What the fans of fiction deny because it is politically incorrect is a fact.

So far, we have been spared the last century’s general wars. Instead, we are plagued by conflicts that make the criteria that determines whether an event is a “war” irrelevant. This suggests that our personal point of reference but also the international community’s principles became unrelated to reality. This can be amended: today’s conflicts, while limited in their geographic scope, are regardless of the combatants’ technological limitations, as intense as anything known to us is. This high intensity arises from the conflict parties’ racial, secular ideological, or religious agendas.

Like every major Islamic terror attack, the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, should have been the occasion of serious reflection and reconsideration of national policies concerning terrorism. However, it was quite disconcerting to note that the whole issue in fact evoked little valuable reactions and did not in the least spark a debate among the larger public; the Americans - apart from the counter-jihad movement that could point out the usual failings of the intelligence services and the lethal consequences of the political correctness pervading government institutions - seem to have grown weary of analyzing terrorism as well as of terrorism itself. This is noteworthy, because some ten years ago many analysts remarked how advanced American views on the Islamic threat were, while Europeans were still struggling to form their first properly anti-Islamic (and not simply anti-immigration or pseudo-fascist) movements.

Criminal idiocy makes likely events out of the scenarios of the impossible.

Some future scenarios of “news” and “opinion” that defy a normal person’s imagination are emerging. Some recent developments make a bundled occurrence of such events likely. The expected telling stories meant here relate to the reactions and the interpretations of Thatcher’s death and the mayhem in Boston.

Hardly was the news of Thatcher’s demise out, the Leftists of all shades that, regardless of the millions murdered in the service of their program, proudly walk with their heads raised, responded. This response proves that their collective participation in, and approval of, crimes have not awoken their lacking sense of decency. The upshot was parties to celebrate the good news. Even attempts to disturb the funeral of the departed PM are reported. One wonders at this junction whether missing decency is a greater fault than a deficiency in the area of politeness.

Margaret Thatcher

Now that the dust has settled two weeks after her death, perhaps it is time for a more general reassessment of Baroness Thatcher - of her administration by itself as well as her legacy and historical significance. Few politicians within living memory aroused such different and passionate reactions during or after their lifetime. As we know, for the omniscient progressives and socialists she is regarded as the destroyer of the idyllic post-war Keynesian welfare state in which all people, however humble of origin or abilities, were being taken care of, and economics was still the science of how to spend wealth, not of how it is produced. It is no exaggeration to say that for many on the right she was a kind of long-awaited messiah who would finally come to overthrow the neo-totalitarian order of the welfare state, and thus reverse the trend toward ever more centralization, state control, and thus economic and cultural decline. Some even went so far as to proclaim her the greatest statesman of the twentieth century, both in terms of moral greatness and of influence on the course of historical events. Of course, we can immediately brush aside the by now incredibly childish socialist accusations directed toward Thatcher in the press these days; but in this commentary I would like to analyze the phenomenon of Thatcher in the light of conservative aspirations and objectives. Was she really a “great politician”, in both senses? Did she accomplish as much as she is so often credited for by right and left alike? And: What did she achieve in the long run for the right in Europe and America?

Popular sovereignty and threatened elites.

Lately, “Duly Noted” has discussed the Left’s efforts to strangulate “majority rule” whenever the majority that can be had fails to support its leadership. 

Leftist revolutionaries might openly admit to their program or they can pose as “reformers”. Whatever the banner the pirates fly, the real program –not the avowed one- implies changing the way of life of the “masses”. The change is intended for those to be saved without these evincing a desire for their worldly salvation. The plan responds to the higher truth held by the tribe that holds esoteric degrees. Diplomas earned for walking on the clouds but not on the common man’s ground, elevate these redeemers above the crowd mired in its shortsighted materialism. 

Undermining majority rights in the name of democracy.

After his escape from the Soviet orbit, the writer began to study Political Science in Oregon. Past decades have left the experience vivid. Living freedom, instead of being a “class alien” with no right to more than an eight-grade education, made a system that did not threaten my physical existence exhilarating. Therefore, the study of “government” seemed as exciting as the shoot-out in a western. 

As a new arrival, I craved knowledge of my new home. I wanted to discover why the system works and how the success of individuals correlates with the framework “my” people have created. Luckily, I surmised by then that success and failure are not accidental but represent man-made factors.

The AP Stylebook has opened a new chapter on the non-"offensive" Engllsh-language lexicon to parse the war on the world waged by Islam. The wire service bible (can I say that?) has decreed that "Islamist" is out as a "a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals."

Hallelujah. I long ago learned to loathe the mongrel term, which is not to say it wasn't sometimes imposed on me by copy editors who didn't know better until they received, gratis, a piece of my mind. At the same time, this is not to say that the AP and I have to come to this aversion for the same reasons.

I have always found General De Gaulle an intriguing figure. Or perhaps mysterious is the better word. To the present generation that has not know the politician from his many public appearances and his famous charming manner, he is necessarily something of a cardboard figure; I presume many people only consciously recognize the name as that of a Paris airport. Yet De Gaulle was one of the most important European politicians of the post-war period; in many ways, his policies were even the decisive shaping influence on the new Europe, and he certainly was the most ambitious European politician of that era. So how has it come about that the memory of  this statesman, desperately striving to recapture the grandeur of France, has almost been buried under the sands of history in the public consciousness.? I believe this has certainly not happened by any coincidence, but that, on the contrary, De Gaulle was a symbol of the morally declining Europe of his times – concerning manners, policies, as well as ethics. And if the current presidential administration of the United States does not steer another course quickly, his story might presage the decline of America as well. 

Your correspondent has arrived to inconvenient conclusions. 

1. Often, the mainstream media lies. Most troubling is that it does so even when it is unaware that it does so. Ascribe this to the input of trusted “experts” that grind the axe that will decapitate the misled public.
2. Even non-conforming individuals are influenced by “official” versions even if they realize that the non-PC treatment of censured topics reveals reality. The decision of what is debated is often predetermined by the Left.
3. This condition reflects a fault of the media and its consumers. They might think that they are “independent” even while they are victims of manipulations that exploit the weakness of an imposed worldview.

Lunacy is no guarantee against its translation into action.

Inadvertently, the last issue of Duly Noted, by handling the “Coming Conflict”, landed in the realm of current affairs. The unexpected updating came about through the newest tantrum of latest issue of Korea’s ruling Kim dynasty. Although accustomed to the inelegant performance of the regime, the latest trick to get attention has topped an impressive record. Deservedly, the tearing up the 1953 armistice, then the promise to reduce the successful South to a desert, finally threatening the USA with nuclear annihilation, has raised eyebrows. It also put embarrassed smiles on faces. This bashful reception of the frog blowing itself up to match in size the oxen is understandable. On the short-run, it might even justify the shrug of shoulders. Nevertheless, disbelieving amazement is not a reasonable reaction to the threat of annihilation. Those that threaten are a threat. Fancies and fantasies have a proven way to become realities.