Anglospherics

THAT WAS EASY:

Moody’s Lifts Argentina Debt Rating in Fresh Boost to Milei (David Feliba, Jul 21, 2026, Bloomberg News)


Moody’s upgraded Argentina by one notch to B3 from Caa1, with a positive outlook. While the move still leaves the country deep in speculative territory, all three major credit-rating firms now rate Argentina above the highly distressed category, a milestone for a country that spent years among the riskiest sovereign borrowers in global markets.


“The upgrade is clearly positive and reinforces the macro stabilization story under Milei,” Murilo Riccini, Head of Andean Equity Strategy at Bradesco BBI, wrote in a report.

SHE’D HAVE BEEN A CONSERVATIVE ON THE WARREN/BURGER COURT:

Kagan Says Supreme Court Has Stood Up to Trump in Key Cases (Abbie VanSickle, July 23, 2026, NY Times)

“I think that is a bad rap,” Justice Elena Kagan said during an appearance in Washington State, at an annual gathering of judges and lawyers who work in the judiciary’s Ninth Circuit.

“Is this court very conservative?” she continued. “Does it do a bunch of things that are out of the playbook of the conservative legal movement that I think are deeply wrong? Yes.”

“But,” she added, “is this court kind of a puppet for the current administration? I think definitely not.”

THE rIGHT IS THE lEFT:

Why Fascists Admired Keynes’s Economics: Keynes saw centralized economic direction as an improvement on market coordination. This provided cover to later corporatist authoritarians who wanted to control every aspect of life. (John Phelan, July 23, 2026, Daily Economy)

Keynes believed, according to his biographer, the economist Roy Harrod, that “the government of Britain was and would continue to be in the hands of an intellectual aristocracy,” of which he was part. He supported economic central planning, via corporatism, because he assumed that enlightened experts like himself, a leading member of the Bloomsbury group, not a goon like Mussolini, would be doing the planning. He underestimated the political dangers of replacing decentralized decision-making with central planning, assuming that economic freedom could be curtailed without curtailing other freedoms.

But if we can excuse such a belief held in 1926 as naivety, how can we excuse it still held ten years later when fascism’s true nature was becoming apparent? In September 1936, Keynes wrote in the preface to the German edition of his masterpiece, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, that “the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

If a totalitarian state is the price we must pay for the Keynesian “theory of output” to be put into practice, it is not a price worth paying. Likewise, if laissez-faire was the economic manifestation of political liberalism, then its death was to be mourned, not celebrated. If economic freedom is surrendered, other freedoms follow. “The economy” is just people acting, and one can only control “the economy” by controlling people.

CHANGE THE REGIME:

A Family’s Daring Escape From North Korea ‘to Live and Stand Tall’ (Choe Sang-Hun, July 21, 2026, NY Times)


Rain lashed a flimsy wooden boat as it tossed through a churning sea, its engine straining against the swell. Under the cover of a stormy night three years ago, the vessel was fleeing North Korea.

On board were nine people, including two small children and a woman who was six months pregnant. Only a couple of the passengers had seafaring experience. They eluded a patrol ship, speeding across the world’s most heavily guarded maritime border.

Soon after their boat lurched into South Korean waters, a high-speed warship of the South’s navy bore down on it, tearing the water in aggressive circles. Snipers on the vessel trained their laser sights on the chests of the three adult men on the wooden boat.

Through a loudspeaker, a voice boomed: “Are you lost? Engine trouble?”

The North Koreans shouted: “Please help. We are defecting.”


The red dots remained stubbornly fixed on their chests. The South Koreans were taking no chances: The three men were clad in North Korean military uniforms, camouflage for a high-stakes escape. Desperate, the men shouted into the boat’s cramped hold for the other passengers to emerge in order to prove that they were civilians. From below, the two children, a 5-year-old girl and 3-year-old boy, were hauled up first, both pale and wasted from seasickness. Only then did the red dots drop off.

The North Koreans, led by Kim Il-hyeok and his younger brother, Yi-hyeok, were bound together by blood and marriage. The brothers, both in their 30s at the time, were accompanied by their mother and their families: Il-hyeok’s partner, who was pregnant, and Yi-hyeok’s wife, their two children, his mother-in-law and brother-in-law.


The family, who defected in 2023, were among the few who managed to escape North Korea after its leader, Kim Jong-un, imposed a crushing lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic. They arrived in their adopted country with rare insights into a nation that had been choked off from the outside world. Some details of their escape have not been previously reported.

“That night,” said Yi-hyeok’s wife, Yu-mi, “we crossed from a sea of darkness to a sea of freedom.”

As Reagan said at Bitburg:

Twenty-two years ago President John F. Kennedy went to the Berlin Wall and proclaimed that he, too, was a Berliner. Well, today freedom-loving people around the world must say: I am a Berliner. I am a Jew in a world still threatened by anti-Semitism. I am an Afghan, and I am a prisoner of the Gulag. I am a refugee in a crowded boat foundering off the coast of Vietnam. I am a Laotian, a Cambodian, a Cuban, and a Miskito Indian in Nicaragua. I, too, am a potential victim of totalitarianism.

The one lesson of World War II, the one lesson of nazism, is that freedom must always be stronger than totalitarianism and that good must always be stronger than evil. The moral measure of our two nations will be found in the resolve we show to preserve liberty, to protect life, and to honor and cherish all God’s children.

WHEN FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTEMPT:

Conservative Nativists Live Under the Cosmopolitanism They Claim To Despise: Revealed preferences help us understand the value of diversity. (Zaid Jilani, Jul 16, 2026, The American Saga)

In economics, there is a concept called revealed preferences. Consumers will tell you what they really like by their actual behavior. What they want is what they buy.

The pundits I discussed above all argue as if they feel that America will be doomed when it becomes majority minority. “Import the third world, become the third world,” has become their slogan de jure. If we have a country full of people from Mexican, Indian, or Haitian ancestral origin, we will transform into those countries and bring all their sociological and economic problems.

But through their revealed preferences, we can see that they may not be so confident in this thesis after all.

Walsh, for instance, lives in the thriving metropolis of Nashville, Tennessee. According to the local chamber of commerce, “over 35% of Nashville’s net in-migration from 2024 to 2025 was due to international migration”; around a third of downtown businesses are owned by minorities. While Walsh has been ranting about Somalis in Minneapolis, he would probably enjoy this Somali-owned tea shop in his city (I visited the last time I drove up). In a moment of clarity, Walsh admitted he loves Indian food.

Hemingway and Davis, meanwhile, are denizens of Metro Washington, D.C. A quarter of Northern Virginia’s residents are foreign-born. Kelly lives in and broadcasts from Houston, which was ranked by one measure as America’s fifth-most diverse city and second-most diverse large city (the top three most diverse cities were all in Maryland, also bordering D.C.). Webbon is in Austin, a very liberal and diverse city. Nick Fuentes, the charismatic racist streamer, lives in predominantly Hispanic suburb of Chicago. Brandon Gill, one of the most vociferous nativists in Congress who wants to stop even legal immigration, is married to an Indian American woman.

Speaking of marriage, it’s ironic that the nativists are led by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Trump is married to an immigrant and the grandson of one himself. Vance is not only married to an Indian American woman, but he goes out of his way in his memoir to praise her family for its strong bonds.

Recall that while they generally cite which party supported Israel most, much of the Neocon turn to the right was driven by urban crime and racial quotas at elite institutions.

THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS AN EASY JOB:

How the World Cup Helped America See Itself Afresh: Visiting foreign soccer fans have fallen in love with the US, showing its residents a different version of themselves and their country (Surbhi Gupta & Danny Postel, July 16, 2026, New Lines)

In the last few weeks, as fans from across Europe and other parts of the world traveled through the United States for the World Cup, following their teams from city to city, they discovered an America that tends not to make it into global news headlines, at least not in recent years. They met friendly strangers who offered rides to and from stadiums, discovered big portion sizes and free refills in American restaurants, and developed an unexpected fondness for ranch dressing, wanting to take it back home as a souvenir. (Sensing an opportunity, the food company Kraft Heinz, in true American fashion, released a “TSA-Compliant Ranch” kit after the Transportation Security Administration repeatedly reminded visitors that full-size bottles could not be carried through airport security.) They felt relief at the near ubiquity of air conditioning in the summer and came face to face with the largesse and abundance of suburban America as they ventured outside the tourist hotspots of New York City, Washington and Los Angeles.

As visitors marveled at America and their reactions went viral, Americans watched them marvel and, in turn, found themselves looking at their country differently, through that foreign prism — recognizing, even celebrating, everyday aspects of life here as uniquely American. This outsider’s gaze offered a version of America that stood in sharp contrast with the one both Americans and people around the world tend to encounter through doomscrolling and the relentless churn of the news cycle.

“This World Cup is significant in terms of how we view America. Not because it changes America but because it illuminates America,” the journalist and author Simon Kuper told our colleague Faisal Al Yafai in a recent episode of the New Lines podcast, The Lede. The World Cup “tells you that America is not just Trump,” Kuper said, noting that from Europe it’s easy to conclude that since Trump was elected twice on a xenophobic platform, it defines all of the United States. But traveling through the country and meeting people, one realizes that even Trump voters “really like the world, they really like having foreigners there,” Kuper said.

This gap between the reel and the real was perhaps best captured in an interview with Sebastian Kraus, a German soccer fan who became teary-eyed while speaking to NBC10 Boston. “I fall in love with this country and this was so emotional, I even cried in the stadium,” he said. Before making the trip, Kraus admitted he had been apprehensive, his perception shaped by news reports about mass shootings and concerns over public safety. But buoyed by the generosity of local Americans, he was bidding goodbye to the country with a heavy heart.

Just do what Joe failed to do: undo all of Trumpism.

DISCONTENT IS MONSTROUS:

The Good Life According to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (Chandler Collins, July 13, 2026, Center for Faith & Culture)

The human quest for happiness and virtue is one of the most important themes of Shelley’s Gothic novel. Upon reflecting on his origin and purpose, the creature recognizes that he “was formed for peaceful happiness.” He says, “During my youthful days discontent never visited my mind, and if I was ever overcome by ennui, the sight of what is beautiful in nature or the study of what is excellent and sublime in the productions of man could always interest my heart and communicate elasticity to my spirit.” If you ask anyone if they desire to be happy, they will likely respond with a resounding “yes.” The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas pointed out that “man naturally desires happiness,” but what exactly does it mean to be happy? Shelley does not provide a clear definition of happiness in “Frankenstein,” but she does associate happiness with peace, contentment, and the sense of delight.

The Word Zionism Is Dead: From the start, it’s meant too many things. It’s time to move on. (Nadine Epstein, Mar 18, 2026, Moment)

I am editor-in-chief of a magazine with a great Jewish legacy, and I have never once in my life used the terms Zionist or anti-Zionist to describe myself or anyone else. Why? When I use a word, I want to know where it’s been and how it’s going to be understood, and with anything Zionism-related, that’s a nearly impossible task.

And so I am going to propose something that may sound radical. It is beyond time to strike the words Zionist and Zionism from modern political discourse and relegate them to history, where they belong. They have outlived their usefulness both as concepts and as terms. This means we must immediately cease labeling ourselves and others as Zionists and anti-Zionists, and use the word Zionism only when referring to the historical political movement. […]

If we believe in the right of people to form nations, which at this point of human development most of us do, then Zionism has long been a moot point. Given Israel’s right to exist, I would go a step further and say that the label Zionism has become outright dangerous. The use of the term by its very nature keeps the question of existence unnecessarily alive. It’s like a scab that keeps forming and reforming and never heals. The Zionist family of terms has increasingly become polarizing for the American public, and even worse, it is unnecessarily splintering the American Jewish community, all at a time of rising antisemitism. Wherever I go, and I travel in many circles, I hear the words Zionist and anti-Zionist invoked and hurled with equal God-like certainty, terrifying self-righteousness and perilous imprecision.

The American Jewish community is as mystified by the meaning of Zionist and Zionism as the broader public. Look at the 2026 survey conducted by the Jewish Federations of North America: Only one-third of American Jews said they identified as Zionist. At the same time, nearly nine out of ten said they supported Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.

A Zionism that does not intellectually make the case for Palestinian self-determination is not worth honoring.

DEMOTIC LANGUAGE TO A DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE:

These green and printed lands: How William Caxton developed Englishness, and how his Englishness is breaking down (Freddie Attenborough, 11 July, 2026, The Critic)

Indeed, perhaps the chief benefit of the exhibition is that, through its attention to primary sources accumulated between the fifteenth and late eighteenth centuries, it forces us to approach “England” not as a natural inheritance but as an historical achievement: the coming together of capitalist productive relations, print technology and the emergent administrative state at a particular historical juncture. […]

As a matter of material necessity, Caxton and his contemporaries were primarily concerned to make a profit, and to sell their products to the largest possible number of readers. But how to do so? True, Latin had long operated as an elite, transnational medium of handwritten communication among clerics and scholars. Yet as a market for mechanically reproduced texts, now assuming the form of commodities, it was limited. Nor could printers simply descend into the full plurality of spoken dialects, each too local, unstable and limited to justify the enlarged print-runs on which the new technology depended.

It was the genius of humble but extraordinarily savvy, commercially minded printers like Caxton slowly to assemble a new vernacular reading public below the transnational republic of Latin and the administrative vernacular of the elites, but, crucially, above the mutually opaque world of local dialects. What emerged, over time, was not “English” as a natural tongue, but a mechanically reproducible print-language, capable of dissemination — and sale — through the largest market available to it.

In other words, moveable type and the rate of turnover of capital were not incidental to the development of “our” national identity, but helped establish the material conditions under which this possessive adjective could, over the centuries following Caxton’s publication of Chaucer, become thinkable.

THE REPUBLICAN “WE”:

The Language of Unity: Glenn Loury on Gouverneur Morris: His “We the People” expresses the work of fulfilling the American Idea. (Glenn Loury, Thursday, July 9, 2026, Freedom Frequency)

Of all the figures gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, few would have seemed less likely to speak for “the American people” than Gouverneur Morris. Wealthy, cosmopolitan, and aristocratic in bearing, he was impatient with cant and openly skeptical of democratic enthusiasms. A striking figure who moved through the world on a wooden leg—the result of a gruesome carriage accident years earlier—he retained a caustic wit and an abundance of self-regard. Morris was no plaster saint for schoolbooks. He was vain, rakish, and at times contemptuous of the masses. Yet the delegates entrusted him with the final drafting of the Constitution. Much of its language bears his mark. The most enduring words in the Preamble are unmistakably his: “We the People of the United States . . . ”

Those are radical words, though their familiarity has blunted their radicalism. The Constitution might easily have opened as a compact among sovereign states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts—each jealous of its prerogatives. That phrasing would have ratified the dominant political reality of the day: most Americans at that time thought of themselves first as citizens of their states. Morris made a different choice. His preamble was not mere literary polish. It gave expression to a political idea that was still struggling to become a reality: that Americans were one people.

The ambition embodied in those words was extraordinary then and remains so today. America was never a tribe bound by blood, ancestry, or ancient custom. It gathered people of disparate regions, denominations, interests, and origins.