Army Brat: World War II by Laura Gutman

The lives of Army brats have always been a core component of the US military. Scarcely described until now, Army Brat: World War II is an essential account that fills a major gap in history.

Author Laura Thurston Gutman lived deeply embedded within the US Armed Forces from before the United States’ earliest entry into World War II through the Vietnam era. Chronicling pivotal events during those years, this historical autobiography describes a life inextricably intertwined with the military. From her birth at West Point’s hospital, to her cobbled-together education, and witnessing her father’s many military honors, Laura’s childhood was one of intense awareness of the danger her father faced and the courage her mother displayed. As she grew older, she lurked in the background during long evenings of intense discussions of policy. Through the constant upheaval and disruption so familiar to military families, Laura developed a radical independence, a determination to gain control over her life, and a fearless approach to her own education.

Chronicling the experiences of a strong military family as they witness and participate in the unfolding of history in a dangerous and challenging world, Army Brat identifies consequential insights into the critical importance of a strong religious foundation; an educational system dedicated to core concepts of nation and loyalty; and leadership that prioritizes sovereignty, national defense, and military support.

On Death Cults and Decadence Israeli lessons for disdainful Americans. Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/on-death-cults-and-decadence/

If you haven’t read Douglas Murray’s latest book, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, you’ve very likely read about it. Released in April, it’s still near the top of the bestseller list, and it deserves to be.

In part, it’s a piece of first-rate reportage – truly historic, world-class reportage of the kind that the legacy media used to publish at their best. Immediately after the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023, Murray flew to Israel and has spent much of his time there ever since, experiencing things to which neither you nor I would gladly expose ourselves except in the service of truth. Which is to say that Murray takes the title of journalist very seriously: to him, plainly, it is a calling, a trust, a profession in the best and noblest sense of the word.

Of course, to speak of journalism in such terms is to be reminded just how grotesque it is for most of the big legacy-media names – the ones who pull down the million-dollar salaries for staring into cameras, perfectly clad and coiffed, while reading scripts written by other people – to claim the same label for themselves. The day before I am writing this, I turned on CNN, with the usual dread, in hopes of hearing the latest news about the riots in Los Angeles. [Note: This piece was written before Israel and Iran began firing on each other.] I happened to catch the opening moments of Christiane Amanpour’s program. She began with what was meant to be a summing-up of the situation in L.A. She must have spoken eight or ten sentences before I switched the TV off. Why did I switch it off? Because every single sentence that came out of her mouth was a bald-faced lie.

This is the legacy-media landscape of our time: a landscape of lies. More and more of us can see through it, but millions of Americans are still being blue-pilled by Christiane, Wolf, Anderson, Jake, Rachel, and the rest of the whole crooked, compromised crew. For years these millions of Americans have been fed, and have swallowed, lies about Trump – the Russia hoax, the “fine people” hoax, the bleach-drinking hoax, and so forth. But even the lies about Trump aren’t as deeply twisted as the ones surrounding the events that Murray recounts with extraordinary precision and passion in On Democracies and Death Cults.

At times during this post-October 7 era, it has seemed almost as if the legacy media’s lies about the situation in Israel have rewired the minds of half the American population. Perhaps it just seems that way to me because I have so many friends (or “friends”) on social media whose age, sex, color, educational background, and job description render them most likely, for whatever reason, to fall for those lies. In other words, they’re college-educated white women in late middle age who belong to what you might call the creative class – poets, playwrights, composers, musicians, artists, actors, etc. – and who live, most of them, in New York or Los Angeles. More correctly, they live in a bubble of culture – an echo chamber of opening nights and poetry readings and vernissages. You might call it decadence.

GOOD AND EVIL: SYDNEY WILLIAMS

“In each of us, two natures are at war – the good and the evil. All our lives the fight goes on between them, and one of them must conquer. But in our hands lies the power to choose – what we want to be, we are.”

                                                                                                                Robert Lewis Stevenson (1850-1894)

                                                                                                                The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, 1886

Just like good, evil lurks in all of us. It is our responsibility – to the extent possible – to contain it, to smother it, to let goodness overwhelm it. “Wisdom,” wrote John Cheever in his Journals, “is the knowledge of good and evil…” In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us…But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart.” This is a subject that has been on my mind, with Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and as I have been reading Jonathan Horn’s new book, The Fate of the Generals. It is difficult to reconcile the vile treatment of American and Filipino prisoners by the Japanese, with the Japanese I knew in business and socially. Two generations ago, German Nazis were gassing Jews. Today, they are an ally of Israel. In his 1860 novel The Woman in White, Wilkie Collins wrote: “The best men are not consistent in good – why should the worst men be consistent in evil?”

Today, evil is manifested in the anti-Semitism that has infested much of the West. Do college students, born sixty years after the genocide of Jews in Europe and who now accuse Israel of practicing genocide on Palestinians, have any knowledge of history? Battles between forces of good and evil, are as old as mankind. The Bible tells us that Jesus, as the son of God, is inherently good, while man is flawed, so must avoid temptations. Most of my generation have read Stephen Vincent Benét’s short story, The Devil and Daniel Webster, of Webster’s defense of Jabez Stone who sold his soul to the devil in return for seven years of good luck. The message: In moments of weakness, good people can make bad decisions.

This battle between good and evil is not limited to people. On March 8, 1983, President Reagan correctly referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” Evil manifests itself in nation’s where authoritarian leaders control their populations. In the past century, one can think of Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong. Today Ali Hosseini Khamenei Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un serve that role, as their governments deny citizens their natural rights – “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Prohibited Access: A Cache of FBI Corruption? A secret FBI document cache—“Prohibited Access”—may hold explosive evidence of political cover-ups, misconduct, and a decade of justice corrupted from within. By John D. O’Connor

https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/19/prohibited-access-a-cache-of-fbi-corruption/

We recently learned of a previously concealed tranche of documents likely to shed new light on the past decade of American political controversies. This potentially earth-shaking information is known as “Prohibited Access.”

It was only recently discovered that the FBI’s information system, called Sentinel, had a level of access previously unknown to anyone outside the Bureau and known only to a select few inside. In essence, this was a concealed cache used to hide documents the FBI wanted hidden from discovery.

There is one part of the Sentinel system that is devoted to classified and confidential information, termed “Restricted Access.”

It turns out there is a higher, more secretive level called “Prohibited Access.” To any outside observer or investigator, it would appear that there was no record of Prohibited Access information, even though the existence of Restricted Access documents would be shown.

Accordingly, when prosecutors like John Durham or investigators such as Congressman James Comer were investigating various potential misdeeds, they would not have learned of the existence of documents relevant to their investigation that were kept in Prohibited Access.

Although it remains unclear, there is reasonable suspicion that even FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz was not aware of this document cache. Alternatively, Horowitz may have known about it but also may have agreed to keep its existence secret, a dismaying possibility for one charged with enlightening Congress and the public.

Logic tells us that, broadly, there could be only two related purposes for this concealed tranche because it prevents those investigating the FBI or its favored parties from even knowing about the existence of the documents; such suggests concealment of information inculpatory to the senior levels of the FBI and/or its favored politicians, as well as exculpatory information about the targets of its biased investigations.

If, by way of a wild hypothetical example, James Comey and Andrew McCabe broke laws to make an innocent Donald Trump appear guilty of “Russian Collusion,” they would not wish a trail of their ugly misconduct to see the light of day, nor reveal proof of Trump’s innocence.

Can the Left Ever Stop Its Craziness? The more the left rages, the more Trump rises—while Democrats trade policy for tantrums and canonize chaos in place of compromise. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/19/can-the-left-ever-stop-its-craziness/

California Senator Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing.

Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens.

Immediately, Padilla got his media moment wish—once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who Padilla was, forcibly removed him.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight—not to delay legislation, but to fixate on Donald Trump.

South Carolina Democratic state Representative Julie von Haefen just posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title “In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary” and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts.

The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop LA’s nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property, and attack police.

Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags?

Recently, some Democrats and leftists have romanticized Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an illegal alien, accused domestic abuser, gang member, and alleged human trafficker.

They also canonized illegal alien Mahmoud Khalil. But that pro-Hamas “student” helped organize and defend sometimes violent and antisemitic demonstrations at Columbia.

Memo To Tucker: This Is Not Iraq War II

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/19/memo-to-tucker-this-is-not-iraq-war-ii/

Tucker Carlson, the TV personality who currently enjoys an enormous gap between the size of his audience and his intellectual abilities, has decided to declare war on the Trump administration for the sin of taking Iran’s nuclear ambitions seriously.

President Donald Trump hit back with a post on Truth Social saying “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene jumped in with Carlson saying, “Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA.”

The mainstream media is loving all this because they delight in anything that undermines Trump. But from our perspective, Carlson hasn’t come close to making his case.

Carlson seems to think, without much evidence, that this is a repeat of the Iraq fiasco, wherein the U.S. justified war based on a false belief that Saddam Hussein had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

At the time, there was good reason to believe Hussein did, if only because he was so defiant about allowing international inspectors, per the ceasefire agreement he signed at the end of the Gulf War, to verify that he wasn’t building or storing WMDs.

George Orwell, a Man for Our Time Thomas Banks, Christopher Akehurst, Gerald J. Russel

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/literature/george-orwell-a-man-for-our-time/

Thomas Banks: Orwell and the Life to Come

George Orwell was an atheist for nearly all his life. If the account of his school years which he supplied in his long essay “Such, Such Were the Joys” is to be relied on, he had ceased to believe in God by the time he was fourteen years old, and had conceived a strong distaste both for the doctrines of Christianity and for its Founder:

I hated Jesus and the Hebrew patriarchs. If I had sympathetic feelings towards any character in the Old Testament, it was towards such people as Cain, Jezebel, Haman, Agag, Sisera: in the New Testament my friends, if any, were Ananias, Caiaphas, Judas and Pontius Pilate. But the whole business of religion seemed to be strewn with psychological impossibilities.

As the boy grew into the man, his views on Christ and the characters of sacred history do not appear to have changed very much, though his early esteem for such oddly chosen heroes as Haman and Judas appears to have left him. But to the religion of the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer in which he had been raised Orwell never returned. His guiding allegiances were to the revolutionary working classes, to the socialist movement, and the liberal tradition of free speech. All of these loyalties, as he understood them, were bound to turn him into an enemy of organised Christianity in general and of the Catholic Church in particular. For Catholic intellectuals he rarely had a good word, even if he might on occasion recognise the literary talents of a Chesterton or a Hopkins, or the plainspoken honesty of a Frank Sheed. As for the Catholic culture of his time, to him it principally meant General Franco, mental stagnation, authoritarian politics and repression generally.

Contempt for the sacred he carried about like a loaded weapon, and was willing to use it against even fairly innocuous targets. In a letter to a female friend in 1932, he describes an experience at an Anglican parish in a poor neighbourhood where he was temporarily lodging:

My sole friend is the curate—High Anglican but not a creeping Jesus and a very good fellow. Of course it means that I have to go to church, which is an arduous job here, as the service is so popish that I don’t know my way about it … I have promised to paint one of the church idols (a quite skittish looking [Blessed Virgin], half life-size, and I shall try to make her look as much like one of the illustrations in La Vie Parisienne as possible) … 

La Vie Parisienne, for those not familiar with the name, was an erotic men’s magazine in the early twentieth century. To quote this much is to demonstrate that Orwell was not, like certain other sceptics, a man burdened with any lingering fondness for the religion he had cast off as an adolescent.

The lessons of war gave his odium more fuel on which to feed. Orwell served as an infantryman with a Loyalist unit in the Spanish Civil War, in which the cause of the Church was closely bound up with that of Orwell’s Nationalist enemies. The cause of literature nearly suffered an irreplaceable loss on May 20, 1937, when the future author of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four was shot through the neck by an enemy sniper. Orwell recovered and returned to England with no kinder feelings towards the political Right than those he had carried with him to Catalonia. His encounter with the Catholic Church in the flesh had, if anything, left him even more hard-bitten in his anticlericalism. He wrote approvingly at this time of the burning of Spanish churches in communist-controlled areas, mentioning with regret that Barcelona’s Sagrada Familia was spared during the violence. He treated with scepticism accounts of murdered nuns (stories now known to be horribly true), and, being left hors de combat, continued his war with the Nationalists and their sympathisers with his pen.

One notes in his journalism from the end of the 1930s and the early 1940s with what vigilance he kept accounts of allies and enemies. He was not by nature a bitter man, but he made a point always to know which side of politics a fellow writer was on, and party affiliations certainly factored in his judgments of books and their authors. His professed belief in literary objectivity was not a hypocritical sham, but its application in his own practice had its limits. He was saved from turning into a narrow and tiresome ideologue by his generous instincts and quintessentially English sense of fair play, yet he never let sleep his awareness of who is For us and who is Against.

The political was not everything to him. The doctrinaire Marxist and every other crank who lives to overthrow the established customs of mankind were, equally with the Jesuit and the reactionary, objects of his personal disgust. The civilised decencies of private life he never ceased to value, as the reader discovers in Orwell’s homely reflections on the English pub, the English rose garden and the domestic fireplace. These and other of this life’s unbought graces had in him a devout appreciator. Still, a writer less interested in the world above this world would be far to seek.

Fahad Ali, a Nasty Piece of Work Timothy Cootes

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/anti-semitism/fahad-ali-a-nasty-piece-of-work/

Since October 7, the misbehaviour of Australia’s academics has provided excellent and amusing copy for Quadrant, but hasn’t yet effected much improvement in the hiring standards of our universities. This is the topic, you might say, of my thesis-in-progress, which posits that you can get away with the most obscene displays of moral imbecility in this country so long as you brandish your academic title.

A new case study, I’m bound to report, may very well test the credibility of my thesis. Dr Fahad Ali, a casual lecturer at the University of Sydney, set out his preferred foreign policy vision and objectives just as Israeli airstrikes began targeting the greater Tehran area. “F*** sanctions,” Ali advised his social media followers. “I want Zionists executed like we executed Nazis.”

His post, due to an obvious violation of community standards, was removed by X, and a similar decision now falls to his employer. The University of Sydney, according to The Australian, is “appalled” by Ali’s remarks and has promised to conduct a speedy investigation.

The coverage of this incident so far suggests Ali (right), a sensitive plant, is just a well-meaning and passionate advocate for Palestine who let himself become emotionally overwhelmed. On the contrary, this latest hissy-fit, in both content and volume, looks rather similar to many of Ali’s previous outbursts, so the evidence against him is really starting to pile up. In the spirit of cooperation with Quadrant, the University of Sydney, in its review of Ali’s ongoing employment status, might pursue any of the following lines of inquiry. 

The losers and lunatics battling it out to lead the Democrats This rogues’ gallery suggests the Dems are determined to lose the next election. Joel Kotkin

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/06/18/the-losers-and-lunatics-battling-it-out-to-lead-the-democrats/

In today’s Democratic Party, nothing succeeds like failure. According to a recent poll tracker, the preferred candidates to contest the 2028 presidential election are a host of proven losers. Kamala Harris is the No1 choice, followed by Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cory Booker and, of course, the slickest of all the failures, California governor Gavin Newsom.

Far less popular, it seems, are candidates who might appeal beyond the party faithful. Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, who has cross-party support in his state, registered less than a quarter of the support banked by Harris among Democrats nationally. Other Democrats with a greater potential for success include Kentucky governor Andrew Beshear and Maryland’s Wes Moore, yet both of them failed to even break into the poll.

For most Democrats, as Ruy Teixeira notes, ‘the progressive moment’ has not ended, despite all evidence to the contrary. This has been made clear by their reluctance to denounce the recent riots in Los Angeles. A recent poll found that Ocasio-Cortez – who simultaneously downplayed the riots and blamed them on Donald Trump – is most likely to be considered the ‘face’ of the Democratic Party, followed by Bernie Sanders and foul-mouthed Texas congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. This sounds like a potential dream team… for the Republicans.

Democrats pose as upholding ‘fundamental values’, as Newsom puts it. Essentially, this means forsaking public safety and defending criminals and violent protesters. Harris has even insisted, contrary to all evidence, that those LA protests were ‘overwhelmingly peaceful’. Even though most who participated only exercised their rights, the demonstrations provided cover for the keffiyeh-wearing, Mexican-flag-waving mob. In the bizarro world of the current Democratic Party, the police (in 2020) and the National Guard (in 2025) are responsible for the unrest, rather than the politically driven militants.

So far, the only internal pushback from this fraught stance comes from senator John Fetterman and some newly elected Democratic mayors, like San Francisco’s Daniel Lurie. Unlike most Democrats, this small group is aware of the primacy of law enforcement as a pillar of democratic order, and they know that to be seen to be embracing violence, particularly from people in the US illegally, is electorally disastrous outside the deep-blue lunatic zones. Yet if current trends are anything to go by, their relative sanity will condemn them to an unsuccessful career in the Democratic Party.

The reigning queen of upwards failure is Kamala Harris.

Christopher F. Rufo The “No Kings” Protest Is Pure Fantasy The underlying theory is that Donald Trump is an authoritarian leader on the cusp of becoming king.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/no-kings-protest-anti-trump

I spent Father’s Day weekend in Hood River, Oregon, and stumbled upon the local “No Kings” anti-Trump protest. The crowd was populated mostly by Baby Boomers, who appeared to be living out a political fantasy, in which they could “stop fascism” by reenacting the protest movements of their youth. One sign, typical of the genre, derided Trump as a “felon, rapist, con man”; another riffed on Mary Poppins, reading “super callous, fragile, racist, sexist, Nazi POTUS.”

The underlying theory of this protest, which reportedly drew upward of 5 million demonstrators nationwide, is that Donald Trump is an authoritarian leader on the cusp of becoming king. The only way to stop him is to flood the streets and persuade the American people that Trump is a rotten character with despotic ambitions.

The theory, of course, is nonsense. Trump is a duly elected president. He is working with Congress on the budget. His deportation policy, which lent momentum to the weekend’s demonstrations, is predicated on enforcing existing law. Though President Trump contested the results of his first reelection campaign, he ultimately relented and peacefully transferred power to President Joe Biden—hardly the behavior of a tyrant.

Yet the protests are not without utility for the Left. They are not intended to grapple with the reality of the Trump presidency but to submerge reality in fantasy. The first step in entrenching the Left’s fictions in the public mind is to cultivate a sense of hysteria. In the president’s first term, crowds wore vagina-shaped hats and marched in the bitter cold. The tone of the “No Kings” protest was no less absurd, with women in Handmaid’s Tale costumes warning that Trump would reduce them to sex slaves.