Vietnam Defeat 50 Years On: It’s a very dangerous thing to be an American ally when Democrats are in power

Kabul gave us Ukraine, and all the death that ensued

Fifty years after Saigon, Rod D. Martin asks us to Remember the Nobility of a Betrayed Cause (cảm ơn to Mark Tapscott). 

Fifty years ago, April 30, 1975, the world watched in horror and disbelief as the last American helicopter lifted off from the rooftop of our embassy in Saigon. South Vietnam had fallen in the manner of Ernest Hemingway, “first gradually, then suddenly”: a decades-long war, a relative peace, and then a mad dash by the North Vietnamese Army that consumed the country in less than a month.

The tragedy was simply breathtaking. And horribly, horribly unnecessary.

What followed was not peace, but darkness. The swift collapse of South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (turns out the Domino Theory was true) brought the subjugation of millions, and the opening act of a Communist bloodbath across Southeast Asia. At least a million were sent to the “re-education camps” in Vietnam alone. Half a million were murdered. Another two million fled this brutal night by sea, on rafts wholly unsuited for the tumultuous ocean, in wild hope that an American aircraft carrier might happen upon them. Close to half a million died in the water.

None of that counts the genocide of Pol Pot — whom the American left had dubbed “the George Washington of Cambodia”. Over the next three years he murdered between a quarter and a third of his entire population. He would have gone right on had not even the Communists in Moscow and Hanoi been horrified (though Beijing gave him their unqualified support both before and after the massacre).

None of this had to happen. This was not the end of a war, but the culmination of betrayal — a betrayal of an ally, of a cause, and of the very principles America had defended with precious blood and treasure for eight long years.

The received wisdom is that Vietnam was a mistake, a misguided war fought in the wrong place at the wrong time. That narrative is false. The Vietnam War was part of a noble, epic struggle — the same struggle that won the Cold War and saved the whole world from a similar fate. It was a just effort to stop Communist totalitarianism and genocide from consuming yet another corner of the globe. South Vietnam was not a hopeless case. It was a fledgling republic, striving to build a free society in the shadow of Marxist tyranny and under constant assault from within and without. Its people fought with courage and resolve for more than two decades, first with our help and then — fatally — with almost none.

In many ways, the fall of Vietnam mirrored the loss of China in 1949: a long American effort thrown away at the very last through perfidy in Washington — begun and betrayed by Democrats in both cases — with ghastly, ongoing consequences. The two were even similar in this: a Christian President of China (Chiang Kai-shek) betrayed by Truman, a Christian President of South Vietnam (Ngo Dinh Diem) assassinated on orders from JFK, after both of which came the deluge.

By 1973, we had won. No, really. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, forcing North Vietnam to accept South Vietnam’s sovereignty and halting hostilities.

 … Nixon called it “peace with honor” because it represented more than withdrawal — it was a commitment, a guarantee that America would not desert its friends or allow 58,000 of its sons to have died in vain.

But with Nixon forced from office, Congress fell into the hands of men more concerned with leftist politics than principle. … Deprived of ammunition, fuel, and the will of its ally, South Vietnam collapsed — not because it lacked heart, but because it was abandoned, by the same Democrat Party that had sent America’s sons to die there just ten years before.

This is the reality the left refuses to confront even half a century later. The fall of Saigon was not inevitable. It was engineered in Washington more than Hanoi. It was not a military defeat — it was a political surrender, the first of many. Over the next five years, Democrats handed 26 countries to the Communists. That’s on top of Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran.

Richard Nixon understood this. Years after, in No More Vietnams, he laid out the real lessons of that conflict, lessons we ignore at our peril. … He rightly condemned the gradual escalation that defined the Kennedy and Johnson years, insisting that decisive action at the outset would have saved countless lives.

The same could be said for China, where decisive Soviet action in 1945 in Manchuria, fecklessly answered by Truman, set the tone for the rest of the war. 

 … These lessons, learned at tragic cost, should have guided us forward. But they were forgotten. In 2021, Joe Biden gave us a second Saigon, this time in Kabul. 

Once again, a Democrat President abandoned our allies, violated our commitments, and handed victory to the forces of barbarism. Once again, desperate people clung to departing American aircraft, hoping in vain that the land of the free would not forget them. Once again, we left billions of dollars worth of weapons for our enemies and consigned countless friends to death.

It’s a very dangerous thing to be an American ally when Democrats are in power.

Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was not a tragedy born of necessity. It was a choice — a deliberate reversion to the very perfidy that doomed South Vietnam. And just as in Vietnam, the consequences were immediate: a resurgent Taliban, women and girls booted from schools and reduced to chattel, jihadists emboldened, and American credibility in tatters. Kabul gave us Ukraine, and all the death that ensued.

Related: Il y a 50 ans, tout le Vietnam devenait un pays totalitaire communiste

La chute de Saigon, le 30 avril 1975, acte toujours, dans l’imaginaire collectif, la défaite des Etats-Unis dans la guerre du Vietnam. Or, la réalité historique est différente. Ce qui s’est passé au Vietnam après cette date est tout aussi marquant, sinon plus. … c’est bien l’armée sud-vietnamienne qui a été défaite, les troupes américaines ayant quitté le pays deux ans avant. Les derniers soldats américains étaient partis le 29 mars 1973 et la situation militaire n’était pas très bonne côté communiste. 

 … Les 140 000 personnes évacuées en avril 1975, quand Saïgon est tombé, étaient presque exclusivement des civils et des militaires vietnamiens, pas des militaires américains en fuite. L’Amérique avait perdu la guerre… chez elle, dans les médias et l’opinion publique. Une guerre qui n’avait plus de soutien, menée par une administration en proie à des graves affaires intérieures. C’était pourtant, malgré ses horreurs, une guerre juste contre le communisme qui allait transformer de nombreux pays de l’Asie du Sud-Est en dictatures criminelles. … Ce sont les « boat people » sur lesquels se réfugient, au risque de leur vie,  des milliers de Vietnamiens fuyant leur propre pays, qui ouvriront enfin les yeux sur la terrible situation du Vietnam.

Ironie de l’Histoire, 50 ans après, le Vietnam, même s’il reste une dictature, a choisi d’adopter l’économie capitaliste et le style de vie occidental. C’est aussi une victoire de l’Amérique.

Good-Bye, Friend: David Horowitz Has Gone to Meet His Maker

RIP David Horowitz. Called a "A Great Warrior for Freedom" at Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer writes that David Horowitz

not only refused to play along with [the Left's] game; he broke its power. At the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s flagship publication, Front Page Magazine, he did not let the left set the agenda; instead, he set his own. He didn’t shun figures who enunciated unpopular truths that the left wanted desperately to conceal; instead, he gave them a platform. He articulated an American conservatism that was not defensive, not reactive, not imitative of the left, but providing a vision for our nation’s future that is a genuine alternative to what the left has forced upon Americans for so long, and which preserves and strengthens what has made our nation great 

David Horowitz, No Pasarán's blogger, and Geert Wilders at CPAC in 2009

Crisis by Design: Not only did Biden's open border policy all but shut down the immigration system, the unregulated flood of illegal immigrants threatened to overwhelm local law enforcement and human welfare systems

 … the four years of Joe Biden's titular presidency likely represent what amounted to the most sweeping application of [the Cloward-Piven Strategy] ever attempted … overwhelm the existing system by introducing so many participants that it collapses, thus creating political chaos, which Democrats then promise to end by enacting comprehensive and fundamental systemic changes

The Biden Era Was the Ultimate Application — and Utterly Predictable Failure — of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, writes Instapundit's Mark Tapscott. 

There was a time in the mid-1960s when two left-wing Columbia University professors — Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven — enjoyed a brief run of media celebrity by espousing a strategy for Democrats they believed could force the creation of an American welfare state based on a guaranteed annual income.

 … Put simply, Cloward-Piven said [in the Nation Magazine that] the way to force radical socialist reform of capitalistic America was to overwhelm the existing system by introducing so many participants that it collapses, thus creating political chaos, which Democrats then promise to end by enacting comprehensive and fundamental systemic changes.  

If that formula — known ever since the Swinging Sixties as the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" (CPS) — sounds familiar despite its origins seven decades ago, it should, because Democrats are still using it. In fact, the four years of Joe Biden's titular presidency likely represent what amounted to the most sweeping application of CPS  ever attempted.

Considered in this context, Biden's open border policy was pure CPS — removing every barrier to the entry of so many illegal immigrants coming into the country that Border Patrol and other immigration system personnel were reduced to little more than temporary escorts, housekeepers and travel agents.

Nobody knows with certainty the actual total of illegals who came into this country, but the figure of 11 million is almost certainly near the ballpark's home plate.

 … Not only did Biden's open border policy all but shut down the immigration system, the unregulated flood of illegal immigrants into major cities including New York and Chicago offered the additional benefit of threatening to overwhelm local law enforcement and human welfare systems.

But the border chaos was only the most prominent of Biden CPS applications. Biden took office in Jan. 2021 with the nation still reeling from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Biden imposed an authoritarian vaccination program to inoculate 200 million Americans, and included compulsory shots for millions of Americans, many of whom were at risk of losing their jobs for failing to do so. Public schools remained closed, public services constricted and local economies floundered.

Between Biden's $1.9 trillion American Relief Act and $1.2 trillion Inflation Reduction Act, the money supply was swamped with cheap money that drove up inflation to record levels. Hundreds of billions of tax dollars were lost to improper payments in pandemic-related special business aid and unemployment benefits, and, encouraged by official policies, millions of illegal immigrants became Social Security and Medicaid beneficiaries.

 … By enabling the addition of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to the Social Security rolls and extending Medicaid benefits to another estimated 1.3 million illegals, the bankruptcies of both programs are nearer than ever.

And just for the record, let's not forget how the left, empowered as never before by the Biden regime, engaged in the courtroom edition of CPS by mounting the unprecedented, and ultimately failed, attempt to entangle Donald Trump in litigation stemming from a series of bogus criminal charges in multiple jurisdictions.

The dozens of lawsuits filed since Trump's inauguration and the explosion of nationwide injunctions issued by mostly Biden and Obama District Court appointees is the second level of the left's courtroom CPS.

With reports of horrendous crimes committed by illegals against U.S. citizens going about their daily lives, inflation keeping eggs and other staples at record highs, continuing chaos at the border as more illegals raced to get across the border before the Nov. 2024 election, voters went to the polls and chose ... Donald Trump, who promised to stop the chaos, restore law and order, and restore economic sanity and prosperity.

Millions of working-class Americans, Hispanics and blacks who traditionally voted strongly for Democrats for generations went for Trump, in a potentially landmark shift in American politics that will influence elections for decades to come.

 … [As for President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty], trillions of tax dollars spent on failed welfare programs has not ended poverty. Ironically, a key fact in that regard was recognized by the authors of CPS in their original magazine piece, where they said their approach "is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive."

Aha! Trillions spent on welfare doesn't even begin to put trillions in the pockets of the poorest Americans. The reality is that, for the most part, those tax dollars enriched legions of civil servants, government consultants, politicians, public relations operators, academic "experts" and nonprofit activists.

Related: The Smug Liars' "Screw-You" Party

Promethean Rivalry: The AI race between America and China is even more impactful than the Space Race or the Atomic rivalry at their apex

… the AI race is more impactful than the Space Race or the Atomic rivalry at their apex

asserts ROF's Sébastien Laye at the Washington Examiner.

There is no shortage of books or reports on the U.S.-China rivalry, especially as artificial intelligence portends to become a nuclear-like inescapable linchpin of this competition. We recently extensively dealt here with the geopolitical consequences of the AI race as laid bare in the “Super Intelligence Strategy” paper by Eric Schmidt and two executives from Scale AI.

This week, the Center for a New American Security published “Promethean Rivalry” by Bill Drexel. As we have ourselves repeatedly pointed out the shortsightedness of most of the geopolitical digressions on the AI race, we found this work to be groundbreaking as it strives to analyze the world-altering impact of this technological race. In a nutshell, this is not just another technology race between two superpowers. Possibly, we even see a scenario where the AI race is more impactful than the Space Race or the Atomic rivalry at their apex. 

The rationale for such a bold assertion of our own is due to the multidimensional stakes of the AI competition, weaving military, economic, geopolitical, and ethical issues. 

 … The paper analyzes four domains and the world-altering affect of the AI rivalry on the four domains: conflict norms (how military conflicts are waged and solved), state power (what is the essence of global superpower and influence in the age of the AI rivalry?), emerging bioethics (the future of medical treatments, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. in an age of acceleration) and catastrophic risks. 

In these four instances, the prospect for Sino-American collaboration is limited given China’s diplomatic intransigence, while the disconnect between necessity and feasibility is more troubling. 

When we think about possible autonomous warfare, panopticon techno states with surveillance regimes, AI-powered human genetic engineering, or AI malfunctions, we need more human collaboration, but we should not fool ourselves in the West and believe there is a responsible co-pilot with us in the cockpit.

 … Drexel is adamant that only a clear U.S. lead over China’s AI ecosystem will ensure a safe future for mankind. I have advocated a defector’s visa status, like what we did during the Cold War, for Chinese AI researchers who want to join the West to defeat their techno-authoritarian state. The U.S. needs to attract all top AI talents in the coming two years, including from low-growth Europe. I share Drexel’s concerns that direct cooperation with China on catastrophic risks, autonomous killing systems, or genetic engineering has been an illusion. We should leave the door open (it will be used in due time) without being delusional here.

 … In a time when NATO has long lost any meaning, I advocate rebuilding our global sphere of influence around a grand technological and economic alliance, leaving only rogue states to the techno-authoritarian model championed by the Chinese. With these countries, and altogether open to a dialogue with China, we could continue our efforts to establish norms on the responsible use of AI in militaries or AI in nuclear command and control.

Remembering Reagan's Zero Option: How Trump's "Tariff War" Resembles the Last Battle of the Cold War

As critics within as without the United States voice incomprehension about America's brand-new tariffs all the while raving and ranting about the move as a "war" started by Donald Trump, it is far from inappropriate to recall one of the last "battles" of the Cold War.

During the 1980s, outrage erupted all over the West as Ronald Reagan went ahead with plans (pre-dating his election) to install medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

Ronald Reagan, of course, was another heinous and brainless Republican duly detested across the globe not to mention another fascist or (neo-)Nazi who was willing to start the Third World War in addition to being the latest Adolf Hitler. (Spasibo za InstaGiperssylku, tovarich Sarah.)

And leftists everywhere, from America to Europe West as well as East, took to the streets to protest against the deranged "Hollywood actor" and the Pershing II missiles which would, but of course, start World War III.

But here a question arises: Why was Washington (not to mention its Western European allies) in favor of alleged escalation in the first place and insistent on installing nuclear-capable theater-level weapons in (Western) Europe?

For one major reason. Because the Soviet Union had started a policy of installing nuclear-capable theater-level weapons in (Eastern) Europe. Indeed, hundreds of the USSR's SS-20s were already installed throughout the countries of the Warsaw Pact when NATO's decision went through to reestablish military balance between East and West.

But nobody ever protested the Kremlin's SS-20s. Certainly nobody in the East, but nobody in the West either.

In fact, I recall one demonstration in Paris. When one single solitary pacifist decided that he would add one single solitary sign against the SS-20s to the hundreds if not thousands of signs against Uncle Sam's Pershings, the sign was torn to pieces and the guy may even have been beaten up. (Some pacifism!)

As François Mitterrand famously said, despite being a Socialist pressured to sympathize with Moscow's communists while decoupling from Washington's capitalists, "I too am against the Euromissiles. However, I do notice some simple truths: The pacifists are in the West, while the missiles are in the East." Another Socialist, Germany's Helmut Schmidt, also went along with the deployment (before being replaced by Helmut Kohl).

Among the useful idiots was my girlfriend's sister who insisted that "Vi vil ikke forsvares med atomvåben" ("we do not want to be protected by nuclear weapons", which is akin to saying we do not want to be protected by guns, only with knives, no matter what weapons the other side has) — to the ire of the elder members of her family, some of whom had lived through the Germans' occupation of Denmark in the 1940s.

Naïve Danes wanted the country to exit the NATO structure; then, they insisted, the Russians would not invade even if they attacked the rest of the NATO countries. After the Warsaw Pact broke up, Polish and other Eastern European officers divulged Soviet military plans to the West, and needless to say, the Scandinavian country, aka the door to the Baltic Sea, would be invaded and occupied no matter what its neutrality status. Indeed, military plans allowed for half a dozen atomic bombs (or missiles) to be dropped on the country immediately as the war broke out — started unilaterally by the USSR (whose motivations the pacifists kept telling us we had to try and understand).

Between 1983 and 1985, the Pershing IIs started being installed in Western Europe. Previously, Reagan had given voice to the Zero Option, whereby no Pershings would arrive in Europe if the Kremlin removed its SS20s from the continent.

With Mikhail Gorbachev getting the top job in Moscow ("I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together", said Margaret Thatcher), the message got through to the Soviets that if they removed their SS20s from Eastern Europe, the Pershings would disappear as well. That is what eventually happened: Reagan's Zero Option had come around full circle and had led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987.

Congratulations, Ronald Reagan. (Even if — to its ever-lasting shame — the Nobel Prize Committee awarded its peace prize only to Gorbachev, leaving Reagan out to dry.)

What leftists and other useful idiots called outrageous behavior and an insane step towards World War III turned out to be the exact opposite and, indeed, a win-win situation.

Isn't this similar to what, 40 years later, is behind Donald Trump's "tariff war"?

Related: "Brutal Americans"? The issue is that we've never been brutal enough — with the evil of the world or with those who would take advantage of us, as a nation or as taxpayers

Bullying Deepfakes: Believe It or Not, Fake Pornography Shots Powered by AI and Meant to Harass Teens Has One Exceptionally Positive Side

Teens "falling victim" to fake pornography?! Over at Fox News (skip the blockquote below to go straight to the meat of the matter), Nikolas Lanum reports on 

A troubling trend [that] has emerged in schools across the United States, with young students falling victim to the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI)-powered "nudify" apps that have the power to create fake pornography of classmates.

"Nudify" is an umbrella term referring to a plethora of widely available apps and websites that allow users to alter photos of full-dressed individuals and virtually undress them. Some apps can create nude images with just a headshot of the victim. 

Don Austin, the superintendent of the Palo Alto Unified School District, told Fox News Digital that this type of online harassment can be more relentless compared to traditional in-person bullying.

"It used to be that a bully had to come over and push you. Palo Alto is not a community where people are going to come push anybody into a locker. That doesn't happen. But it's not immune from online bullying," Austin said.

"The differences, I think, are worse. Now your bully can be completely anonymous. You don't even know where it's coming from," he continued.

 … "We're at a place now where you can be doing nothing and stories and pictures about you are posted online. They're fabricated. They're completely made up through AI and it can have your voice or face. That's a whole other world," he told Fox News Digital.

Seriously?! Am I the only person that sees the benefits of this "troubling trend" of online bullying?!

Think about it. 

Blackmail is now a thing of the past.

That's it.

It's over.

Whether you are a teen or an adult, whether the photos are real or not, you can simply pass all of them off — indeed, you can do so nonchalantly — as fakes or deepfakes. To your classmates, to your spouse, to your constituents. Who will know whether you are fibbing or telling the truth? (Maybe you hardly know yourself…)

(In a totally different context, of course, that is exactly what Joe Biden's White House did…) 

As it happens, a considerable size of the audience for these sex photos/videos — maybe far more than half — will already be assuming that they're fakes… (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah.)

Depression at 16? Suicide at 17? Why fear sextortion at this point? Compliment instead the (anonymous) photo/video creators for doing a good job — for doing an outstanding job.

On my phone I keep receiving photos of Donald Trump tenderly cuddling with Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin or Stormy Daniels. Lots of apps now make you "repair" snapshots that are decades or (over) a century old, colorize them, and make them into mini-movies (the latest one I saw delighted me as it involved Civil War daguerreotypes from the 1860s).

I also keep receiving AI ads where, by combining a couple of photos of myself and of any girl (someone I know and am perhaps infatuated with or some rock or movie star or someone — Marilyn Monroe? Rudolph Valentino? Che Guevara? Queen Victoria? — who has been dead for decades) I can make myself hug or kiss that person — hungrily — on the mouth.

Years ago (long before AI), I was writing a TV script imagining a politician who was on national television and who was all of a sudden ambushed with private photos of him in a compromising position (with a woman other than his wife, with a man, with many women, with many men, at an orgy, in a BDSM cave, with a money shot, whatever…). Talk of falling victim; talk of bullying; talk of harassment (justified or otherwise)!

How should he react?

Ignore the content. And, with an admiring voice, let out a whistle and praise the work: "Wow, that's well done!"

"What do you mean?!" interrupts the TV presenter, visibly frustrated. "No no no! Don't tell me you are claiming they're fake?! We have proof that you were seen at—"

Again, this was before AI, needless to say, which only made the politician's next words even more startling: "It is so how admirable the degree to which studios have made progress with special effects!"

In my story, the politician went on to taking the photos he was in and replacing himself with Woodrow Wilson. Thereafter, he deliberately and openly creating a number of (in his case, fake) photos of other politicians — and even himself — involved in ridiculous positions (an appropriate word in more ways than one), such as with a midget, with a gorilla, and with (a young) Greta Garbo. 

Imagine if photos of Barack Obama servicing Chicago gentlemen were to appear now? 44 knows he has nothing to fret about.

Black Writers Seem to Have No Interest in Any Author (in Any Human?) Who Ain't Black (or Who, at Best, Ain't a Member of Some Minority)

It can seem frightening when one realizes the extent to which the left has succeeded in alienating America's black community from the rest of the country.

Once a week, the New York Times Sunday Book Review features an interview with a published writer. Called By the Book and featuring a painting of the respective author by Rebecca Clarke, some of the questions are personal to the subject of the interview — which often seems to be done by email — while a handful of other questions features the exact same basic recurring inquiries, such as "What’s the last great book you read?" and what's "Your favorite book no one else has heard of?"

A number of writers are black, which is not a problem, needless to say, far from it, but you might have second thoughts and wince a mite (whatever the color of your skin) when you see the race-baitin' books that sometimes inspired the authors and notice to what degree they are exclusively, or mainly (but far from always), by other black writers (although sometimes by other minority authors, but invariably by leftists).

For instance, the favorite novelist of all time for Tiya Miles is "Toni Morrison — for her sheer bravery, breathless wordsmithing, intellectual range and incomparable understanding of our emotional and social realms. Pauline Elizabeth Hopkins came to mind as a close second. Her best-known novel [was] “Contending Forces” (published in 1900)".

A previous post on a(n in)famous football quarterback who authored a picture book was asked this question

Which books or authors inspired you as an activist?

“The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” by Alex Haley, Malcolm X and Attallah Shabazz; “Revolutionary Suicide,” by Huey P. Newton; “The Wretched of the Earth” and “Black Skin, White Masks,” by Frantz Fanon; “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” by Paulo Freire; “Black Awakening in Capitalist America,” by Robert L. Allen; “Women, Race and Class” and “Freedom Is a Constant Struggle,” by Angela Y. Davis; “I Write What I Like,” by Steve Biko; “Slave Patrols,” by Sally E. Hadden.

Thus, that post ended with this sentence of mine: 

There you have it: … Colin Kaepernick seems to have no interest in any author (in any human?) who ain't black.

As for the question that almost invariably ends the By the Book interview in the NYT's Sunday Book Review section each week — "You’re organizing a literary dinner party. Which three writers, dead or alive, do you invite?" — Toni Morrison and James Baldwin are ubiquitous, returning again and again and again. (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah.)

Here are some of the black authors' actual replies: for Reginald Dwayne Betts the answer is "Lucille Clifton, Harold Bloom, Toni Morrison", for Brontez Purnell it's "Sappho, Anton LaVey and Maya Angelou", and for the rapper Common it's "James Baldwin, Nas, and Kahlil Gibran", while the aforementioned Colin Kaepernick answers "James Baldwin, Alexandre Dumas and Toni Morrison."

As for Morgan Parker, the author of “Magical Negro” wanted to invite six people, not three, and not one of them not African-American:

June Jordan, Zora Neale Hurston, James Baldwin — but I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t get just as much fun and fulfillment from a night with Angel Nafis, Danez Smith and Saeed Jones.

Regarding Glory Edim (who "created the Well-Read Black Girl book club"), she only wants four people, but needless to say, they can hardly be described as run-of-the-mill realists:

Toni Morrison, Nikole Hannah-Jones and Trevor Noah. There would be whiskey, shared laughter and candid commentary on everything. If I could add one more person, it would be Ta-Nehisi Coates!

Who can deny that Nikole Hannah-Jones, Trevor Noah, and Ta-Nehisi Coates would engage in nothing but objective, neutral, and "candid commentary"?! 

“Lovely One: A Memoir” allowed the Times to interview Ketanji Brown Jackson (otherwise known as a Supreme Court justice), and she does list two whites ("Heather McGhee. Atul Gawande. Brad Meltzer.") for her ideal dinner party, but apart from that, it's blacks and/or leftists all the way through (Tomiko Brown-Nagin’s biography, “Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality,” “Born a Crime,” by Trevor Noah, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” by Justice Stephen Breyer, “All That She Carried,” by Tiya Miles, in addition to a stack of memoirs — by Cicely Tyson, Viola Davis, Michelle Obama, Sonia Sotomayor). 

What’s the last great book you read?

Tomiko Brown-Nagin’s biography, “Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality,” is probably the last full book I’ve read outside of work. I was just so grateful that this extraordinary woman’s experiences and contributions finally got the attention they deserved.

Indeed, Ketanji Brown Jackson adds that it "was crucial for me to maintain a relatively good relationship with my daughters. Doing that well is the essential challenge of working motherhood." Who knows? Maybe she does know what a woman is, after all!

Republican Tries to Debunk French Conviction that America's Change of Mind on Tech Tariffs Represents Some Sort of Defeat for Trump

Twelve hours after Erik Svane's appearance on French TV Saturday evening, the ROF spokesman was back in the BFMTV studios on (Palm) Sunday morning for another debate about Donald Trump's tariff strategy along with Beijing's muscular reaction, where the No Pasarán blogger joined Léopold Audebert and Raphaël Grably on Le Live Week-End (24:02-33:24). 

Comme le diront plus tard BFM Business, J. Bro, et l'AFP,

"Personne n'est tiré d'affaire en ce qui concerne le déséquilibre commercial et les barrières non tarifaires que les autres pays utilisent contre nous, surtout pas la Chine, qui nous traite le plus mal", a assuré le président des États-Unis sur son réseau Truth Social.

La mise en garde de Donald Trump intervient au lendemain d'une exemption de surtaxes - jusqu'à 145% pour la Chine - accordée par les autorités américaines sur les produits high-tech, smartphones et ordinateurs en tête, ainsi que sur les semi-conducteurs.

| Le live week-end
Émission du 13 avril 2025

Tous les samedis et dimanches, Léopold Audebert vous accompagne sur BFMTV avec deux heures d'information. Reportages, pédagogie et nos invités pour comprendre l'actualité, même le weekend.

1h25min|2025|
Diffusée le 13 avril 2025 à 10h00 sur BFM TV

|

An Open Letter to President Macron: The 7 Stats About America That France Is Deliberately Concealing

What you delivered in your speech is a political fiction [Emmanuel Macron is told]. … You tax almost twice as much as the United States, in order to produce half as much growth on average.

Over at LinkedIn, ROF's Sébastien Laye sends an open letter to the President of France, advising Emmanuel Macron on a subject that the French-American economist examined last month in "Why Does Donald Trump Bother the Élites in France and Europe So Much?". In other Laye(d-back) news, Sébastien has been recording his first program "for @Frontieresmedia new streaming platform with @Macronomics1 and @pegobry_en @PolicySphere [regarding] Trump's trade and economic policies."

An Open Letter to Emmanuel Macron : The Seven Statistics About America That You Are Deliberately Hiding 

Sebastien Laye

Economist, entrepreneur (AI and Financial Services), author, teacher

April 10, 2025

An Open Letter to Emmanuel Macron: The 7 Figures About the USA You're Hiding
By Sébastien Laye, Franco-American economist, economic advisor to Republicans Overseas (also intended for European leaders, entrepreneurs, and the business media, as well as world opinion) 

Monsieur le Président,

You recently declared that "Americans will be poorer and weaker than Europeans." Such a statement, coming from a graduate of the École Nationale d'Administration (ENA), in your position, should have been based on facts. But what you delivered is a political fiction.

So here is the reality: cold, quantified, strategic, and scientific facts.

1) Growth: The United States is accelerating, Europe is stagnating

• United States (4th quarter 2024): +2.4% annual growth trend
• Eurozone: 0.5% (Eurostat)
• France: barely +0.5% OFCE trend, with consumption in decline

Conclusion: The American economy is growing four times faster than the Eurozone. You talk about "weakening," we talk about leadership.

2) Unemployment: Full employment against social paralysis

• United States: 4.1%
• Eurozone: 6.3%
• France: 7.5%, despite the 35-hour week, subsidized employment, and bonuses

Conclusion: You call this a model? It's a machine for excluding young people and perpetuating dependency.

3) Taxes and debt: Who is truly free?

• Mandatory tax rates:

• France: 45.4% of GDP
• USA: 27.7%

• Public debt:

• France: 111% of GDP
• USA: 100%, but in dollars, the world's reserve currency

Conclusion: You tax almost twice as much as the United States, in order to produce half as much growth on average over the past few years, and put us even deeper into debt! Who is richest?

4) Innovation, energy, sovereignty: the gap is widening

• Patents filed (2024):

• USA: 285,000
• France: 20,000
  

• Energy independence:

• USA: net energy exporter
• France: importer, dependent on Qatar and Germany, despite our grandparents' efforts in the nuclear sector…

Conclusion: You talk about strategic power, Americans practice it.

5) Human Capital: Talents Vote with Their Feet

• University Rankings (QS World 2024):

• 15 American universities in the top 20
• 0 French universities in the top 20 (it pains me to admit this, as I teach at some of France's most prestigious schools)

• Startup Funding 2024:

• USA: $300+ billion
• France: $15 billion

Conclusion: Brains, money, dreams—they're all heading west. Nobody dreams of France's bureaucracy!

6) Pensions: The Dividend Against Dependence

• France: Pay-as-you-go system, chronically in deficit, with a contributor-to-retiree ratio of 1.7
• USA: Capitalization, 401(k) accounts, Roth IRAs, growing dividends over 30 years

More than 60 million Americans receive dividends. In France, we expect the state to pay.

In America, retirement is built up from the bottom rung. In France, it is a beggar's game.

Conclusion: The French system is a fiscal Ponzi scheme, fueled by fear.
The American system rewards investment, freedom, and vision.

7) And above all… currency

• Global foreign exchange reserves:

• US: 58.4%
• Euro: 20.6%

Conclusion: France's currency is dependent on the dollar. America's is the global standard. You criticize America… by buying its bonds.

CONCLUSION:

Monsieur Macron, if you were an investor, you wouldn't put a single euro on the French model. You are the president of a country whose elites are trained to manage what exists, not to create the future.

You speak like a graduate of the École Nationale d'Administration (ENA). Americans act like builders.

You tax effort. Americans reward risk-taking.

You talk about future poverty. Americans are building intergenerational wealth.

And if you want to check, ask your government ministers where they buy their real estate, where they educate their children, and where they invest their money.

And as President Trump would say: “America is not declining. It’s just that Europe has stopped climbing.”

“We are not weaker. We are freer, richer, and always one step ahead.”

Monsieur le Président, I invite you to meet in January 2026 to calmly compare the real 2025 figures for the USA and France, and not to discuss any particular sentiment.

En V.O. — en français :

Lettre ouverte à Emmanuel Macron : Les 7 chiffres sur les USA que vous occultez

Sebastien Laye

Economist, entrepreneur (AI and Financial Services), author, teacher

April 10, 2025

Lettre ouverte à Emmanuel Macron : Les 7 chiffres sur les USA que vous occultez

Par Sébastien Laye, économiste franco-américain, conseiller économique Republicans Overseas

(destinée aussi aux dirigeants européens, aux entrepreneurs, aux médias économiques et à l’opinion mondiale)

Monsieur le Président,

Vous avez récemment déclaré que « les Américains seront plus pauvres et plus faibles que les Européens ». Une telle affirmation venant d’un énarque, dans votre position, aurait dû être fondée sur des faits. Mais ce que vous avez livré est une fiction politique.

Voici donc la réalité, froide, chiffrée, stratégique, scientifique.

1. Croissance : les États-Unis accélèrent, l’Europe stagne

•           États-Unis (Q4 2024) : +2,4 % de croissance tendance annuelle

•           Zone euro : 0,5 % (Eurostat)

•           France : à peine +0,5 % tendance OFCE, avec une consommation en berne

Conclusion : l’économie américaine croît quatre fois plus vite que la zone euro. Vous parlez d’affaiblissement, nous parlons de leadership.

2. Chômage : le plein emploi contre la paralysie sociale

•           États-Unis : 4,1 %

•           Zone euro : 6,3 %

•           France : 7,5 %, malgré 35 heures, emplois aidés, et primes

Conclusion : Vous appelez cela un modèle ? C’est une machine à exclure les jeunes et à entretenir la dépendance.

3. Impôts et dette : qui est vraiment libre ?

•           Taux de prélèvements obligatoires :

•           France : 45,4 % du PIB

•           USA : 27,7 %

•           Dette publique :

•           France : 111 % du PIB

•           USA : 100 %, mais en dollars, monnaie de réserve mondiale

Conclusion : Vous prélevez presque deux fois plus que les États-Unis pour produire moitié moins de croissance en moyenne sur les dernières années, et nous endetter encore plus !. Qui est le plus riche ?

4. Innovation, énergie, souveraineté : l’écart se creuse

•           Brevets déposés (2024) :

•           USA : 285 000

•           France : 20 000

•           Indépendance énergétique :

•           USA : exportateur net d’énergie

•           France : importateur, dépendant du Qatar et de l’Allemagne, malgré l’effort nucléaire de nos grands-parents ….

Conclusion : Vous parlez de puissance stratégique, nous la pratiquons.

5. Capital humain : les talents votent avec leurs pieds

•           Classement des universités (QS World 2024) :

•           15 américaines dans le top 20

•           0 française dans le top 20 (il m’en coûte de le dire, enseignant dans certaines de nos prestigieuses écoles)

•           Startup funding 2024 :

•           USA : 300+ milliards USD

•           France : 15 milliards

Conclusion : Les cerveaux, l’argent, les rêves — ils vont tous à l’ouest. Personne ne rêve de France Bureaucratie !

6. Retraites : le dividende contre la dépendance

•           France : système par répartition, en déficit chronique, avec un ratio cotisants/retraités de 1,7

•           USA : capitalisation, comptes 401(k), Roth IRA, dividendes croissants sur 30 ans

Plus de 60 millions d’Américains reçoivent des dividendes. En France, on attend que l’État paie.

Chez nous, la retraite se construit. Chez vous, elle se mendie.

Conclusion : Le système français est un schéma Ponzi fiscal, entretenu par la peur. Le système américain récompense l’investissement, la liberté, et la vision.

7. Et surtout… la monnaie

•           Réserves de change mondiales :

•           USD : 58,4 %

•           Euro : 20,6 %

Conclusion : Votre monnaie est dépendante du dollar. La nôtre, c’est l’étalon de la planète. Vous critiquez l’Amérique… en achetant ses obligations.

Conclusion :

Monsieur Macron, si vous étiez un investisseur, vous ne mettriez  pas un euro sur le modèle français. Vous êtes le président d’un pays dont les élites sont formées à gérer l’existant, pas à créer l’avenir.

Vous parlez comme un énarque. Nous agissons comme des bâtisseurs.

Vous taxez l’effort. Nous récompensons la prise de risque.

Vous parlez de pauvreté future. Nous construisons la richesse intergénérationnelle.

Et si vous voulez vérifier, demandez à vos ministres où ils achètent leurs biens immobiliers, où ils scolarisent leurs enfants, et où ils placent leur argent.

Et comme dirait le président Trump :

“America is not declining. It’s just that Europe stopped climbing.”

“We are not weaker. We are freer, richer, and always one step ahead.”

Monsieur Le Président , je vous donne rendez-vous en Janvier 2026 pour comparer froidement  les vrais chiffres 2025 USA/France, et non discuter d’un quelconque ressenti.

You Still Don't Understand Donald Trump, Says U.S. Guest to the Europeans on French TV, or Take Him Seriously

Saturday evening, ROF's Erik Svane was among the guests on BFMTV's Week-End Soir (59:38-1:23:25), where the No Pasarán blogger shared the screen with Olivier Malteste, Pierre Picquart, and Olivier Ravanello, talking about Donald Trump's tariff strategy and Beijing's muscular reaction. The ROF spokesperson was surprised by how much he was allowed to speak, with few if any interruptions, and Erik considers this one of his best appearances on French television of the past quarter century.

It seems to me that — for once — I was allowed to speak more than any of the other guests and, out of the corner of my eye, I noticed that the presenter, Anne Seften, was not listening because she was in a strong whispering argument with the producers by earphone, which I took to mean they pushing for her to intervene and shut me up.

The segment, which focused on China, was followed by a segment on American-Iranian relations, but where no American or no outright pro-Trump guest (American or foreign) was present (1:23:25-1:38:56).

| Week-end soir

Émission du 12 avril 2025

Le vendredi, samedi et dimanche soir, Anne Seften est à la tête de Week-End Soir : un rendez-vous pour décrypter et débattre, au cœur de l’actualité.

1h39min|2025| 

Diffusée le 12 avril 2025 à 22h00 sur BFM TV

The Perils of Consumerism

Having created another handful of tongue-in-cheek posters — this time, on the perils of consumerism — at Behancé, Damian Bennett writes that

It’s not just celebrities.​​​​​​​ “About 6% of Americans struggle with compulsive buying behavior.” It’s epidemic. It’s a national disorder.

■ Why We Buy Things We Don’t Need November 21, 2022 [Spoiler, it’s the dopamine.]

■ Social Media Influencers Tell You To Buy, Buy, Buy. Stop Listening To Them. July 14, 2024

■ How Tech Is Turning Casual Spenders Into Binge Shoppers December 19, 2024

Much of this buying is on credit, which is debt, and cumulative debt — unless you are the government — eventually outruns credit. 

Silicon Valley against China: the Trump administration needs to step up America's artificial general intelligence (AGI) game

“What distinguishes leaders from laggards and greatness from mediocrity is the ability to uniquely imagine what could be,” American author Robert Fritz once boldly asserted.

With artificial general intelligence on the horizon and with the U.S. edge in artificial intelligence systems dwindling by the day, ROF's Sébastien Laye explains in the Washington Examiner that the stakes are increasing for America to step up its artificial general intelligence game.

The risks for U.S. leadership are significant. As we have seen with numerous benchmarks — the Turing Test, exhibiting human intelligence equivalent behavior, was officially passed by AI once and for all last week — the Trump administration needs to get serious about the approaching AGI horizon and care about its definition. No one wants to see XYZ lab in Silicon Valley coming up with its own definition of AGI and suddenly claiming the prize.

The Chinese are leading contenders too, but I do not believe the Deep Seek/cheap models/open-source triad really matter here for AGI. These will be valuable following AGI’s arrival. And that’s where the United States finds itself in a predicament. It currently holds the most formidable, unassailable position for AI diffusion: it leads in semiconductor design, data centers, chips, commercial models and deployment. Yes, there are some weak spots, despite the smart decisions taken by the new Administration (deregulation, energy, permitting, project Stargate and the massive infrastructure effort).

As recently observed by Navin Girishankar and Matt Pearl at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, we lack a cohesive digital infrastructure when it comes to networks, grids, and communications infrastructures. Our telecommunications equipment makers are global laggards, and if the administration is so proactive for data centers and chip manufacturing, it should also take care of digital infrastructure.

 … One reason the AGI race is imbalanced is that it pits Silicon Valley against China. The Chinese Communist Party can really structure the whole pipeline of efforts, even though it also relies on a bevy of companies. Thus far, the U.S. has let Silicon Valley rule the game. The U.S. free market system believes that entrepreneurs and innovators are the ones who will eventually win the race against the authoritarian states.

WHY TRUMP’S TARIFFS ARE HARMFUL

Nevertheless, it is time for the Trump administration to go all in. Silicon Valley has no strategic experience in counterespionage, security, and military applications, albeit slowly changing with Anduril and Palantir. The federal government needs to boldly step up to structure the nationwide AGI effort. It should take the burden of security and safety from the commercial labs. The Defense Department can share crucial physical information, for example, to accelerate AI research and robotics and to allow companies to manufacture cutting-edge products for national defense.

More importantly, there are aspects of AGI that the commercial laws are not focused on. We should fund public research at the National Science Foundation laboratories, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the AI Safety Institute. We should also pursue moonshot projects that will complement commercial models. Only through this public-private, coordinated effort will we triumph when it comes to new powerful AI systems.

Also by Sébastien Laye: • Trumponomics — What Does It Entail, How Is It Misunderstood, and What Is Trump's Endgame?
• Why Does Donald Trump Bother the Élites in France and Europe So Much?