generally can only answer what they are asked, and only decide what is given to them to decide.
Ask any attorney who has paid close attention to the case (if she/he trusts you to preserve her/his anonymity and confidence) what they think.
The outward forms of "due process," "representation by counsel," "trial by jury," and so-called "rule of law" cannot cure the fundamental problems of the charges -- and of the case as a whole.
As to the Supreme Court, the Court itself selects which cases to review from among those laid before it. The Court, if petitioned in Trump's Manhattan case, could simply deny certiorari, declining to review the case. That would be a form of refusing to overturn. And it is the most common response to a petition for certiorari. But it would not mean the case has no problems.
Also, the Supreme Court is "supreme" because it is the last and final court, not because it is infallible, or unchanging, or anything of the sort.
The Grand Jury would have had no reason or opportunity to disagree with my opinion explained above.
Grand juries only address the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges. They have no role in determining the constitutionality or appropriateness of proposed charges on any other basis.
Moreover, a grand jury indictment is rather easy to obtain.
There are 23 jurors on a grand jury in New York.
The prosecutor presents the evidence *and* tells the jury what the law is.
The grand jury has no expertise in the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, and no basis or ability to judge the correctness of the prosecutor’s instructions on the law.
There is no judge present.
There is no other attorney present (except in rare circumstances).
No one speaks on behalf of the person(s) targeted.
The grand jury only decides whether there is “probable cause” (or in other words, whether there is “a reasonable basis for prosecution based on objective facts that the defendant likely committed a crime“), based on the law as explained by the prosecutor and the evidence as presented by the same.
Of the 23 grand jurors, only a bare majority (12/23) have to vote in favor to bring charges.
There is a reason Tom Wolfe, in Bonfire of the Vanities, could plausibly “quote” New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler as saying that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."
If it’s not overturned, we are all much more likely to be prosecuted and persecuted. However, many will be pleased as it provided legal election interference
No, I am sure they think he is guilty even if the enough evidence give them enough to be reasonable doubt. But they think, according to the woke ideology, that this is for the greater good.
Here we go. hardwired AOC follower here. I found your logic faulty, but thought, exactly because you are on the TFP, you may be persuaded by the arguments. Sorry my mistake. Switch to VOX or WaPo. these would be your fulfilling pastures
The likely outcome of any juror or jurors not being persuaded by the prosecution in the Trump trial would have been a "hung" jury, not an acquittal, given the politics and culture of the locale.
I am suggesting that any a juror or jurors having thoughts of possibly voting "not guilty" could have been concerned about potential consequences -- and not without reason.
I'm sorry, this is absurd. If the USA were anything like the Soviet Union, right-wing media personalities, who are hyper critical of the government, would fear for their lives. Contrary to what some people on the center right seem to think, we have a free press. And our government is not imprisoning people for the political speech.
As Jonah Goldberg points out, the Soviets ahd to build a wall to keep their citizens from fleeing the hell-hole of a country. We have to build a wall to keep out all the millions of people who want to share in the American dream. I mean, please!
Yes, “deaths of despair” is a real concern. But it should be noted that it's happening mostly among people without a college degree. They live in rural areas that have been abandoned by large employers, and they see no hope for their future. It seems to me that this is largely a MAGA phenomenon.
And one of the things that separates the USA from the USSR is that we value freedom for all individuals, including queer people and people who are members of ethnic, racial and religious minorities. That is a strength.
BTW, this sentence is an absurd distortion of reality: "and encouraging the mutilation of thousands of teenagers in the name of “gender-affirming surgery.” The number of people who get surgery as gender-affirming care is vanishingly small. And if it happens with someone under 18 it is with the parent's permission. Calling it "mutilation" is an obvious attempt to demonize the whole idea of gender-affirming care. And no one is pushing people into surgery. The risks of such procedures are thoroughly discussed. And no one does something like that lightly. Most trans and nonbinary people choose less severe options.
Niall have not said we are there already, but the striking analysis he provides gives me shivers and I can attest, being over there for the good part of my life, to the actual similarities. The deaths of despair are attributed to the people without college education? This is exactly what author is pointing to-the huge gap between elite and working people. If in previous time periods these people worked for the big corporations and received benefits as pensions, GOOD medical insurances, paid for graduate degrees. Now these benefits disappeared or are greatly diminished.
There is consensus among older immigrants from USSR (not Russai) to the growing similarities. You say the number of transgender's is STILL small? But look how it increased over the last ten years. In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nearly triple the number in 2017. This is after European countries: Netherlands, Sweden, England practically shutdown their gender clinics. But here it become broad network with the vast financial interested and ideological war cry for Democrats. Our justice system became unaffordable for the most of American population and too busy with the cases based on ideology. In fact, it is the worst fear of Américains to be suid.by somebody with deeper pockets or by some deep packet organization. Again, we are not there but we are certainly on the wrong path.
Well, Russian trolls want Americans to lose trust in our system. You are arguing that we are right not to trust our system––that it is failing. And I detect a Russian accent in your writing.
Btw, the party that does the most to help the workers is the Democratic Party. The only thing the right has ever done is support the ownership class with tax cuts and deregulation and anti-union legislation.
So, If I run from the Soviet Union 40 years ago I am Russian troll? Wow, this is really twisted logic. It reminds me how some countries put refugees from Nazi Germany in the camps. I trust USA can and wish to fix the problems we have. Exactly what Niall is pointing to. But I and my fellows immigrants from USSR observing current tendences in USA, thanks to your "liberal" friends agitate for and Biden administration willingly follows, move toward Socialism. We are scared to death of Socialism, we put trust into civilized capitalism and if needed will fight for it. Nial give statistics on the attitude of the elite. Read it again. Their attitude is against our system. I confirmed facts in addition to Niall information about our institutions moving toward socialistic values. Please go, splash cold water in your face, come to your senses. Oh yes, how did you manage to detect Russian accent in my writing. Could it be Polish or Lithuanian or Ukranian or Romanian? It seems you are not very educated person regarding geography, social systems and different attitudes in general.
Regarding the mutilation of teenagers by so-called gender-affirming surgery, the number may indeed be small, but the point you make--that such depredations carried out on the under-18 are allowed only with parents' consent--helps make even more clear Ferguson's contempt for the detachment--philosophical, political, and moral--of the nomenklatura.
Calling GAC a "depredation" does not make it so. Indeed it reveals a bigoted attitude toward people who were born different. I happen to know quite a few trans and nonbinary people. GAC is healing for the vast majority of people who choose to partake of it. Why would you want to deprive people of a procedure that is healing? That is not only bigoted; it's also fascistic.
Also, have you ruled out the possibility that the nomenklatura have some good points? Are you claiming that the poorly educated are the ones who know better?
Apparently you are not aware of the reason we call children under 18 minors. Your seven-year-old will give you half a dozen good reasons why he or she is perfectly able to drive a car. But you wouldn't say yes, would you? Or maybe you would, in order to see for yourself if injury or death was what the child really wanted.
I am neither a bigot nor a fascist. But your propensity toward name-calling says more about you than you realize. I can only hope you keep any further thoughts you have, with regard to me or what I write, to yourself. Spew elsewhere, please.
That's why children under 18 only get any kind of surgery or hormone therapy with the permission of their parents.
I didn't call you a bigot or a fascist. I said denying gender-affirming care to people who want it because you don't think they should have that right is bigoted and fascist.
except it isnt only with consent of parents. several states are currently pushing to allow this "care" WITHOUT the consent of parents. many states allow plenty of medical care without parental consent- read abortions, covid vaccines, etc. anyone who is an adult should be able to get whatever care THEY can pay for. kids are another story, and parental consent is only the MINIMUM standard, and shouldn't necessarily be the final. there is plenty of parental consent for child brides across the world and in certain ethnic/religious groups in america- is that OK? how about parental consent for 12 year olds to smoke/drink?
to anyone who supports this "care" you should realize that america is now an outlier, europe is in the process of banning all of it, and most non-western countries never even considered it. to anyone who thinks that 12 year olds should get life-altering hormones or surgeries- with or without parental consent- let me ask: would you let your 12 year old get a tattoo?? would you let your 12 year old get a boob job?? the answer is obviously no to both- because we dont sexualize 12 year olds and/or tattoos are permanent and whatever ridicuous thing they think is cool at 12, likely wont be in 5 minutes, let alone age 18+.
does it not concern you that the percentage of people "who identify as trans" has gone up geometrically in the last few years?? if it had a scientific cause what would be the explanation for the 100-fold incerase?? if it isnt biologically caused, then it is clearly a function of mental status, and we ought to exhaust all behavioral treatment options BEFORE resorting to chemical castration and pharma intervention- just like we should do with depression, anxiety, et al.
No. I'm not worried about any of that. I think the increase is due to the fact that queer people can use the internet to meet people who are like them. I've heard of a lot of adults say that they hadn't thought of calling themselves "nonbinary" until recently. But that is how they would've referred to themselves had they had the language. Trans people are meeting other trans people online, and they are feeling more confident to express their true selves. To me, this is progress. It's an expansion of individual freedom. People shouldn't be forced into two neat and tidy boxes of people. That old way of thinking was making a lot of people miserable for no good reason.
Yes, we have been sovietized in many ways. The regulation of appliances for instance--the world used to make fun of Soviet products, and now we match them. And that photo of the drunk man at the train station could be mistaken for so many American cities today.
I think this article and one from an opposing view would be great for an “honestly” debate. Niall paints his arguments into a deterministic cascade that has one outcome for us to consider. But his message is loud and clear…we need to get our sh*t together or we’re going to find ourselves suffocating in our rot and decay.
Really enjoy reading you and Ayaan. I think there is only one way out. We must reinvigorate our belief in the West, our history and system. As a kid I thought Regan sounded hokey. I now understand what he was doing and how the population needed to be ever reminded of the benefits of our culture and system especially compared to everything else. It needs to be done in the school too - we need Pro American Studies. I listened to Bari’s interview with Sandberg. I was shocked at how much she hesitated and how many caveats she had to use before begrudgingly concluded that America isn’t so bad. If that is the final opinion of those who have so benefited from our system - your fears may be right.
I also believe we need to get back to a country run by local institutions and organizations. If we try solve our problems thru the Federal govt - we’ll tear ourselves apart.
“Meanwhile, as in the late Soviet Union, the hillbillies—actually the working class and a goodly slice of the middle class, too—drink and drug themselves to death even as the political and cultural elite double down on a bizarre ideology that no one really believes in.”
Thanks Sir Niall. Perhaps some relief can be taken in knowing that in your world the “middle class” enjoys knowing a not so “goodly slice” of their ilk is not yet ‘drinking and drugging’ themselves to death whereas the lowly working class is apparently, according to you, all in on the endeavor.
Forgive me for deducing from your writings that the so called new right “political and cultural elite” you belong to is committing the very sin you lament by scooping the entire “working class” into a bucket of drugged out drunken losers.
“Are we the Soviets? Look around you.”
Uhhh…no. We are not.
Next time you travel the roadways in any major city, or small town - let’s say a town in Montana - take a “look around you” and you might notice an army of tradesmen, those hapless working class, traveling to their next project, or hauling goods to sustain our civilization. You might notice a tat or two reading, USMC or Semper Fi, on a forearm or bicep.
It’s a wonder they can travel from A to B without running off the road in their drunken drugged out stupors eh?
Take a look into the sober determined faces of those workers and you will find the answer to your question: “Are we the Soviets?”
This same feckless working class that gave us Trump 2016 because they have been, for several decades running, “looking around” them.
Ohhh, but that’s just because they’re racist dip sh-ts taken in by the orange carnival barker eh? Not that you made that argument per se but…
What if, even in their drunken drugged out stupors, they saw Trump clearly, knew what he was, but supported him in spite of that because they wanted to blow things up before they got worse. They know we’re borrowing cash hand over fist and dumping the debt onto their yet to be born progeny. They know their kids are attending failing schools. They know what a rigged system smells like. They get it.
They don’t speak at conferences. They don’t write foot noted papers but they got it way before you and the boyz at Hoover and National Review.
What can I tell you Pal? Welcome to the fight. It’s about time. We don’t mind your being fashionably late. We’ll take all the help we can get. But you being a wordsmith, maybe choosing those with a bit more care might be, if nothing else, polite?
Then again, you’re not talking to us. We don’t read The Free Press.
Interesting comparison. Fast forward to November and I am still undecided about who to vote for and who can best address the mess that the US is in. Can the FP perhaps do some interviews with prominent moderate politicians about why nobody is stepping up as a formidable opponent to challenge Trump and Biden? It seems like the elephant in the room. Where are the gutsy Liz Cheneys and John Fettermans? I wish some of these folks would have the courage to leave their party (Fetterman) and run as an independent on a joint ticket. That would be real unity.
Funny you should mention that, as it reflects another recent U.S. parallel to the Iron Curtain.
No Labels tried to do precisely that: field a split ticket if the parties ignored the 70% of Americans who did not want this rematch. (which of course the parties did, so you can check off another parallel)
The Blue Team threatened, bullied, and lawfared them off the ballot, in a way that would have made the Stasi blush.
RFK Jr and Dean Phillips got essentially the same treatment, as the party canceled primaries, juggled primary schedules, and did everything humanly possible to thwart any little D democratic challenge to their power.
The message to potential third party challengers could not have been clearer: if you run, we will destroy you and your families. And they meant it.
Historical comparisons are simplistic and intellectually lazy. The US is not currently in any type of war, hot or cold, with China and we should try very hard to make sure war doesn’t happen because, if it does, millions of people will die.
Vote Republican. The Democratic policies of the last few years are leading us down this path of destruction- and its intentional. Read Ayaan Hirisi Ali’s latest article on how we have been manipulated.
The "Death of Stalin" one of the most underrated movies of all time, manages to be both terrifying and hilarious.
Have been thinking about the foursome, China, Iran, North Korea and Russia, allied and at our throats for years. Am pleased to see and read someone else who gets it.
If I agree with everything written in this piece, I would find it difficult to argue for the US level of involvement in other countries affairs (money, military bases and political meddling) that Niall has advocated for in the last few years. That said, a great and provocative effort to tie these disparate ills.
This is the dude who's married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Man... Respect, bruh. (insert Jeremiah Johnson nodding meme here)
One of the most important things we can do is to stop the full scale indoctrination happening now at almost every “credentialing” college for Teachers. It flows down from there to the high schools, middle, kindergarten.
The comparison of naval forces shows a reliance on the media's doomsday proclamations. China has built many small craft, including diesel submarines but of their thee aircraft carriers, only one is a fleet carrier. The US has 11 carrier groups. The comparison is that China has more weapons as they have ten clubs when the US only has six machine guns.
To compare the US legal system to the USSR legal system is a joke. One can credibly claim that Bragg was extra motivated to go after Trump because he is a political opponent, but Trump made that easy by breaking the law. And Bragg had to make the case in front of a Grand Jury and a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers money could buy, but even they couldn't convince a single juror that Trump was innocent of the charges. I have a hard time respecting someone who can't distinguish between a completely corrupt justice system and a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law.
Matt Mullen, above, is unwittingly verifying -- through stunning cynicism and remorseless partisanship -- exactly what Mr. Ferguson argues. His straight-faced obfuscation is an indicator of terminal moral corruption, both individually and in the social caste he claims is worthy of our respect. But what he is really counting on is not respect, but our gullibility and then our surrender. Find another platform, Mullen. It doesn't work here.
Distinguish between a justice system that worked and a highly partisan DA who fulfilled a partisan campaign promise and has now created a dangerous precedent.
Bad Bookkeeping! The Republic trembles!
If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
The "predicate crime" Trump was accused of intending to cover up -- without which "cover-up" allegation the whole case was nothing but an expired, non-prosecutable misdemeanor -- is New York Election Law § 17-152, itself a misdemeanor, which has never been charged against anyone at any time, as far as anybody knows.
One possible reason (and a good one) for the previous non-use of section 17-152 is that section 17-152 is unconstitutionally vague.
Section 17-152 states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." That's the whole section. Unlawful means is not defined -- in section 152 or elsewhere in the Election Law.
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague (under the US Constitution) if it gives the average person no reasonable notice of the allegedly prohibited conduct. In section 152, "unlawful means" is not reasonable notice of anything. A law is also unconstitutionally vague if it is so vague that it invites arbitrary enforcement. That the first-ever use is against a political opponent in an election season is rather suggestive on this point.
This is just one of the more easily explained problems in the prosecution of Trump.
There many more.
If you are correct, the case stands a good chance of being overturned. But if it isn't overturned, I'm confident you will say that it is just more proof that the corruption goes deeper than we thought. Would you accept the verdict if the Supreme Court refused to overturn the verdict? I doubt it.
The real problem is not with the jury/verdict.
The prosecutors should never have brought such a case. The judge should never have accepted it and required the defendant to respond. And at the close of trial, it should never have been presented to the jury for decision. Juries generally can only answer what they are asked, and only decide what is given to them to decide.
Ask any attorney who has paid close attention to the case (if she/he trusts you to preserve her/his anonymity and confidence) what they think.
The outward forms of "due process," "representation by counsel," "trial by jury," and so-called "rule of law" cannot cure the fundamental problems of the charges -- and of the case as a whole.
As to the Supreme Court, the Court itself selects which cases to review from among those laid before it. The Court, if petitioned in Trump's Manhattan case, could simply deny certiorari, declining to review the case. That would be a form of refusing to overturn. And it is the most common response to a petition for certiorari. But it would not mean the case has no problems.
Also, the Supreme Court is "supreme" because it is the last and final court, not because it is infallible, or unchanging, or anything of the sort.
"The prosecutors should never have brought such a case."
The Grand Jury disagreed with your opinion on that matter.
The Grand Jury would have had no reason or opportunity to disagree with my opinion explained above.
Grand juries only address the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges. They have no role in determining the constitutionality or appropriateness of proposed charges on any other basis.
Moreover, a grand jury indictment is rather easy to obtain.
There are 23 jurors on a grand jury in New York.
The prosecutor presents the evidence *and* tells the jury what the law is.
The grand jury has no expertise in the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, and no basis or ability to judge the correctness of the prosecutor’s instructions on the law.
There is no judge present.
There is no other attorney present (except in rare circumstances).
No one speaks on behalf of the person(s) targeted.
The grand jury only decides whether there is “probable cause” (or in other words, whether there is “a reasonable basis for prosecution based on objective facts that the defendant likely committed a crime“), based on the law as explained by the prosecutor and the evidence as presented by the same.
Of the 23 grand jurors, only a bare majority (12/23) have to vote in favor to bring charges.
There is a reason Tom Wolfe, in Bonfire of the Vanities, could plausibly “quote” New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler as saying that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."
If it’s not overturned, we are all much more likely to be prosecuted and persecuted. However, many will be pleased as it provided legal election interference
in Soviet Union all jurors touted the given line of the thought process. So is " all Manhattan" jury
You think people in the jury voted to convict him even though they thought he was innocent because of where they live?
No, I am sure they think he is guilty even if the enough evidence give them enough to be reasonable doubt. But they think, according to the woke ideology, that this is for the greater good.
I heard the comments section at The Free Press was filled with nuts. I'm starting to understand what they meant.
Here we go. hardwired AOC follower here. I found your logic faulty, but thought, exactly because you are on the TFP, you may be persuaded by the arguments. Sorry my mistake. Switch to VOX or WaPo. these would be your fulfilling pastures
Because so many disagree with you?
Possibly out of self-preservation.
Have you heard Alan Dershowitz discussing the consequences in his life of "defending" Trump?
Most jurors do not have the resources of an Alan Dershowitz.
Are you suggesting that they would face consequences for finding him innocent? How so?
The likely outcome of any juror or jurors not being persuaded by the prosecution in the Trump trial would have been a "hung" jury, not an acquittal, given the politics and culture of the locale.
I am suggesting that any a juror or jurors having thoughts of possibly voting "not guilty" could have been concerned about potential consequences -- and not without reason.
Ask any trial lawyer. Juries do not bring politics into their decisions. They take their jobs seriously. You are engaging in baseless speculation.
I'm sorry, this is absurd. If the USA were anything like the Soviet Union, right-wing media personalities, who are hyper critical of the government, would fear for their lives. Contrary to what some people on the center right seem to think, we have a free press. And our government is not imprisoning people for the political speech.
As Jonah Goldberg points out, the Soviets ahd to build a wall to keep their citizens from fleeing the hell-hole of a country. We have to build a wall to keep out all the millions of people who want to share in the American dream. I mean, please!
Yes, “deaths of despair” is a real concern. But it should be noted that it's happening mostly among people without a college degree. They live in rural areas that have been abandoned by large employers, and they see no hope for their future. It seems to me that this is largely a MAGA phenomenon.
And one of the things that separates the USA from the USSR is that we value freedom for all individuals, including queer people and people who are members of ethnic, racial and religious minorities. That is a strength.
BTW, this sentence is an absurd distortion of reality: "and encouraging the mutilation of thousands of teenagers in the name of “gender-affirming surgery.” The number of people who get surgery as gender-affirming care is vanishingly small. And if it happens with someone under 18 it is with the parent's permission. Calling it "mutilation" is an obvious attempt to demonize the whole idea of gender-affirming care. And no one is pushing people into surgery. The risks of such procedures are thoroughly discussed. And no one does something like that lightly. Most trans and nonbinary people choose less severe options.
Some do fear for their lives. Most fear for the death of the Republic
There is a nursery full of urban underemployed Woman Studies majors.
Niall have not said we are there already, but the striking analysis he provides gives me shivers and I can attest, being over there for the good part of my life, to the actual similarities. The deaths of despair are attributed to the people without college education? This is exactly what author is pointing to-the huge gap between elite and working people. If in previous time periods these people worked for the big corporations and received benefits as pensions, GOOD medical insurances, paid for graduate degrees. Now these benefits disappeared or are greatly diminished.
There is consensus among older immigrants from USSR (not Russai) to the growing similarities. You say the number of transgender's is STILL small? But look how it increased over the last ten years. In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nearly triple the number in 2017. This is after European countries: Netherlands, Sweden, England practically shutdown their gender clinics. But here it become broad network with the vast financial interested and ideological war cry for Democrats. Our justice system became unaffordable for the most of American population and too busy with the cases based on ideology. In fact, it is the worst fear of Américains to be suid.by somebody with deeper pockets or by some deep packet organization. Again, we are not there but we are certainly on the wrong path.
That sounds exactly like what a Russian bot or troll would say.
O man, and where did you find Russian propaganda here? Check your logical abilities. I think its very seriously screwd up
Well, Russian trolls want Americans to lose trust in our system. You are arguing that we are right not to trust our system––that it is failing. And I detect a Russian accent in your writing.
Btw, the party that does the most to help the workers is the Democratic Party. The only thing the right has ever done is support the ownership class with tax cuts and deregulation and anti-union legislation.
So, If I run from the Soviet Union 40 years ago I am Russian troll? Wow, this is really twisted logic. It reminds me how some countries put refugees from Nazi Germany in the camps. I trust USA can and wish to fix the problems we have. Exactly what Niall is pointing to. But I and my fellows immigrants from USSR observing current tendences in USA, thanks to your "liberal" friends agitate for and Biden administration willingly follows, move toward Socialism. We are scared to death of Socialism, we put trust into civilized capitalism and if needed will fight for it. Nial give statistics on the attitude of the elite. Read it again. Their attitude is against our system. I confirmed facts in addition to Niall information about our institutions moving toward socialistic values. Please go, splash cold water in your face, come to your senses. Oh yes, how did you manage to detect Russian accent in my writing. Could it be Polish or Lithuanian or Ukranian or Romanian? It seems you are not very educated person regarding geography, social systems and different attitudes in general.
Regarding the mutilation of teenagers by so-called gender-affirming surgery, the number may indeed be small, but the point you make--that such depredations carried out on the under-18 are allowed only with parents' consent--helps make even more clear Ferguson's contempt for the detachment--philosophical, political, and moral--of the nomenklatura.
Calling GAC a "depredation" does not make it so. Indeed it reveals a bigoted attitude toward people who were born different. I happen to know quite a few trans and nonbinary people. GAC is healing for the vast majority of people who choose to partake of it. Why would you want to deprive people of a procedure that is healing? That is not only bigoted; it's also fascistic.
Also, have you ruled out the possibility that the nomenklatura have some good points? Are you claiming that the poorly educated are the ones who know better?
Sad how quickly you went to Hitler for your arguement. Really Sad, but you do the best you can.
I never mentioned Hitler.
LoL!
But they can't buy a cigarette! I know both - A few LSMFT+ born that way and then many more silly pre-teens and teens enjoying the latest peer fad.
Apparently you are not aware of the reason we call children under 18 minors. Your seven-year-old will give you half a dozen good reasons why he or she is perfectly able to drive a car. But you wouldn't say yes, would you? Or maybe you would, in order to see for yourself if injury or death was what the child really wanted.
I am neither a bigot nor a fascist. But your propensity toward name-calling says more about you than you realize. I can only hope you keep any further thoughts you have, with regard to me or what I write, to yourself. Spew elsewhere, please.
That's why children under 18 only get any kind of surgery or hormone therapy with the permission of their parents.
I didn't call you a bigot or a fascist. I said denying gender-affirming care to people who want it because you don't think they should have that right is bigoted and fascist.
except it isnt only with consent of parents. several states are currently pushing to allow this "care" WITHOUT the consent of parents. many states allow plenty of medical care without parental consent- read abortions, covid vaccines, etc. anyone who is an adult should be able to get whatever care THEY can pay for. kids are another story, and parental consent is only the MINIMUM standard, and shouldn't necessarily be the final. there is plenty of parental consent for child brides across the world and in certain ethnic/religious groups in america- is that OK? how about parental consent for 12 year olds to smoke/drink?
to anyone who supports this "care" you should realize that america is now an outlier, europe is in the process of banning all of it, and most non-western countries never even considered it. to anyone who thinks that 12 year olds should get life-altering hormones or surgeries- with or without parental consent- let me ask: would you let your 12 year old get a tattoo?? would you let your 12 year old get a boob job?? the answer is obviously no to both- because we dont sexualize 12 year olds and/or tattoos are permanent and whatever ridicuous thing they think is cool at 12, likely wont be in 5 minutes, let alone age 18+.
does it not concern you that the percentage of people "who identify as trans" has gone up geometrically in the last few years?? if it had a scientific cause what would be the explanation for the 100-fold incerase?? if it isnt biologically caused, then it is clearly a function of mental status, and we ought to exhaust all behavioral treatment options BEFORE resorting to chemical castration and pharma intervention- just like we should do with depression, anxiety, et al.
No. I'm not worried about any of that. I think the increase is due to the fact that queer people can use the internet to meet people who are like them. I've heard of a lot of adults say that they hadn't thought of calling themselves "nonbinary" until recently. But that is how they would've referred to themselves had they had the language. Trans people are meeting other trans people online, and they are feeling more confident to express their true selves. To me, this is progress. It's an expansion of individual freedom. People shouldn't be forced into two neat and tidy boxes of people. That old way of thinking was making a lot of people miserable for no good reason.
You have both words in your initial post!!! Short term memory issues?
Your meaning was perfectly obvious! My God--poke a Good Leftie, in return get unwanted and unwarranted abuse. GOODBYE, Mullen!
Abuse? 🤡
Yes, we have been sovietized in many ways. The regulation of appliances for instance--the world used to make fun of Soviet products, and now we match them. And that photo of the drunk man at the train station could be mistaken for so many American cities today.
Probably drunks have always rotted to death on the streets.
Have you been to an appliance sore lately?
“In 2022 alone, more Americans died of fentanyl overdoses than were killed in three major wars: Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.”
WOWZERS!
I think this article and one from an opposing view would be great for an “honestly” debate. Niall paints his arguments into a deterministic cascade that has one outcome for us to consider. But his message is loud and clear…we need to get our sh*t together or we’re going to find ourselves suffocating in our rot and decay.
Really enjoy reading you and Ayaan. I think there is only one way out. We must reinvigorate our belief in the West, our history and system. As a kid I thought Regan sounded hokey. I now understand what he was doing and how the population needed to be ever reminded of the benefits of our culture and system especially compared to everything else. It needs to be done in the school too - we need Pro American Studies. I listened to Bari’s interview with Sandberg. I was shocked at how much she hesitated and how many caveats she had to use before begrudgingly concluded that America isn’t so bad. If that is the final opinion of those who have so benefited from our system - your fears may be right.
I also believe we need to get back to a country run by local institutions and organizations. If we try solve our problems thru the Federal govt - we’ll tear ourselves apart.
“Meanwhile, as in the late Soviet Union, the hillbillies—actually the working class and a goodly slice of the middle class, too—drink and drug themselves to death even as the political and cultural elite double down on a bizarre ideology that no one really believes in.”
Thanks Sir Niall. Perhaps some relief can be taken in knowing that in your world the “middle class” enjoys knowing a not so “goodly slice” of their ilk is not yet ‘drinking and drugging’ themselves to death whereas the lowly working class is apparently, according to you, all in on the endeavor.
Forgive me for deducing from your writings that the so called new right “political and cultural elite” you belong to is committing the very sin you lament by scooping the entire “working class” into a bucket of drugged out drunken losers.
“Are we the Soviets? Look around you.”
Uhhh…no. We are not.
Next time you travel the roadways in any major city, or small town - let’s say a town in Montana - take a “look around you” and you might notice an army of tradesmen, those hapless working class, traveling to their next project, or hauling goods to sustain our civilization. You might notice a tat or two reading, USMC or Semper Fi, on a forearm or bicep.
It’s a wonder they can travel from A to B without running off the road in their drunken drugged out stupors eh?
Take a look into the sober determined faces of those workers and you will find the answer to your question: “Are we the Soviets?”
This same feckless working class that gave us Trump 2016 because they have been, for several decades running, “looking around” them.
Ohhh, but that’s just because they’re racist dip sh-ts taken in by the orange carnival barker eh? Not that you made that argument per se but…
What if, even in their drunken drugged out stupors, they saw Trump clearly, knew what he was, but supported him in spite of that because they wanted to blow things up before they got worse. They know we’re borrowing cash hand over fist and dumping the debt onto their yet to be born progeny. They know their kids are attending failing schools. They know what a rigged system smells like. They get it.
They don’t speak at conferences. They don’t write foot noted papers but they got it way before you and the boyz at Hoover and National Review.
What can I tell you Pal? Welcome to the fight. It’s about time. We don’t mind your being fashionably late. We’ll take all the help we can get. But you being a wordsmith, maybe choosing those with a bit more care might be, if nothing else, polite?
Then again, you’re not talking to us. We don’t read The Free Press.
If you don’t read the Free Press, why are you commenting? Did it ever occur to you that you act more like the nomenklatura than not.
No it has not occurred.
The comment was an attempt at sarcasm. Seems it fell flat. That happens.
I like reading Ferguson but he managed to wind me up a bit on that one.
Also, you made me look up nomenklatura. As if I don’t have enough on my plate.
Great word though.
Interesting comparison. Fast forward to November and I am still undecided about who to vote for and who can best address the mess that the US is in. Can the FP perhaps do some interviews with prominent moderate politicians about why nobody is stepping up as a formidable opponent to challenge Trump and Biden? It seems like the elephant in the room. Where are the gutsy Liz Cheneys and John Fettermans? I wish some of these folks would have the courage to leave their party (Fetterman) and run as an independent on a joint ticket. That would be real unity.
John Fetterman looks better than the Dynamic Duo! Never thought that I would say that.
Funny you should mention that, as it reflects another recent U.S. parallel to the Iron Curtain.
No Labels tried to do precisely that: field a split ticket if the parties ignored the 70% of Americans who did not want this rematch. (which of course the parties did, so you can check off another parallel)
The Blue Team threatened, bullied, and lawfared them off the ballot, in a way that would have made the Stasi blush.
RFK Jr and Dean Phillips got essentially the same treatment, as the party canceled primaries, juggled primary schedules, and did everything humanly possible to thwart any little D democratic challenge to their power.
The message to potential third party challengers could not have been clearer: if you run, we will destroy you and your families. And they meant it.
Historical comparisons are simplistic and intellectually lazy. The US is not currently in any type of war, hot or cold, with China and we should try very hard to make sure war doesn’t happen because, if it does, millions of people will die.
How so? Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it. War isn’t always located on a battleground.
Vote Republican. The Democratic policies of the last few years are leading us down this path of destruction- and its intentional. Read Ayaan Hirisi Ali’s latest article on how we have been manipulated.