Dimitri’s wife is grabbing her purse to go to the grocery store, when he casually says “it’s 5:45.” She just as ordinarily replies, “I’ve got cash.” Dimitri sees the slightly puzzled look on my face and flippantly notes, “they turn off the internet at six thirty now,” shrugs, and goes back to reading his paper.
Perhaps similar to London life during the blitz. Various municipal govts coordinated the shut down of lights and people wait. Others got about doing what they needed to do, sirens notwithstanding.
There is a familiar life amid modern drone warfare, and with the similar control of electricity comes the need to add internet.
When the drones are coming they turn off the internet.
As I contemplate the contrasts in social resilience, my most familiar reference point is life after a hurricane. In Florida when we are dealing with the aftermath of a hurricane, no power, no water, no internet, etc., you adapt to life without modern technological conveniences.
If you’ve ever lived amid the aftermath of natural disasters, you understand the need for a plan and quick adaptation. Do it a few times and adaption becomes ordinary. Horrible in ways, yes; awkward, certainly. But you take things in stride; overcome, figure out the optimal solution and keep moving. However, not everyone is prepared to consider a disruption an ‘inconvenience’ and many people who need consistency to retain stability end up in panic. I think long term readers well understand the reference.
As Dimitri goes back to the paper my mind shifts to stuff I’ve heard in bits and pieces but never given context before.
I think about this U.S. ‘Space Force’ thing, and now realize there are people who have gamed out modern warfare more than we discuss as a western technological society.
My mind also thinks about those reports I read a few years ago about various western govt offices concerned about the ability of Russia to target U.S. satellites. Suddenly I realize cell phone and telecommunication is not their concern.
There’s no internet; the problem is bigger than a temporary outage of Uber. I wonder how the commercial air traffic between Kazan, Moscow and St Petersburg is not disrupted. Old school stuff applies. Meanwhile, the kids, lots of them are playing outside as kids do – apparently life amid modern drone warfare is resilient. No one is staring at the sky.
It is very odd to see how quickly a non-technology driven society can adapt to no electricity and no internet as an ordinary part of daily life. An entire nation just figures out the optimal solution, in part because their time between analog and digital has been short. Russians have a totally different context of dependency.
I’m also starting to realize how the flexibility within a non-technological society is an asset in modern warfare. Turn off the internet in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or any major metropolitan area – how would life be impacted?
I can only imagine the reactions from a generation who has never known life without wi-fi.
It would be a very good intellectual exercise to think carefully about what your life would be like without cell phone coverage or internet services. There are more than a few people who have never learned to read a clock with hands.
In Russia when the drones are coming they turn off the internet and sometimes the electricity. Stores stay open; people do the ordinary things people do, the trains still run, the busses stay on schedule and you can still get a hot coffee and a sandwich just about anywhere, albeit sans Starbucks. Private taxis, Uber equivalents, switch seamlessly to line up at pick-up points without issue. Try to duplicate that rapid on/off precision in Boston, Miami or St Louis… see my point?
Then extend those thoughts to Paris, Frankfurt, Warsaw or Helsinki. Dimitri is thinking about ordering a pizza, while I’m starting to realize why NATO countries are going bananas.
Can Russia beat Europe in modern warfare?
Well, turn off the electricity, turn off the internet and see what happens to social society in Prague, Rome or any region in Europe when the sirens start. Yeah, NATO is going bananas as Putin’s best non-discussed weapon just looms quietly.
Putin’s strongest weapon is essentially a social infrastructure akin to a nation full of people who can live in the aftermath of a hurricane without needing a digital screen to provide directions to the next six hours of their life.
Again, somewhere, in some office complex deep in the bowels of some agency or bureaucracy, someone has ran models of this and yet I cannot find a reference anywhere to ordinary people talking about it.
In the glovebox of every taxi in Russia you will find a paper map; when was the last time you saw one in the USA?
When the drones come, they always turn off the internet and sometimes the electricity.
How would we deal with that…
Think about it.
Podcaster Joy Reid thinks President Donald Trump’s immigration policies could lead to his wife, Melania, being deported under a hostile future president.
During a Thursday interview with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Reid discussed news reports noting that the Trump administration had begun aggressively pursuing the denaturalization of immigrants who either committed crimes or fraudulently obtained citizenship. In a June 11 memo, the administration instructed federal attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
During the conversation, Reid asked Jayapal, “do some of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand how far this could go? If you give the President of the United States monarch-like powers to say, ‘I don’t like your views, I don’t like your take on issues. You’re too liberal. You’re not conservative enough. I’mg going to take away your naturalized citizenship,’ where does it end?”
Reid continued, suggesting that this policy could later affect members of his family. “What happens when we get a Democratic president who says, ‘I don’t like Melania Trump. She wasn’t born here—she was born in Slovenia. She’s a naturalized citizen. She’s out,’” she said.
Reid made the same speculation about Donald, Eric, and Ivanka Trump, who were born to the late Ivana Trump, an immigrant. She suggested that a future Democratic president could decide, “‘You know what? I don’t like the Trumps. I’m going to denaturalize their mother and question the citizenship of the children.’”
So this opens a huge door, Congresswoman. If this idea of denaturalization is accepted, any future president could decide they don’t like the Trumps, don’t want Melania here, and just strip her of her citizenship. And she’d be gone.
However, Reid’s take doesn’t quite align with reality. This particular memo referred to immigrants who either deceived the government to obtain citizenship or committed serious crimes after being naturalized.
The memo focuses on ten categories, which include national security threats, gangs, human traffickers, war crimes, and several others. There is no mention of political affiliation.
Moreover, the executive branch does not possess the authority to unilaterally strip someone of their citizenship. The White House can initiate denaturalization proceedings, but the ultimate decision is left up to the courts.
Of course, this isn’t to say that a future Democratic president wouldn’t push this policy to the point that it targets people for their politics. But it wouldn’t be easy in this particular case.
The White House slammed the Smithsonian Museum for using taxpayer funds to push a political agenda.
Lindsey Halligan, a Trump administration official, criticized a display at the National Museum of American History’s Entertainment Nation that discusses pop culture.
"American taxpayers should not be funding institutions that undermine our country or promote one-sided, divisive political narratives," Halligan told Fox News Digital. "The Smithsonian Institution should present history in a way that is accurate, balanced, and consistent with the values that make the United States of America exceptional."
The White House statement comes on the heels of several striking examples from the exhibit.
One placard, featured alongside a 1923 circus poster, reads: "Under the big top, circuses expressed the colonial impulse to claim dominion over the world." Another, describing early American entertainment, declares: "One of the earliest defining traits of entertainment in the United States was extraordinary violence."
The exhibit reframes iconic American characters through a critical, politically-charged lens. On The Lone Ranger, the display states: "The White title character’s relationship with Tonto resembled how the U.S. government imagined itself the world’s Lone Ranger."
Mickey Mouse, a beloved American cultural icon, is not spared either. A display for the 1928 cartoon Steamboat Willie states, "Mickey challenged authority, but not everyone was in on the joke."
It continues: "Mickey Mouse debuted as the deckhand ‘Steamboat Willie’ in 1928, amidst a rising anxiety felt by many that modern living and city life were eroding family and community ties and loosening moral codes… But the new character’s outsized facial features, white gloves, and trickster temperament were vestiges of longstanding traditions of blackface minstrelsy."
In reference to the Indiana Jones film series, another panel reads: "His character embodied a confident righteousness that, in many ways, captured the essence of the 1980s" above another subhead referencing President Ronald Reagan's famous speech, asking, "Are you better off?"
Some of the other panels included major figures in pop culture such as Magnum PI, singer Selen Quintanilla-PΓ©rez, and others.
Halligan stated that these exhibits are “part of the problem the Trump Administration aims to fix” and that “Framing American culture as inherently violent, imperialist, or racist does not reflect the greatness of our nation or the millions of Americans who have contributed to its progress.”
He further explained that the White House is “working with leadership at the Smithsonian to audit and review all content at the museums.”
The Wall Street Journal reported in June that the Smithsonian Institution is conducting a comprehensive review of its content. This came after President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at removing political bias from institutions like the Smithsonian.
The review is meant to identify and eliminate “improper, divisive or anti-American ideology” and ensure that exhibits are promoting “American greatness.”
Earlier this year, wildfires hit Los Angeles. It was a tragic story of blue state incompetence, with much of the coverage also involving how Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and President Donald Trump certainly went at it against each other. Trump had not yet taken office for his second term. Another wildfire has hit, the Madre Fire, which has hit the central part of California. Sure enough, Newsom is making it his mission to go after Trump.
Newsom's posts otherwise don't go for that tone about partnership, though. One post in particular even takes the time to go after Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which passed both chambers of Congress earlier this week and Trump signed into law on Friday.
"Trump needs to WAKE UP and start funding federal firefighters and land-management teams in these rural communities - instead of giving tax cuts to billionaires," the governor's pinned post reads, going for a tiring narrative we're used to hearing from Democrats about the bill. "Trump's incompetence is endangering lives," the post even claimed.
The day wasn't all about celebrating for the president, though, as Trump also addressed over social media the flooding in central Texas which has tragically affected a Christian summer camp for girls, Camp Mystic.
Newsom has been consistently posting his hysterical outrage about the OBBB from both his official and political X accounts, but this takes it to a new level. There's been 10,000 replies and he may also be hit with context from Community Notes, since wildfire management is a matter of how the state responds. Newsom cut $100 million in fire prevention from the 2024-2025 state budget.
The governor, as well as LA Mayor Karen Bass, have received heavy criticism for their handling of the wildfires earlier this year. Bass was away in Ghana when the fires hit her city, though there were warnings in place before she left the country. Her response since then is still being criticized, as a pitiful amount of permits for rebuilding have been granted. Newsom and Bass have likewise made news for and been criticized over their response to the anti-ICE riots affecting Los Angeles last month, and the governor also just recently sued Fox News for defamation when it comes to coverage over calls with Trump about the riots.
On Friday, just before midnight, a plane landed in South Sudan. On that plane were eight illegal aliens, deported from the United States, who will not be enjoying the hospitality of the South Sudanese. This represents the culmination of a lot of legal wrangling that ended up at the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration deported eight migrants to South Sudan, according to a Department of Homeland Security official, after the administration had to halt their deportation to a base in Djibouti.
"A district judge cannot dictate the national security and foreign policy of the United States of America," Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said to ABC News. "This Independence Day marks another victory for the safety and security of the American people."
The plane landed in South Sudan just before midnight EST on Friday.
The eight migrants, who DHS has alleged have serious criminal convictions, were the subject of a lawsuit that had halted their deportation to South Sudan and diverted them to a U.S. military base in Djibouti.
OK, let's get one thing straight: The eight goblins sent to South Sudan aren't "migrants." They are, or were, illegal aliens; people in the United States in violation of our immigration laws, and with criminal convictions above and beyond their illegal entry. For various reasons, they aren't being sent back to their home countries; thus, their housing in South Sudan. This is an immigration-law equivalent of the old bartenders' closing-time admonition: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."
RedState's own Susie Moore has kept us updated on the legal case:
D.C. Judge Temporarily Halts Deportations SCOTUS Just Okayed (Updated)
SCOTUS 'Clarifies' Deportation Case, Smacks Judge Who Tried End-Around
Susie writes:
It appears Judge Murphy has learned his lesson after the Supreme Court's Thursday clarification. Moments ago, he entered the following order in the transferred Massachusetts case:
Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This habeas petition was transferred, Phan et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al, 1:25-cv-02147-RDM, Dkt. 8, from the District Court for the District of Columbia as it was deemed related to D.V.D. et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., 1:25-cv-10676-BEM. In D.V.D., the relief sought by Petitioners was initially granted by this Court but later stayed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Dept of Homeland Sec. v. D.V.D., S.Ct., 2025 WL 1732103 (June 23, 2025); Dept of Homeland Sec. v. D. V. D., S.Ct., 2025 WL 1832186 (July 3, 2025) (granting clarification specifically as to these Petitioners). This Court interprets these Supreme Court orders as binding on this new petition, as Petitioners are now raising substantially similar claims, and therefore Petitioners motion is denied.(svm) (Entered: 07/04/2025)
In other words, he's not going to test those waters further. It would appear then that the aliens will be heading out to South Sudan shortly. (Unless, of course, their attorneys can file an emergency appeal with the 1st Circuit and get it to intercede. I wouldn't bank on that.)
The Trump administration doesn't seem to have wasted any time getting these goblins on an airplane, out of Djibouti, and to their new residence in South Sudan.
President Trump and his administration are chalking up a pretty impressive list of wins on this front. The 2024 presidential campaign was in no small part a referendum on the Democrats' stark refusal to enforce our nation's immigration laws. The president was very open about stating what he intended to do.
Now he's doing it.
It has become something of a clichΓ© to assert as an evident fact accepted resignedly, that the West is in decline. But it isn’t. The West is essentially the Americas, Central and Western Europe, Israel, Australasia, and Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, arguably the Philippines and beleaguered elements in South Africa. Obviously, some of these places are in better condition than others.
A degenerating society is one that has lost the will to defend itself from both external and internal enemies and where belief in the value of the society or civilization and loyalty and pride in the country have eroded to the point where there is legitimate doubt that they can be sustained under any pressure. No part of the Western world has achieved such a condition.
Canadians are vaguely aware that in the last decade we’ve been uncompetitive with peer countries in economic growth and the rise of our standard of living, and although most Canadians have been dissatisfied with many aspects of public policy, almost nobody believes this has ceased to be a worthwhile country and a relatively agreeable place to live with excellent prospects if we have improved standards of political leadership. The burning question is whether the new prime minister, Mark Carney, will follow the authoritarian and socialistic, environmentally-obsessed course indicated by his book, Values, a turgid recitation of an unpromising political agenda, or succumbs to the traditional tenacious enticements of incumbency of a federal Liberal leader.
It must be said that, so far, he has shown gravitas in his distinguished office, and although there is a weakness for Pearsonian waffling, that is a merciful relief compared to the green fanaticism and mindless globalism that afflicted him when he was governor of the Bank of England. The appointment of the very capable Michael Sabia as clerk of the privy council is reassuring.
In the United States, on whose strategic direction and political and economic health the condition of the entire West chiefly depends, President Trump, no matter how appalled many may be by his lack of gentility, is moving decisively to stimulate economic growth, reduce the trade deficit, reduce inflation, increase job creation, and has effectively closed the borders to illegal immigration, and is asserting the authority of the federal government throughout the country and requiring the apprehension and deportation of convicted criminals who entered the United States illegally.
These are elemental steps in national self-preservation and if they had not been taken, a rising concern about what the late British critic and humorist Malcolm Muggeridge called “the great liberal death wish” in the United States would have been justified. The joint Israeli-American destruction of the Iranian nuclear program and of Iran’s capacity to finance international terror on the scale that it has through most of the history of the Islamic Republic has been a decisive and absolutely essential step in raising the prospects for peace and prosperity in the whole world.
Western Europe is naturally more complicated. For all of history from the rise of the Roman Republic to the 20th century it was the leading and most influential political and economic region in the world. It is naturally heavily burdened by its responsibility for the evils of totalitarian communism, Nazism, and fascism and the terrible hecatombs of the world wars. For notorious historic reasons, it lumbers its economy with extravagant Danegeld for the working classes and the small farmers. Much of Europe went perilously far in abdicating democratic political authority to the undemocratic commissioners of the European Union. They are all committed to the “ever closer union” which is the founding objective of the EU, but which has not been specifically ratified by many of the adherent populations, and as the European commissioners are not elected and are not answerable to the talking shop European Parliament in Strasbourg, this is not democracy.
That was the great problem in the United Kingdom, which Mark Carney failed to recognize as he tried in his in supposedly nonpolitical position of central banker to terrorize the British into voting against Brexit. Britain had voted to join a common market not a federal union. The institutions of government that had developed over 800 years of British history would be subsumed into the well-intentioned but unfledged institutions of Brussels, and its relations with the United States and its senior Commonwealth kindred countries, relationships that have made an incomparable contribution to Western civilization, would be handed over to the Davos-minded foreign placemen of Brussels.
The European Union will have to be rethought and probably will proceed on a two-tiered basis where those countries which wish federation should certainly have it and those that wish to retain national sovereignty but in affiliation with European central government are accommodated. The whole enterprise will have to adopt a tax and benefit system more stimulative to economic growth and more respectful of the market economy. Europeans cannot ignore the implications of the fact that 20 years ago their collective GDP was almost identical to that of the United States and today the American economy is almost twice as large as that of the EU.
This is despite the mediocre American leadership between the Reagan and current Trump eras, because European political leadership has been even poorer. For the only time in British history, U.K. Conservatives provided five consecutive failed prime ministers in eight years. The quality of French leadership in the Fifth Republic has declined from the great General de Gaulle in tottering downward increments to the completely incompetent François Hollande, and Emmanuel Macron has been only a very partial improvement. Four-term German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who could Have been a female Bismarck, was ultimately a failure, as was her successor. Both the new chancellor and the new opposition show signs of hope. The Italian Premier, Giorgia Meloni, is a very considerable statesman and the most capable Italian leader since Alcide de Gasperi. The Spanish premier is a socialist imbecile, and the present British government is off to a terrible start.
But there are unmistakable signs that the old continent is recovering: the German Christian Democrats like the equivalent Italian parties, are much bolder and more ideologically robust than in the recent past. The French Rassemblement National has respectabilized itself and appears ready for victory. In the United Kingdom, either the Conservative Party will regain a reasonable quality of leadership and political judgment or it will be shunted into the wilderness like the old Liberals by the Reform Party.
The most encouraging litmus test of the recovery of Europe is that Vladimir Putin had assumed that it would be wallowing in moralistic platitudes while he reabsorbed Ukraine. Not only has Ukraine repulsed him with great courage, but he succeeded in reawakening Europe from its long torpor and arming it with the resolve of self-respect and determination of olden time, and is doubling its defence budget. The westernized countries of the Far Pacific are responding commendably to the Chinese challenge, encouraged by the pivot of Trump’s America towards them. This is not a civilization in decline.
Conrad Black: The West dominates. Don't believe lies to the contrary
By Conrad Black
The almost unanimous NATO commitment to a sharp increase in the member-countries’ military budgets at the meeting of NATO leaders last week was a complete legitimisation of President Trump‘s stance throughout his time as president that most of the alliance was freeloading on the determination of the American taxpayers to continue to maintain American military capabilities at a level that deterred any attack on any alliance member. In light of the fact that his predecessors often made similar remarks with minimal consequences, it must also be said that this response was a justification of Trump’s comparatively brusque methods.
In the latter stages of the Cold War, it was fashionable, especially for German neutralists masquerading as progressive alliance members, to claim that it was perfectly in order for the United States to take the lead in burden-sharing since geography had condemned Europe to a higher level of risk-sharing because of its proximity to the USSR. This was always a fatuous argument, as it was never the duty of the United States to compensate those countries from the misfortune of having potentially hostile neighbours, especially when a substantial section of political opinion and legislators in Western Europe were constantly implying that they would do better making their own arrangements with the Soviet bloc, and that an unnecessary state of tension was being maintained by the Americans in order to assert a dominating influence upon their European allies.
With the end of the Cold War, the Western Alliance descended into the absurdity of the “alliance of the willing” which effectively meant its members would graciously accept the military guarantee of their security by the United States and would decide on a case-by-case basis if any project submitted for support by the alliance was worthy of their participation. The British and some of those countries that had recently escaped from the Soviet yoke, such as Poland, tended to be more purposeful, but throughout these last 35 years the alliance has been evidently uncertain about its role.
NATO responded well to the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, and performed with some distinction in Afghanistan, particularly in contrast with the shameful departure from that country of the Biden administration. And NATO’s European members have been quite distinguished in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Europe was not intimidated and did not flounder into the arms of the Americans as they did in the conflict that erupted in the former Yugoslavia 30 years ago. At that time, the civilian leader of NATO, Jacques Poos of Luxembourg, memorably stated “This is the hour of Europe.” But a week later, Europe was begging the Americans for assistance. Although it could not have sustained Ukraine alone without the heavy collaboration of the United States, Europe did demonstrate the greatest capacity for self-sufficiency Europe as a whole has shown since the times of de Gaulle and Adenauer.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine galvanised most of the European NATO members: A real threat to all of them. The Germans have fluctuated, but at their best have given cause for hope that that country may finally exercise its responsibilities as the most powerful nation in Europe for the first time since Wilhelm II fired Bismarck in 1890. If the Europeans (and the Canadians, who are perhaps the worst slackers of all), adhere to these new commitments, which were generated both by Putin‘s aggression and by Trump‘s threat to end the long era in which the United States was treated like a large dog that did the work and took the risks while the Europeans held the leash and gave the orders, then there is a chance for a return of European strategic influence in the world.
NATO has been the most successful alliance in world history, and it retains a splendid future. Military spending is very efficient: High-tech acquisitions and research and the best form of adult education and of upgrading individual skills. My own view is that NATO should be broadened to a world-wide alliance of all countries that may reasonably be said to respect human rights, internally and in the world. As an alliance of reasonably democratic countries pledged to the defence of the frontiers and legitimate interests of its members. It would become a much stronger and more diverse alliance with the addition of such important countries as Japan, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Brazil, and Australia.
The co-leader of the Alternative for Germany party, Alice Weidel, has accurately stated that if Germany actually pulled its weight in the alliance, the Americans would not have a docile Germany, but a strong, independent-minded one. She, of all people, should realise that under Angela Merkel, Germany was a weak, but not a docile ally. The Americans would much prefer a responsible, but stronger Germany and one less prone to ask the assistance of the United States. The United States is constantly reviled from the Left as an imperialist country, but the fact is it is an Americo-centric country. It has almost no official interest in other countries, and only wants not to be threatened. It is only interested in Europe and the Far East because Franklin D. Roosevelt made the indisputable point that if there were no American presence in Western Europe or the Far East, those areas would be in danger, every generation, of falling into the hands of anti-democratic forces hostile to America and that the best way to prevent this is to maintain alliances with the principal democratic powers in those areas and pre-position some American forces there. Frau Weidel can be grateful for that. If Europe really developed the full capability to defend itself, few things would give the Americans greater pleasure than to remain in the alliance but reduce the cost of it with substantial withdrawals of its forces from Europe (and Asia).
Western Europe can now easily defend itself from the Russians, who should come to their senses, in the Ukrainian aggression, and eventually rejoin the West where they belong. The United States is moving to deal with China and would be delighted to hand the basic defence of Western Europe back to the Europeans.
