Halloween Not as Scary as the Headlines

Halloween isn’t as frightening as it used to be. How can traditional monsters compare to Hamas’ actions in killing infants, China’s growing nuclear arsenal, progressive antisemitism rising to Hitlerian levels, Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine, crime rampaging through American cities?

In 2023, you have to feel sorry for our old friends Dracula, assorted mummies and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Don’t let us forget all those witches, either. Try as they might, they simply can’t conjure up the terror they used to.

After all, those devilish monsters could barely harass a handful of folks on any particular evening. Some of those goblins and ghouls were restricted to just All Hallows Eve. What horror could a nibble on the neck from a hungry vampire produce when Hamas is beheading folks on a mass scale every day?

How do you compare the frightening capabilities a misunderstood creature of the night can have to, say, the thought of a terrorist heading in your direction? Or even something as tiny as a China-made COVID germ?

What is really scary, though, isn’t some raging enemy or even a toxic malady. What is most frightening is the growing inability or unwillingness of our leaders to deal these threats. Americans used to be a “can do” people. If something stood in our way, we cut a path through it. If someone opposed us, we flattened them. Now we passively tolerate true evil.

Not unlike the insidious infestation of celluloid horror movie terrors in a Hollywood script, we have allowed the very fabric of the American nation to be undermined. A little over a decade ago, it would have been unimaginable that the First Amendment would have been so seriously disregarded by bureaucrats claiming they had the right to censor the media. A mere decade ago, who would have believed that parents objecting to the rape of their young daughters on school grounds would be labelled as domestic terrorists?

We have had a black president, black supreme court justices, black mayors, governors, senators and congressional representatives. There are laws on the books banning discrimination. We are now led, however, by an administration and media that appears determined to rekindle former hatreds by falsely portraying our society as racist.

Those same hate-mongers eagerly seek to divide the nation along political lines, and utilize the Department of Justice to persecute those who disagree with the current regime. Just as Dracula recoiled from crucifixes, our Justice Department disdains traditional Catholics.

Who would have believed that neo-Nazi’s on college campuses and on the streets of cities would vigorously support the beheading of Jewish children, the raping of Israeli women, and wholesale slaughter of civilians? Even Hitler attempted to hide his mass murders. Hamas films their actions. Despite that, some of the same publications that ignored the Holocaust are now downplaying those actions.

No one would have believed that any presidential administration would ignore border controls, and allow millions, including military age men, foreign agents, cartel criminals and human traffickers to cross into the United States.

Dr. Frankenstein created his woefully misunderstood reanimated man, but the product of our educational system is far worse. By replacing facts with propaganda and ignoring or misrepresenting the lessons of history, American educators have developed a generation devoid of an accurate historical perspective and with a contempt for the concept of individual rights and personal responsibility. The manifestation of their creation isn’t a single creature, but a large portion of an entire age group who cannot tolerate opinions other than their own.

This Halloween, the terrors of the creatures of the night are a welcome distraction from the horrors that exist in the real world.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.