Tea at Trianon: Reflections on the Counter-Revolution in America

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Tuesday, April 1, 2025

Reflections on the Counter-Revolution in America

From Victor Davis Hanson:

In general, no Republican president of the past 50 years sought to radically reduce the size of government and balance the budget. None closed the border and began deportations. None avoided optional ground wars while solely hitting aggressors from the air. None led a cultural counter-revolution to reverse the left’s long march through our institutions.

Why?

Because to have done so would have constituted a veritable cultural counter-revolution that would incur an unacceptable level of hatred and resistance from the entrenched left—defined by the nexus of the media, bureaucracies, campuses, foundations, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and the Democratic Party. The latter were deemed just too formidable—and dangerous—to confront in a single term, if ever.

Or so it was felt by prior Republican administrations. So, most stayed clear and sought to deregulate, cut taxes, keep illegal immigration to about 30,000 or so a month, and use rhetoric to oppose the left’s cultural revolution.

Not so with Trump. The target of four years of lawfare in his wilderness years, he has now become a true counterrevolutionary determined not to slow down the progressive trajectory of the last 60 years but to end it and return the U.S. to the center—at least as now defined by a balanced budget, reciprocal fair trade, full use of all modes of energy, a closed border, legal only immigration, no optional ground wars abroad and a fierce effort to end the woke/DEI/ESG/Green New Deal leftwing orthodoxy.

Will it work?

The left’s revolution had become so deeply institutionalized that the once-bizarre had become the politically correct norm: three, not two, sexes; illegal aliens de facto not different from American citizens; a country without borders; massive debt and trade imbalances propped up for years by near-zero, de facto interest rates; and nation-building abroad as the country’s interior at home was hallowed out.

Trump is currently waging a 360-degree, 24/7 effort to undo at least the last 20 years of the most recent manifestation of the leftist cultural revolution inaugurated by Barack Obama. (Read more.)

Judge orders Trump officials to preserve Signal group chat records. From ArcaMax:

Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said he would enter the order in a lawsuit that alleges potential violations of the Federal Records Act, which requires agencies to retain records of their deliberations and decisions.
The order is set to last for two weeks and could be the start of further court action over whether Trump officials’ use of Signal or other messaging apps runs afoul of the records law.
During a hearing Thursday, the Justice Department said Trump officials were already taking steps to preserve the group chat, which apparently inadvertently included a journalist and had senior government officials discussing details of the attack in advance.
American Oversight, a watchdog group, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State and acting National Archives and Records Administrator Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seeking to preserve records of the chat.
The Atlantic earlier this week detailed a group chat that discussed details of the attack on Houthis in Yemen and apparently inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, the outlet’s editor-in-chief. The group asked Boasberg to order the Trump administration to retain the records. (Read more.)

From James Howard Kunstler:

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is supposed to function like an immune system for the body politic, defending it against political sickness. The current organized action in the federal judiciary against the executive is a grave sickness induced by the Deep State that must be corrected by the SCOTUS. We await that corrective action — a sweeping decision in reply to 100-plus lawsuits — that the chief executive is in-charge of the executive department and that his prerogatives to manage the staffing and actions of the executive agencies can’t be arrogated by federal judges.
So far, obviously, the SCOTUS has not yet come to issue that decision. Many of you worry that they will fail to, because Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be somehow under the influence of the Deep State. Let’s have a look. Sheldon Snook is Special Assistant to Chief Justice Roberts, and is deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the SCOTUS. Sheldon Snook is married to Mary McCord. Ms. McCord has been a leading actor, via her various roles in the Deep State, in the seditious operations against President Trump since 2017.
As Acting Attorney General for National Security in 2017, Mary McCord, turned James Comey’s FBI jihad against National Security advisor Mike Flynn into a malicious and ultimately unsuccessful prosecution. (The DOJ dropped the charges, which Judge Emmet G. Sullivan refused to execute, thus necessitating a pardon from Mr. Trump.)
Mary McCord was instrumental in the DOJ’s dishonest FISA application to surveil Carter Page (when Judge James Boasberg sat on the FISA Court). Ms. McCord quit the DOJ to become a counsel to the committee in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. In that role, she assisted Norm Eisen, the Chief Counsel to committee Chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Norm Eisen has gone on since that time to become the chief coordinator of lawfare operations against Mr. Trump. Mary McCord remains a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, sponsored by George and Alex Soros. Sheldon Snook remains at John Roberts’ right hand. (Read more.)

Biden's perjury. From The Reactionary:

If you recall, Special Counsel Hur was appointed after the disclosure that classified documents were found at President Biden’s homes and his office in Washington. Compared to the investigations of Trump, the Biden inquiry was, for lack of a better word, soft: searches were conducted without FBI monitors, Biden’s lawyers negotiated the terms of searches with a US Attorney appointed by Biden. (Our recap into the Biden classified documents saga goes into greater detail.)
The issue with Biden’s handling of classified materials wasn’t necessarily the possession of those materials, though that is a criminal offense. It’s that he lied about it to Special Counsel Hur. These written answers - first published in this article - are important in that they are made with thought and care, as compared to Biden’s rambling interview with Special Counsel Hur, where he was a bit slow and forgetful.
And these answers are provable deceit, though it would have been a near-impossible task to convince a DC jury to convict one of their own. Here are some examples of the lies. (Read more.)

The Signal flap. From Sharyl's Substack:

First, as far as the selective pearl-clutching over the Trump administration’s use of Signal, we can start with the example of James Comey, former FBI Director.
In August 2019, the DOJ Inspector General’s report, “Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey's Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative Information and Handling of Certain Memoranda,” found that Comey, fired by Trump in May 2017, wrongly took FBI memos about their interactions and kept them in his personal possession. Several of the documents contained classified info—“Secret” and “Confidential”—including anti-Trump material. The IG noted that Comey even shared these with his lawyers, and one of the documents was purposefully leaked to The New York Times in order to hurt then-President Trump.
The DOJ IG referred Comey for prosecution—a momentous referral that was downplayed in the news—but Comey avoided charges when the DOJ declined to bring them in August of 2019, citing insufficient evidence of ill intent. (I hope if I’m ever commit a bad crime I can convince prosecutors to forget about it all by telling them I meant no harm.)
Anyway, the Comey revelations flickered, then faded—a minor blip for the propaganda machine compared to today’s Signal frenzy.
Then there was Hillary Clinton’s saga. As Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, she improperly ran sensitive and classified State Department business through her private email server in violation of explicit security rules and record keeping laws.
The FBI’s July 2016 probe into Clinton’s actions found 110 emails with classified data—some “Top Secret”—on that unsecured system. FBI Director Comey’s July 5, 2016, statement about the breach warned that “hostile actors,” possibly Russia, might have accessed the material.
Yet, as The New York Times reported on July 6, 2016, Comey deemed Clinton’s behavior “extremely careless” but not criminal, and the DOJ followed suit deciding to file no charges. ‘After all, she meant no harm,’ they said. Backed by deep-pocketed allies.
Joe Biden’s turn came in February 2023. (Read more.)