The Divide Is Not Political: It Is Between Good and Evil

 by

Gadfly

           Presidential election day is three days away.  Millions have already voted.  Nearly half favor President Trump.  Nearly half favor former Vice President Biden.  Somewhere between 10 to 12% are undecided voters. Americans (and the rest of the world) wait with great anticipation for the outcome.

           The contest has typically been described as a political divide.  One side favors conservative (previously called classical liberalism) values:  individualism freedom, private property, limited government, free markets, ground in Judeo-Christian traditions.  The other side favors progressive (modern liberalism and socialism) values:  collective freedom, less emphasis on private property, a powerful central government, a command economy (with far more government control through regulatory regimes), grounded in a secular-humanist (strongly undergirded by Marxism) religion (atheistic in its manifestation).  In the end, it is the religious component that speaks far more loudly about the divide.

           The left’s pro-choice position is the most potent religious toxin of all the left’s values.  It justifies murder of an innocent child in its mother’s womb, or in some states, immediately after a live birth.  Such depravity!  The protective instinct in a loving mother’s moral fiber has no limit.  I saw it in my own wife and the extent she disregarded her own safety and comfort for the wellbeing of her children (and now grandchildren).

           The left’s code of social justice requires relegating individuals to a tribal existence in identity groups.  The dynamic has nothing to do with justice.  It is all about exercising power by political elite.  Members of these identity groups are mere pawns for the selfish exploitation by their political masters.  Manning Johnson discovered this and wrote about it in his 1958 book, Color, Communism, and Common Sense (available online here).

Manning Johnson, Circa 1958

           Identity group tribalism, and its corresponding politically correct code, did not just happen.  It manifests the outcome of at least three generations of an educational system deliberately controlled by John Dewey-inspired progressive education that is closely aligned with the political philosophy of Karl Marx.  Rod Dreher, in his recently released book, Live Not by Lies:  A Manual for Christian Dissidents, writes about the pre-totalitarian conditions in America through interviews with former residents (and survivors) of communist and fascist nations.  Here is one sobering story about a family in a Soviet Bloc nation:

“My father was the pastor of our congregation.  All sorts of pressure was put on him,” [Yuri] Sipko recalls.  “When I was a child, all I knew was that I wanted to be like my father.  I saw that he was able to stand alone, with dignity and courage, against all his enemies.”

When Yuri was still a boy, the Soviets sent his father to prison for five years for preaching.  His mother, along with several other women in the congregation, was left alone to raise the children.  These mothers read the Bible to the kids, prayed with them, wept with them, and taught their little ones what to live for.

One day, Yuri’s teacher called his mother to the school for a conference.  The teacher was angry because the child refused to accept the state-mandated lessons in atheism and materialism.  Yuri’s teacher demanded to know what kind of cult Mrs. Sipko belonged to and why they taught children such nonsense.  The boy watched his mother, whose husband was in prison for his faith, to see how she would react to this dressing-down by an authority figure.

“She got out her Bible and began to read,” he remembers, smiling.  “It makes me so happy to think about it.  The teacher called me to her and said, ‘This is our boy.  He’s learning our lessons.’  But under the protection of my mother, I found the courage to say, ‘No, I believe in God.’  It was a fiasco for the teacher” (pp. 146-147).

As I read this passage, I recalled Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village. The overarching theme was a blatant profession of similar Marxist ideology.

The danger today is that ideology cuts across political and religious boundaries.  The left wants us to believe that politics and religion are mutually exclusive domains.  Yet, both domains are all about values that guide and shape our thoughts and actions.  The difference is the epistemology (worldview) that shapes and justifies the values.  This is why America’s divide is between good and evil.

The left does not subscribe to the ideals in our Declaration of Independence.  They do not believe God made all of us equal, with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This is where the atheistic power elite enter and command our lives to make all people equal, such as brutal lockdowns, the fear-inducing mandates to wear masks, the redistribution of wealth, or the disenfranchisement of white men because Marxists advance their absurd critical race theory, among many other examples.  To further demonstrate its power over life itself, the state justifies the murder of innocent children when consensual sexual activity results in an unintended and unwanted pregnancy.  Is this no less barbarian than the millions of lives taken by Nazis based on identity politics and Communist nations based on ideological dissidence?

To make matters worse, even the current Catholic Pope appears to align ideologically with the left with its climate pseudoscience, socialist promises, and assault on the sanctity of traditional families.  For the sake of the Catholic Church and for the preservation of political conservatism (classical liberalism), one living Archbishop, who now is in hiding, courageously speaks out for truth.

Archbishop Viganò understands who Donald Trump is and that for which he stands.  He has written to President Trump before around the time Trump was criticized by the left for his walk across Lafayette Square to hold a Bible in front of a church vandalized by protestors (Black Lives Matter and Antifa).

This week, Archbishop Viganò issued another open letter to President Trump.  He clearly sees what is happening to America and the rest of the world.  It truly is a contest between good and evil. 

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.