Purification

by

Gadfly

           Democrats are leading the campaign to purify America of its sin of slavery.  They support the removal of confederate statues and renaming military bases currently bearing names of confederate military leaders.  Speaker of the House Pelosi has even removed three portraits of former Speakers of the House who were members of Confederate States.

           As part of the Democrat campaign, is it not ironic that in one of their publicity stunts, Pelosi and fellow Democrats took a knee in the Nation’s Capitol while wearing the Ghana Kente cloth?  Affluent Ghanaians were influential in selling their fellow countrymen in the European slave trade.  Was it not hypocritical for Democrats to be associated with a symbol of a people that advanced and profited from slavery?  As an example of the leftist cabal on advancing the progressive Democrat narrative, see this twisted and convoluted explanation by PolitiFact who has partnered with Facebook to filter (censor) information that is contrary to their ideology.

Where will the campaign end?  If allowed to run its full course, it will require eradicating our current political system of the Democrat Party and any visible historical symbols of the Democrat Party throughout America’s history—to include the portrait of Nancy Pelosi.

 

           Does this assertion sound bizarre?

           Think about it.  As an institution, slavery required political justification.  This involved not only Democrats from Confederate States but support from Democrats in Northern States as well.  The institution of slavery was the reason the Republican Party was formed.  Lincoln and fellow Republicans abhorred slavery so much, they were willing to sacrifice well over 600,000 Americans at the altar of accountability and justice.

           Despite the sacrifice of nearly 10% of America’s population at the time and the legal termination of the institution of slavery, Democrats resisted post-Civil War efforts to fully integrate former slaves and all blacks into America’s Republic.  The KKK and Jim Crow laws were Democrat creations.  Today’s Democrat-backed KKK is Antifa and other well-funded organizations set on instituting a new form of political slavery—complete acquiescence to the progressive Democrat Party.

           The long, overdue “conversation on racism,” if engaged by reasoned minds, will shine a light on the modern slavery that currently exists in America (the welfare state and the inner-city plantations).  Starting with education, Democrats have controlled the education of Americans that has been very successful in indoctrinating at least two generations of progressives (Marxist socialists in disguise), who see the world through a normative lens.

 

What does a “normative lens” mean?  Progressives see the world the way it ought to be and set out to make it so: safe from climate change and the immoral beliefs of anyone who is not a progressive Democrat through militant social justice warriors.  As America’s intelligentsia, they have a moral obligation to create other ordinary Americans in their image.

           Does this claim also sound bizarre?

           Perhaps, arguably, as the central organizing personality in this progressive movement, former President Obama (who miraculously survived “systemic racism”[1] to serve two full terms as President of the United States of America) admitted his “intelligentsia” proclivity on March 25, 2018 at a conference in Japan (part of an Asia-Pacific trip that also included stops in Singapore, New Zealand and Australia—strong evidence of a globalist perspective).  He was candid about his intellectual and moral superiority when he said (quoting from CNN):

"After I left office, what I realized is that the Obama Foundation could potentially create a platform for young, up-and-coming leaders, both in the United States and all around the world to come together, meet together, create a digital platform where they could exchange information," Obama said.

"If I could do that effectively, then I would create a hundred, or a thousand, or a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas," he added (my bold italics).

           Obama’s body language speaks volumes about his intellectual and moral superiority as in this photograph from a CNN article:

In comparing Obama to Russia’s V. I. Lenin in my article, “Socialist Infiltration of America,” I said:

 

Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod who tailored Marxism for the Russian people.  That is why we still refer to Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in Russia, the former Soviet Union, and in China (even today).  Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx.

           Today, Democrats, who embrace progressivism and its Marxist philosophy, sacrifice a formerly liberal[2] America to the altar of racism.  Moreover, Democrats and their progressive demagogues are creating racism (anti-white, anti-cop, anti-anything that is not “Black Lives Matter”) in their alleged campaign to eliminate racism.  This is very consistent with “Leninthink.”  Orwell understood this so well that his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, painted a reality we see playing out on our television screens.  Walter Cronkite predicted how this might turn out in a 1983 preface to an edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four:

If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages.

Orwell drew upon the technology (and perhaps some of the science fiction) of the day in drawing his picture of 1984.  But it was not a work of science fiction he was writing.  It was a novelistic essay on power, how it is acquired and maintained, how those who seek it or seek to keep it tend to sacrifice anything and everything in its name.

1984 is an anguished lament and a warning that we may not be strong enough nor wise enough nor moral enough to cope with the kind of power we have learned to amass.  That warning vibrates powerfully when we allow ourselves to sit still and think carefully about orbiting satellites that can read the license plates in a parking lot and computers that can tap into thousands of telephone calls and telex transmissions at once and computers that can do our banking and purchasing, can watch the house and tell a monitoring station what television program we are watching and how many people there are in the room.  We think of Orwell when we read of scientists who believe they have located in the human brain the seats of behavioral emotions like aggression, or learn more about the vast potential of genetic engineering.

And we hear echoes of that warning chord in the constant demand for greater security and comfort, for less risk in our societies.  We recognize, however dimly, that greater efficiency, ease, and security may come at a substantial price in freedom, that law and order can be a doublethink version of oppression, that individual liberties surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost.

Critics and scholars may argue quite legitimately about the particular literary merits of 1984.  But none can deny its power, its hold on the imaginations of whole generations, nor the power of its admonitions . . . a power that seems to grow rather than lessen with the passage of time.  It has been said that 1984 fails as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning—Orwell’s terrible vision has been averted.  Well, that kind of self-congratulation is, to say the least, premature.  1984 may not arrive on time, but there’s always 1985.

Still, the warning has been effective; and every time we use one of those catch phrases . . . recognize Big Brother in someone, see a 1984 in our future . . . notice something Orwellian . . . we are listening to that warning again (my bold italics).

Fellow Americans, we are well beyond a warning.  The dangers of Nineteen Eighty-Four are here.  Prayer may inspire us for strength and courage that are so necessary in confronting it.  Prayer is badly needed to notice something Orwellian and to fight it with all our strength. Let us purify ourselves against the rot (evil) that has infected our society.

---

[1] The new Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force also somehow survived systemic racism.  Frederick Douglass survived actual slavery and systemic racism, but rose above these conditions to be a staunch advocate for Americanism.  America’s potential for transcendence is inhibited by today’s comforted bigots (or Copernican Drones) who advance the notion of systemic racism for political power.

[2] Liberal implies a belief in liberalism.  Wikipedia presents a fairly accurate description of the values of liberalism.  “Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.”  Liberals among America’s Founders also believed in natural rights—the inalienable rights of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  As the political philosopher and former atheist Gerhardt Niemeyer has argued, natural rights is a critical concept in understanding political and social order and can only be understood within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It Can Happen Here

by

Gadfly

           A close friend sent to me a book review by Cass Sunstein, published in The New York Times.  The title of the review was, “It Can Happen Here.”  The implication of the article is that President Trump is like Hitler in his authoritarian tendencies.

Sunstein’s review includes books by other authors from a personal, “lived experience” perspective.  In my opinion (based on years of research), whether deliberate or accidental, presentations such as Sunstein's distract from a more sinister development in America.  He writes well and his arguments are compelling in an ideographic sense—that is, plausible analysis of a phenomenon within a very narrow scope.  In this case, the scope is a set of memoirs of ordinary people who lived during the rise and reign of Hitler.  These arguments become incidental, merely anecdotal, and diminished from a nomothetic perspective—that is, an understanding of a phenomenon within a much broader context.  In the more comprehensive nomothetic case, it is important to understand the conditions that enabled Hitler’s rise to power.

Simply put, the conditions that enabled the Hitler phenomenon were quite apparent.  First, Germany was a democracy.  Democracies allow for the manifestation of mob behavior and natural transition to socialism (and eventually the more extreme fascist form of national socialism).  Second, the signatory nations of the Versailles Treaty isolated, alienated, and shamed the German population.  Third, economic conditions agitated the population.  The population was ready for hope and change, and Hitler promised it.  He rose to power democratically.  Hitler and the German population sought reparations—that is, payback.  In other words, German lives mattered.  The Nazis and the SS were a minority of the overall population, they controlled the public narrative and the political agenda, not unlike what we see playing out in America.  A major difference of note:  Germany and Poland have not torn down residual physical remains of concentration camps.  To the contrary, they keep them to remember important lessons from history.

  

My friend is a decent and honorable man, and certainly not an outlier in the population of concerned Americans.  I have read many opinion pieces with similar implications advanced by Sunstein, even a booklet by Yale historian Timothy Snyder:  On Tyranny:  Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.  These authors seek evidence to support their belief that Trump is an authoritarian.  Yet, the evidence is normative in that what they present are unwarranted assertions about what they want to believe.  For example, in Sunstein’s review, he states:

If the president of the United States is constantly lying, complaining that the independent press is responsible for fake news, calling for the withdrawal of licenses from television networks, publicly demanding jail sentences for political opponents, undermining the authority of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, magnifying social divisions, delegitimizing critics as “crooked” or “failing,” and even refusing, in violation of the law, to protect young children against the risks associated with lead paint—well, it’s not fascism, but the United States has not seen anything like it before.

           Let us unpack this statement.

 

Constantly lying.  The left has been constant in their accusation that President Trump lies.  Sunstein provides no examples.  No need to.  If the left says it enough, it becomes true (Germany’s Goebbels was fully aware of this maxim).

 

There is no doubt that Trump exaggerates and says bold things, but this does not rise to the level of lies.  Trump may truly believe the things he says, even if they turn out not to be true.  We often hear politicians say, “I misspoke,” even when they lie.

 

Did President Obama lie when he repeatedly told the public, “you can keep your doctor” or that families would save $2,500 a year in health care premiums?  Now we know from Jonathon Gruber and Ben Rhodes that the Obama Administration deliberately lied to advance its agenda—in particular, Obamacare and the Iran Nuclear Deal, respectively.

    

Independent press is responsible for fake news.  Does any reasonable person believe the press is independent?  The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world and a leftist progressive.  The New York Times fired an editor for allowing Senator Cotton’s op-ed to be published.  Except for Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and a handful of radio programs and other digital news sources, the mainstream media is leftist, progressive, and anti-Trump.  ABC’s Nightly News with David Muir has yet to cover any of the news related to exculpatory evidence in the Lieutenant General Michael Flynn case or the dozens of Congressman Schiff’s committee transcripts finally made public.

Calling for the withdrawal of licenses from television networks.  This was mere frustrated rhetoric.  No licenses were withdrawn.  Yet, under the Obama Administration, there was an attempt to place government monitors in news rooms.  This would have put a real damper on an independent press.

        

Publicly demanding jail sentences for political opponents.  This is true.  One individual who was singled out was Hillary Clinton.  The “exoneration” effort by FBI Director Comey was a gross violation of our legal system.  Comey not only delineated federal crimes committed, he circumvented the normal process for prosecuting them.  As Comey, Clinton, and others like to repeat, “no one is above the law,” unless you are a member of the political left.  How many prosecutions of criminals who happen to be political opponents have taken place under the Trump Administration?  Zero . . . so far.  Meanwhile, Obama holdovers have viciously prosecuted Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and several others who happened to be political operatives with the Trump campaign.

The Obama Administration put journalists under surveillance and censored conservative groups using the IRS.  The Obama Administration spied on the Trump campaign and orchestrated a silent coup through the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane operation, transitioned to the Mueller investigation, and then an impeachment.

    

Undermining the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  It was the senior leaders of the DOJ and FBI that undermined President Trump’s authority. DOJ’s Yates issued a directive to DOJ officials not to enforce one of President Trump’s Executive Orders (a federal judge later placed an injunction on the Order and the Supreme Court ruled the Order constitutional); Rosenstein appointed Mueller as the Special Prosecutor and illegally authorized FISA warrants; and Ohr violated department protocols in advancing the fallacious Steele Dossier.  They were not loyal to the Office of the President; more accurately, they were seditious.  The FBI’s Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page, and others were actively involved in illegally delegitimizing President Trump, but worse, targeting Trump’s political circle for manipulated prosecutions.  Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and other socialist leaders knew how to silence political opposition.  Yes, it can happen here—it already has.

Magnifying social divisions. Calling people racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, and so forth does not make them so.  It is the left that magnifies and celebrates social division with its emphasis on diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.

Delegitimizing critics as “crooked” or “failing.”  If anyone is criticized based on false or fabricated information, then what is an appropriate response?  After millions of taxpayer funding spent over two years of the Mueller investigation and the extraordinary partisan impeachment fiasco, it is understandable that President Trump would consider these efforts to be crooked and failures.

Even refusing, in violation of the law, to protect young children against the risks associated with lead paint.  This allegation was good for generating political capital for the left’s agenda.  However, the same news sources advancing this narrative have not reported Trump Administration efforts to the contrary.

Sunstein and his like-minded cohort may not realize that they are members of America's intelligentsia.  The word “intelligentsia” originated in Russia about the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.  It describes an educated group that feels superior in its theories about progress and an imagined future utopia.  Their intentions are noble within the context of their self-proclaimed moral superiority.  They represent an echo chamber that is socially and politically isolated from the general population they seek to control.

    

           Ironically, the title of Sunstein’s article was inspired by Sinclair Lewis’s novel, It Can’t Happen Here.

 

Lewis’s wife was a journalist who followed Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.  So, Lewis wrote about the possibility taking place in America.  The lead character was modeled after Louisiana Governor Huey Long, a democrat, who wanted to defeat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential primary.  Long did not think FDR’s policies were left (socialist) enough.  Here is a sample of Long’s Share the Wealth movement and political agenda.  Sound familiar?

The left complains that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  This would have sufficed in a democracy.  America is still a republic (founded as such because America’s Founders feared the extreme manifestations of democracy)—unless and until sufficiently destroyed by the left’s current deliberate and well-funded mobocracy.  That is why the Electoral College still determines the winner, to prevent large, government-centric metropolitan areas from dominating rural areas.

 

The fact that Trump advances a political agenda that is contrary to the left’s is a matter of values (i.e., personal liberty and responsibility, self-governance through a Constitutional Republic, truth and justice, religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal protection and due process, etc.) reflected by the political faction that supported his election.  Trump believes in personal responsibility and a government that protects individual rights, not a government that compels individuals to assimilate into a collective group (e.g., political identity groups) subsidized by the government.

 

In 2016, the Trump and Clinton campaign slogans said a lot: “Make America Great Again” (for all Americans) versus “I’m with Her” (appealing to one political faction).  This Trump campaign video (you will not find this on YouTube; and Facebook and Twitter will not allow it to be “shared”) was candid about the political landscape and his intent to preserve America’s republic.  One of his important arguments was about corporatism and the unholy alliance between large corporations and the media—one of the central features of fascism in Germany and Italy).  Clinton’s slogan and comprehensive litany of policy proposals spoke to an authoritarian perspective.

 

Trump’s message appeals to hard working, law abiding citizens.  The left’s message appeals to the power elite and those looking for government-provided (taxpayer funded) free lunches.

 

While Trump’s approach and language may be out of the ordinary, they are an attempt to restore republican statesmanship to an environment infested by democratically-corrupt politicians, from the deceitful to the feckless.  With eyes wide open, Trump does not bring an olive branch to a knife fight.  As Teddy Roosevelt understood in his day, Trump has fully embraced his duty as the man in the arena:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

What Is a Domestic Enemy?

by

Gadfly

           On June 11, 2020, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, apologized for accompanying his Commander-in-Chief for an important signal in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.  President Trump appears to have shrugged it off.

           I reflected on a couple of experiences that risked being political and showing disloyalty.  The first was a top three meeting (master sergeants, senior master sergeants, and chief master sergeants) at an Air Force wing.  About 80 were present.  One chief master sergeant stood up and said, “Colonel, it’s not fair that the commander-in-chief can participate in sexual harassment and lie to our Nation without being held accountable.”  My response was, “Accountability for the President is a matter for the ballot box.  We know what our ‘zero tolerance’ standards are.  We all set an example for others by enforcing them.”  The question spoke to a political matter, and I did not step into the trap.

           On another occasion, while teaching as the head of the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at a university, one of my students (a cadet) asked for my view on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  I responded that “it was a good question.  As I stand here before you in uniform, I support the Department of Defense policy.”  The student pressed, “But, Sir.  What is your personal view?”  I told him that it would be inappropriate for me to offer my personal view, but encouraged the students to spend a few minutes debating it.  I wanted to emphasize the importance of being apolitical and loyal to the institution, even when you might disagree on some matters.

   

Thus, trying to understand Milley’s rationale for the apology made me realize that he may not know what a domestic enemy is.

Here is how (transcript here; infamous clip here) the General expressed his apology in front of colonels graduating from the National Defense University (bold, italics are mine to address in subsequent commentary):

Equality and opportunity is a matter of readiness. It’s the basis of cohesion. We fight wars as teams, and we cannot tolerate anything that divides us. Let me conclude with two simple pieces of advice, based on 40 years in uniform, that you may find useful as many of you will surely go on to be flag officers. First, always maintain a keen sense of situational awareness. As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched, and I am not immune. As many of you saw the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week, that sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society. I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I’ve learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it.

           Equality and opportunity are political euphemisms.  An Army private is not equal to a corporal, let alone a four-star general. Access to opportunity is subject to many variables and factors and is dependent upon the motivation of each individual to be prepared to benefit from opportunities when they present themselves. For members of the profession of arms, professional competence and loyalty are far more critical.  We expect these individuals to meet or exceed these standards; and if they do not, we discharge them.  Our profession is existential.  There is no room for pandering or coddling.  I will address loyalty later in the article.

           [W]e cannot tolerate anything that divides us.  The protests, looting, and rioting are fully intended to divide us.  So, for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say what he did, speaks volumes about his critical lack of situational awareness.

           Lafayette Square (also known as President’s Park, Washington, D.C) was on the way to St. John’s Episcopal Church, (often called the Church of the Presidents).  President Trump wanted to do two things during this event.  First, as President of the United States of America, he wanted to demonstrate that our Nation is still based on the rule of law, such that he could openly walk across Lafayette Square (President’s Park) to a site (the Church of the Presidents) that had been vandalized by the “so called peaceful protestors.”

Trump’s second objective was to send a signal (far more than a photo op) that First Amendment rights do not justify violating sacred values through physical destruction of churches.  “Fire-bombing,” “torching,” or “setting on fire”— language advanced by the media downplayed the fact that “peaceful protestors” do not deliberately vandalize property, let alone sacred property.

 

Yet, Milley emphasized during his speech:

 

The freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution allow people to demand change just as the peaceful protesters are doing all across the country. That is why we serve in the military. On day one, you and I, we all, we all swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

           Peaceful protestors?  Is Milley unaware of the millions, perhaps billions now, in damage being incurred across the nation?  Is he unaware that anarchists have seized and now occupy territory in Seattle?  As these “peaceful protestors” take down or destroy historical monuments, is he unaware that a statue of Lenin (responsible for tremendous brutality—see my article “Where to Begin”) still occupies a safe space in Seattle?

           Swore an oath.  Milley did not include that we support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

           Milley also said the following:

We who were the cloth of our nation come from the people of our nation. And we must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic. . . .. And my second piece of advice is very simple. Embrace the Constitution, keep it close to your heart. It is our North Star. It’s our map to a better future. Though we are not a perfect union, believe in the United States, believe in our country, believe in your troops. And believe in our purpose. Few other nations have been able to change for the greater good. And that is because of the rights and values embedded in our Constitution.

         [W]e must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military.  I completely agree.  What does this mean?  It means loyalty (in addition to professional competence) to the commander-in-chief, regardless of political party.  It also means avoiding getting entangled in political issues.  When the military, such as Service Academies, impose on their cadets and midshipmen to engage in “conversations” about social or political matters, it becomes VERY political.  It is very difficult to encourage open minds when the thrust and tone of such “conversations” reflect a monolithic “political” view.  Right now, the monolithic view is progressivism, Milley’s map to a better future, based on the power elite’s North Star.

           President Trump also believes in the Constitution and the essence of our republic.  President Trump subscribes to natural rights grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition.  This is what made America great and it reflects his political agenda.  A republic is the golden mean between two extreme forms of government:  autocracy and democracy.  The protests, looting, and rioting are a manifestation of democracy.  If unchecked by the tools and institutions of a republic, the democracy will give birth to a tyrannical autocracy.  In his commencement speech, among the lessons being taught, Milley failed to instruct a fundamental principle of our Constitutional Republic:  Trump is the politically elected commander-in-chief to which our military pledges its apolitical loyalty.

[B]ecause of the rights and values embedded in our Constitution.  The rights embedded in our Constitution are natural rights—equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Bill of rights expand upon these rights.  Other rights, such as civil rights, are statutory and have emerged overtime, typically recognizing factions that characterize a democracy, which weakens the golden mean of a republic.  In essence, our governments have usurped the sovereign people by creating an administrative state that has become repressive over time.

          Political philosopher, David Easton, defined politics “as the authoritative allocation of values.”  “Authoritative allocation” implies political power.  President Trump was elected to carry out his political agenda, which reflects Constitutional Republic values.  These values are not congruent with the left’s.  Instead of finding ways to advance their agenda in peaceful ways, the left distorts the truth and pursues lawfare ways (costly litigation and activist judges) of punishing those with different values.

           Embrace the Constitution.  Members of the profession of arms (as well as government officials) swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  In his commencement speech, Milley spent less than three minutes on the foreign threat and more than 10 minutes on domestic matters.  By balancing his speech the way he did, Milley delved into politics.  Not once in the speech, nor in any other public statements, did he mention the “domestic enemy” of the Constitution.  The domestic enemy is on full display and his “situational awareness” fails to see it.  Today, the left—progressives, democrats, the Communist Party USA and various communist front organizations (Organizing for Action, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Sunrise Movement, and so forth —is fully committed to “fundamentally transforming America.”

          

Milley’s walk with the President was an opportunity to acknowledge this awareness and to send a strong signal to our military force that we are fully prepared to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Perhaps Milley has since had an epiphany and now understands the seriousness of this existential moment in our journey through history.  I hope so.  We all make mistakes and err in judgment.  Yet, when called upon to exercise courageous leadership in a critical situation, we must be worthy to make the right decisions.     

The Power Elite

by

Gadfly

       During my Doctor of Philosophy course work, I discovered the writing of C. Wright Mills, a Columbia University sociology professor.  One of his books was The Power Elite, published in 1956.  According to Mills, the "power elite" are those that occupy the dominant positions in the dominant institutions--military, economic and political.  Their decisions have enormous consequences, nationally and globally (this explains why we hear about globalists—Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc. in the public narrative).  The evolving institutions (e.g., succeeding weaker predecessors), which they head are a triumvirate of groups -- two or three hundred giant corporations, a strong federal political order that "now enters into each and every cranny of the social structure," and the military establishment.

Importantly, Mills explains that the elite themselves may not see their elite status, "often they are uncertain about their roles" and "without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be ... The Onecide" (e.g., on the right side of ideology; thus, they tend to be intolerant of other views and values).  Mills sees them as a quasi-hereditary caste, often entering into positions of societal prominence through educations obtained at eastern establishment universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, and to a certain extent the older Service Academies of West Point and Annapolis (examine the resumes or biographies of Cabinet officials, the judiciary, and Congress; you will find Mills’ assessment is on target).  In this manner, the mantle of the elite generally passes through families.

According to Mills, the resulting elites can be generally grouped into one of six types (quoted from Wikipedia):

·        the "Metropolitan 400": members of historically notable local families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register

·        "Celebrities": prominent entertainers and media personalities

·        the "Chief Executives": presidents and CEOs of the most important companies within each industrial sector

·        the "Corporate Rich": major landowners and corporate shareholders

·        the "Warlords": senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff

·        the "Political Directorate": "fifty-odd men of the executive branch" of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats

       One of the motivations for Mills’ book, The Power Elite,  was Franz Leopold Neumann's book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942.  Neumann explained how a democratic state like Germany provided the conditions for Nazism.  Mills claimed that Behemoth had given him the "tools to grasp and analyze the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy."  This should explain why America is in turmoil today—the left’s push for democracy has provided similar conditions for the chaos and turmoil preceding socialism (and the violent tension between the communists and fascists) in Germany.

       The Power Elite received significant criticism, not surprisingly from members of the various “power elite” institutions.   Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. said, "I look forward to the time when Mr. Mills hands back his prophet's robes and settles down to being a sociologist again,” cited in a New York Times essay, “The Deciders,” by John H. Summers, May 14, 2006.

 

Summers went on to say:

The historical value of "The Power Elite" seems assured. It was the first book to offer a serious model of power that accounted for the secretive agencies of national security. . . ..

Much of "The Power Elite" was a tough-talking polemic against the "romantic pluralism" embedded in the prevailing theory of American politics. The separation of powers in the Constitution, the story went, repelled the natural tendency of power to concentrate, while political parties and voluntary societies organized the clash of interests, laying the people's representatives open to the influence of public opinion. This "theory of balance" still applied to the "middle levels of power," Mills wrote. But the society it envisioned had been eclipsed.

The two key points in Summers’ analysis relate to national security institutions and “romantic pluralism.”  Already in the 1950s, Mills saw the corruption taking place in the national security institutions of America:  The National Security Council, the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and so forth.  This corruption grew to the point that we now face a crisis in which the national security regime attempted to remove a duly elected President of the United States.  Comey, Clapper, Brennan, the generals and admirals singled out below, and a host of other members of the power elite, spied on Trump and his coterie, deceitfully pursued prosecutions, impeached the President for a fabricated crime, distorted Trump’s response to the COVID-19, induced fear in the public to shut down a booming economy, and now demonstrate the same Behemoth tactics spawned by the George Floyd folklore that are creating the necessary conditions for socialism, as in fascist Germany and a communist Russia.

 

There are credible reports (Note this link has since been removed by YouTube) that a Floyd-type incident was the basis for planning the type of rioting that took place in Minneapolis (and in other Democrat-controlled metropolitan areas).  Floyd was just a pawn in their strategic effort to “fundamentally transform America.”  Obama and his Organizing for Action enterprise play a critical role in this effort.  They have teamed up with Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Communist Party USA.

Mills’ treatment of “romantic pluralism” is what the left calls diversity and multiculturalism.  The original understanding of American pluralism was an appreciation and tolerance for different views and values that joined in a common purpose as American citizens.  Academic institutions at the time, such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were primarily focused on preparing Americans as religious clergymen and public servants.  Today, those same institutions have evolved (“succeeded weaker predecessors”) into secular humanistic elite production centers.  Their emphasis on diversity and multiculturism have nothing to do with uniting America—just the opposite.  So to hide this ideological push, the left accuses President Trump of dividing the nation.

  

When I first read The Power Elite, I rejected Mills’ arguments that included the military as one of the three “power elite” institutions.  After all, as a Service Academy graduate (the USAF Academy), I had ascended to the rank of a senior officer in this institution and considered myself a true public servant.  I still do in my role as a private citizen, patriotic to the flag, our republic, and one nation under God.  I pity those who do not.  Based on cowardly performance of National Football League celebrities who surrendered to the politically correct narrative, I may not be watching the NFL for a while.

       So, when I now read about retired generals and admirals speaking contemptuously about the President of the United States, I see why Mills wrote what he did.  Here are recent examples: generals (Mattis, see here and here; Kelly, see here, here, and here; Allen, see here and here; Powell, here, and here; and Honoré, see here) and admirals (Mullen, see here; and McRaven, see here).  There are others as well.  Do they not see what a dangerous example they set for other members of the armed forces?  One of the Articles of the UCMJ prohibits contemptuous language such as theirs.  If they gave up their military pension and rank, reverting to a private citizen, then perhaps their sacrifice would justify their impulse—but then they would have no credibility.  To use their rank to justify their credibility and message is a gross ethical violation, and potentially a criminal action (see Victor Davis Hansen’s recent article here).  Shame on them.

       These generals and admirals rebuke a duly elected President with assertions backed by no facts.  They also demonstrate their own lack of understanding of what America’s Constitutional Republic is all about.  For example, William Cummings in a USA Today article states:  “Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says that he will once again not vote for Donald Trump, calling the president's approach to politics ‘dangerous for our democracy’ and asserting that Trump has ‘drifted away" from the Constitution.’”

 

A properly educated American would know that our Framers feared the extremism of democracy and the extremism of autocracy (see Federalist Papers 10, 14, 26, and 63).  A republic was the “golden mean” between the extremes of autocracy and democracy.  This understanding helped make America the most unified, peaceful, and prosperous nation in the history of the world, at least until the Progressive Era when Americans drifted from the history of our founding and the power elite pushed for democracy.

 

In Powell’s defense, Americans are no longer being taught these distinctions because the left controls education (as mandated by Marx and Engels in their 1848 Communist Manifesto), and they push for democracy while celebrating diversity, multiculturalism, and new norms that violate the Judeo-Christian tradition; all of which divide our nation.  They believe the majority rules, even if it is only perceived thanks to the media’s amplification of a minority voice (as in the very public protesting and rioting we keep watching on the news).  This is the fruit of democracy:  mobocracy.

       The danger at this critical point in our history is that polling and voting tend to follow public sentiment.  Public sentiment is shaped by the media, Hollywood, and academia.  All are far left of center.

       For over three and a half years, President Trump has been viciously attacked by the left.  His political agenda is consistent with the fundamental concept of a republic, which is intended to constrain autocratic and democratic impulses and passions.  His agenda is a threat to the left’s design to fundamentally transform America.

Soviet, Chinese, and American communists have been hard at work to influence the ideological leanings of America’s media, Hollywood, and academia.  While there is a growing body of literature to confirm this assertion, this interview by Soviet KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, provides an explanation about who is behind the George Floyd riots.  The left is working overtime to produce Soviet- and Chinese-style propaganda such as this recent article by Adam Serwer in The Atlantic Magazine.  Despite outright falsehoods, Serwer somehow believes it is expected not to be nice (more so hateful) to people who are not part of your ideology.

       An Italian Archbishop, Carlo Maria Viganò, who has courageously addressed corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, understands President Trump’s motivations, agenda, and dilemma.  He calls out a fellow American Archbishop, who criticized President Trump for his visit to and photo op at the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II.  Viganò reminded the Archbishop and other clergymen and citizens that we are experiencing a battle between the children of light and children of darkness.  See his recent letter to the President here.  Bravo for his courageous letter.

       The generals and admirals were trained to fight enemies of our Constitutional Republic and American way of life.  Yet, they align themselves with the children of darkness who strive to destroy the American way of life.  Archbishop Viganò clearly sees this and knows the children of light have truth and prayer for their weapons.  

       The generals and admirals likely were honorable men at earlier times in their lives.  Perhaps there is hope for a return to those times.  As Mills pondered, “elite themselves may not see their elite status, ‘often they are uncertain about their roles’ and ‘without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be ... The Onecide.’” Until then, shame on them.