America’s Dreyfus Affair

Abstract:  Making sense of the political tension and division within America is no easy task.  For most Americans, we are experiencing conditions without precedent.  Yet, history has documented similar circumstances in the past.  Why not examine these recorded observations to ascertain what ever wisdom might be derived from such an analysis?  This article attempts such an examination in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with an inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).  Gadfly then summarizes the discussion and offers two predictions.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, are you familiar with the Dreyfus Affair?

IM:  Yes, in 1894, a French Jewish artillery officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was accused of spying, court-martialed, convicted of treason, and sentenced to life in prison at Devil Island.  Before imprisonment, he was paraded before the public where they shouted, “Death to Judas, death to the Jew.”  Two years later, evidence eventually surfaced that another French (non-Jewish) officer, Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, was the actual traitor; Esterhazy was court-martialed but not convicted.  In 1899, Dreyfus was again court-martialed and again found guilty, yet was quickly pardoned.  Finally, in 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated in the French army.

AM:  This sentiment coincided with the anti-Semitism that permeated Western Europe, Russia, and even the United States.  For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a widely circulated publication that claimed Jews were colluding to dominate the world.  In Europe, the Rothschild family was particularly singled out because of its vast wealth.  In America, Henry Ford purchased and then distributed 500,000 copies of The Protocols within America.  Ford even published a series of anti-Semitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned.  In hindsight, historical facts now show that Ford materially contributed to a false narrative.

IM:  Ironically, today Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.  The nearly wealthiest man in the world is deliberately and aggressively consolidating the retail industry and possibly the news industry.  Bezos’ consolidation efforts crush competition and the novelty of diversity of ideas—not the left’s arbitrary distinction in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth.  Where is the opposition from the left?  Perhaps the answer is because The Washington Post is clearly anti-Trump.

Old Gadfly:    Do you see any similarities between The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and any other publication in America?

IM:  Yes,  the so-called “Russian Dossier” is a similar publication.  The Protocols document was a complete fabrication of lies; yet it had a huge impact in fueling anti-Semitism.  Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, identified the phenomenon of anti-Semitism as a critical seed in the emergence of totalitarianism, which included both forms of socialism--communism and Nazism.  Like The Protocols, the Russian Dossier also fabricated lies for effect.  The Dossier fueled the Russian collusion sentiment that still exists, especially in the justification for the current Mueller investigation. 

Old Gadfly:  In regard to the Russian Dossier, here are some questions the public deserves to know:  How did Senator McCain get word of the dossier?  Why did he unilaterally dispatch an aide overseas to get a copy?  Was this an act of collusion?  Should he be questioned in the same manner as Donald Trump, Jr., who met with a Russian lawyer by invitation?

AM:  Great questions, Gadfly.  It appears anti-Trump Republicans initially paid GPS Fusion (headed by Glenn Simpson) for opposition research against candidate Trump.  The research was then handed off to another paying customer—the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Further, “British-American businessman and anti-Kremlin crusader Bill Browder” claims GPS Fusion took money from the Russian government.  This is why Congress is now investigating the Russia GPS Fusion connection (collusion?).

IM:   Do you know who Bill Browder is?  He is a billionaire who, after the fall of the Soviet Union, has done extensive business in Russia.  He is now an anti-Putin activist, seeking justice for the conviction, torture, and murder of his Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.  Browder’s grandfather, Earl, headed up the American Communist Party, twice running unsuccessfully for President of the United States in 1936 and 1940.  Browder tells his story in his recently published book, Red Notice:  A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism.  She does an excellent job explaining how anti-Semitic sentiment contributed to the phenomenon of totalitarianism.  After the book’s release, she was very careful in responding to critiques to point out that “seeds” may have been more accurate than “origins,” because it is difficult to establish precedents for the unprecedented.  Yet, it was the hatred and contempt that coalesced against a perceived enemy that allowed the seed to crystallize over time.  In the early 1900s in Europe and Russia, the hatred and contempt crystallized among those on the collective left against those who had different beliefs and values such as those who appear to be aligned with individual liberty, private property, and free-market capitalism.  In today’s America, there are groups such as the New Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other leftist groups characterized by anger and hatred. The left loves to claim the KKK and white supremacist groups are far right; but, they are not.  Historical records explain the true nature of these groups and they tend to be leftist—Marxian, Nietzschean, and so forth.  To suggest a white supremacist group is right-wing, conservative, or Republican is political heresy.  It is like certain politicians (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, or Tim Kaine) advocating for abortion or same-sex marriage rights while also claiming to be devout Catholics.  In this case, progressive orthodoxy trumps church orthodoxy.

There is a new leftist hate group called Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (check out the video).  Notice also, the accelerated aggressiveness of the Communist Party USA (until it’s taken down, the homepage has a headline:  “Can Trump Forge a New White Supremacist Governing Coalition?”).  Here is a print screen image of the homepage:

IM:  Another “seed” discussed by Arendt was imperialism--in the form of ideological world domination.  Arendt’s first chapter under the section on imperialism had an interesting title:  “The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie.”  In this case, the bourgeoisie represented those who controlled the centers of production (and wealth).  Bourgeoisie did not include the “aristocracy”—those in government roles—or the labor class (the proletariat in socialist orthodoxy).

Old Gadfly:  What can we learn from this?  How does it apply to today’s circumstances?

AM:  Obviously, it is very dangerous for business leaders to align with a particular political ideology.  And by ideology, I do not mean a political philosophy; I mean orthodoxy or dogmas that become moral truths.  Progressivism in America is an ideology—it believes in secular humanism, the redistribution of wealth, and other man-made rights (e.g., reproductive rights to justify abortion, sexual orientations) that are contrary to the laws of nature and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Progressivism is coercive in that progressive values must become everyone’s values.  Those that resist are punished.  This is why the left, and not the right, has invented moral slurs for those who possess different values:  slurs such as homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogynist, and so forth—modern equivalents of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.  In 2006, Bernard Lewis argued antisemitism represents a special case of prejudice and hatred, that it is directed against people who are different from the rest and deemed to represent “cosmic evil.” This is why progressives such as UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff feel compelled to indoctrinate the masses by publishing books with such titles as:  Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  Lakoff’s framework justifies explaining that conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.  This is also why those who are skeptical of the anthropogenic theory and so called “settled science” for climate change are labeled “climate deniers” and considered evil.  For interesting contrary “evidence” on the subject see recent Congressional testimony by Dr. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

IM:  Given the rampant crony capitalism and corporate welfare that characterizes the current situation in America, there are now perverse incentives for the government aristocracy and the business sector to collaborate for the expansion of power and the perpetuation of that power.  Remember the “business world” reaction when then Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law?  The act was eventually amended to accommodate the demands of the LGTBQ special interest group who pressured businesses to boycott Indiana.  There have been other cases as well.  Last year the Seattle Seahawks chef faced similar pressures.  Recently, President Trump gave Congress six months to provide legislation related to the unconstitutional Presidential policy known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  A 31-year old Millennial, who happens to be the fifth wealthiest man in the world (for inventing a gossip platform—arguably a modern Marxist opium for the alienated masses), quickly organized a joint letter with roughly 300 business leaders representing the politically emancipated bourgeoisie to demonize Trump’s adult, well-reasoned constitutional action.  After all, authority for immigration policy rests on the legislative powers of the U.S. Congress, specifically articulated in Article I of the Constitution.

Old Gadfly:  It seems as though secular humanistic movements are aligning against America’s Judeo-Christian tradition.  Is this a modern “anti-Semitic” development?

IM:  If it is such a development, then it reflects concerns Arendt shared in a reply to a letter from Professor Eric Voegelin, another prominent political philosopher, in 1953.  The excerpt below talks about a lack of common interest and the atomization of society (something clearly reflected in social media phenomena):

For similar reasons and for the sake of distinguishing between ideas and actual events in history, I cannot agree with Mr. Voegelin's remark that "the spiritual disease is the decisive feature that distinguishes modem masses from those of earlier centuries." To me, modern masses are disintegrated by the fact that they are "masses" in a strict sense of the word. They are distinguished from the multitudes of former centuries in that they do not have common interests to bind them together nor any kind of common "consent" which, according to Cicero, constitutes interest, that which is between men, ranging all the way from material to spiritual and other matters. This "between" can be a common ground and it can be a common purpose; it always fulfills the double function of binding men together and separating them in an articulate way. The lack of common interest so characteristic of modern masses is therefore only another sign of their homelessness and rootlessness. But it alone accounts for the curious fact that these modem masses are formed by the atomization of society, that the mass-men who lack all communal relationships nevertheless offer the best possible "material" for movements in which peoples are so closely pressed together that they seem to have become One. The loss of interests is identical with the loss of "self," and modem masses are distinguished in my view by their selflessness, that is their lack of "selfish interests" (p. 81).[1]

In the following excerpt, Arendt emphasizes the danger of atheism:

I know that problems of this sort can be avoided if one interprets totalitarian movements as a new--and perverted--religion, a substitute for the lost creed of traditional beliefs. From this, it would follow that some "need for religion" is a cause of the rise of totalitarianism. I feel unable to follow even the very qualified form in which Professor Voegelin uses the concept of a secular religion. There is no substitute for God in the totalitarian ideologies - Hitler's use of the "Almighty" was a concession to what he himself believed to be a superstition. More than that, the metaphysical place for God has remained empty. The introduction of these semi-theological arguments in the discussion of totalitarianism, on the other side, is only too likely to further the wide-spread and strictly blasphemous modem "ideas" about a God who is "good for you"-for your mental or other health, for the integration of your personality and God knows what-that is "ideas" which make of God a function of man or society. This functionalization seems to me in many respects the last and perhaps the most dangerous stage of atheism (pp. 81-82).[2]

Old Gadfly:  How would you characterize these observations in relation to the American culture?

IM:  The idea of America, “our nation,” has been deeply rooted in an understanding of human dignity and the need for a political system to protect that dignity.  Donald S. Lutz, a political scientist at the University of Houston, conducted an analysis of archived documents between 1760 and 1805 to determine the source of influence in political thought during the founding of our nation.[3]  The number one source cited was the Bible with 34% of the citations.  The number two source, representing 22%, was a set of Enlightenment authors with Montesquieu topping the list.  The implication is that political thought inherent in the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.  It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that championed tolerance for faith, regardless of the religion or lack of religion.  The Declaration clearly established “self-evident” truths and rights—all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There was no implied source for these truths and rights.  Our founders explicitly identified the source:  “their Creator.”  In the early 20^th Century, members of the U.S. armed forces received citizenship training that was grounded in ethical and legal foundations.[4]  This 179-page manual includes an explicit explanation of the role philosophy and religion play in understanding individual liberty and the moral duty of citizenship.  Culturally, Americans predominantly affiliated with the Judeo Christian tradition, peaking in 1956 with 99% of surveyed Americans—71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, and 3% Jewish.[5]  Since 1956, the number of Americans affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition now represent 72%, a decrease of 27%--37% Protestant, 10% Christian nonspecific, 22% Catholic, 3% Jewish.[6]

Old Gadfly:  Arendt’s explanation of the decline of the Christian tradition combined with the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie established conditions for imperialism.  Imperialism for many is commonly understood to represent the colonization that European nations engaged in during previous centuries.  How would you explain imperialism in the 21^st Century?

AM:  Progressives in America and Europe believe in the power of central planning.  This is why they are strong advocates for the United Nations and other international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  In today’s vernacular, they are not imperialists; they are globalists.  This is why it is becoming more common to hear globalists, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, call themselves “citizens of the world.”  International institutions can be useful if understood as collaborative instruments in support of sovereign nations and people.  Unfortunately, progressives (globalists) see them as primary authorities.  Arendt reminds us that Soviet Communism and German Nazism were intended for world domination.  Progressivism and its central planners have a similar intent.  By the way, Hillary’s recent book title is What Happened.  A quick glance at the content reveals a lot of complaints about her struggle-bound presidential campaign and all the great ideas she had for policies across the board for social, political, and economic life for the masses.  I could not help but think that a better title for the book would have been My Struggle, but another figure in history already used that one.

IM:  Pretty clever, AM, on the book title observation!  But, then again, I noticed Samantha Power wrote the “Introduction” to the 2004 edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism.  The “Introduction” has two parts.  The first was a brilliant analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of Arendt’s thinking.  The second part revealed Power’s progressive and globalist nature.  I was not surprised then to recently learn that she participated on behalf of the Obama Administration in the “unmasking” of individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Old Gadfly:   Let me summarize this excellent discussion and then close with two predictions:

Summary:  First, America’s Dreyfus Affair is an attempt by the leftist progressives to create anger, contempt, and hatred against Donald Trump and all that he symbolizes—to include Americans Hillary Clinton demeaned as “deplorables.”   Second, there are anti-Semitic-equivalent movements that need to be called out and diminished.  Third, there is an imperialistic manifestation in the form of the business sector aligning with the political ideology of progressivism, further compounded by the unholy alliances of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.  These developments should also be called out by virtuous customers and politicians.[7]   

          Prediction:  First, it is now becoming apparent that moral (not political) courage helped Trump get elected.  Ninety-three percent of Americans classified as “Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians” voted for Trump.  Only 1% voted for Clinton. If Donald Trump survives the manufactured Russia collusion scandal, those who believed in his sincere and authentic vision of the American idea (“Make America Great Again”) will become greater in number and more courageous in fulfilling their moral duty, grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition. Second, virtuous Democrat leaders will realize the opportunity they have to “heal” the anger, contempt, and hatred that is so prominent (and rampant) among those who vote Democrat.  However, this will only come about after a serious evaluation of the progressive “ideology” and its dogmatic principles that are intolerant of other ideas and values.

---

[1]  Arendt, H.  (1953). [The Origins of Totalitarianism]: A Reply, The Review of Politics, 15(1), 76-84.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert S. Lutz, The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (March 1984), 189-197.

[4] See Training Manual 2000-25, Citizenship, November 30, 1928.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.pdf

[5] Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

[6] Ibid.

[7] See for example, Ken Buck, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse Than You Think, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2017).