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).

Evidence of an Administrative State

IM:  Gadfly, what are your thoughts about the recent Planned Parenthood revelations?

Old Gadfly:  You are referring to the harvesting of fetal tissue?

IM:  Yes.

Old Gadfly:  Interestingly, those who support abortion frame the issue in terms of the means by which this practice was revealed, and find that part immoral.  So they attack the messenger and not the message.  Many of these same people have no issue with Harry Reid accusing Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years and then recently publicly acknowledging it was a false statement from the outset.  His response to a reporter was “Romney lost didn’t he?”  Where is the outrage for blatant dishonesty?  But, I digress.  This current debate is really about unalienable rights—one party believes the unalienable right to life came from God.  The secular humanists, however, believe the administrative state has the superior authority to grant the unalienable right to abort a life— the Supreme Court institutionalized this unalienable right in the Roe versus Wade ruling in 1973 and now the administrative state funds the largest abortion producing institution, Planned Parenthood, with around $500 million annually.  

IM:  Joy Overbeck wrote an interesting column along these lines, singling out Hillary Clinton and her perspective on this subject.  What many good Americans do not comprehend is the very deliberate machinations taking place to secure political power.  By eliminating or diminishing God, the administrative state becomes the ultimate moral authority.  This is exactly what has happened in totalitarian nations that embraced fascism (Germany and Italy) and Communism (the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea).

AM:  Yet, I must say Planned Parenthood does have an attractive leader at the helm.

Old Gadfly:  I offer two comments in response.  First, the leader is paid over $590,000 per year in salary and benefits for a 35 hour work week (according their most recent IRS Form 990 report).  Second, Hannah Arendt might have something to say about the “banality of evil” when associating apparent attractiveness with the insidious evil taking place under the leader’s command.[1] 

IM:  This conversation motivates me to reread Jonah Goldberg’s, Liberal Fascism.  And, as I recall, one of our discussions about deliberate engineering of public sentiment was based on clearly establishing indentured classes—women being one of them.

Old Gadfly:  Sadly, too many within these indentured classes believe the progressive rhetoric and acquiesce to being human instruments in the elite, central planner cause to achieve and to maintain political power.  As C.S. Lewis astutely observed in his book, The Abolition of Man, the conditioners are relatively successful in conditioning those who become the conditioned.  Even before Lewis, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book, Democracy in America, warned of the “soft tyranny” that would evolve when people vote for “government-provided entitlements.”  Politicians and government administrators would then abuse this dynamic.  Lacking this understanding, Americans will become, in Tocqueville’s prophecy, “a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

AM:  To accelerate a move toward a timid flock, progressives must attack those who seek the truth.

IM:  AM, that is a very sobering observation:  “progressives must attack those who seek the truth.”  We have discussed numerous times Hayek’s observations about the end of truth:  that it is not tolerable to disagree with elite, central planning values; that each individual must internalize those values to the point where he or she spontaneously reacts to any opposition.[2]

AM:  Exactly.  Four U.S. Representatives, all Democrat (Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke) have thus reacted and asked the U.S. and California Attorneys General to open a criminal investigation against the Center for Medical Progress, which collected the Planned Parenthood video footage.

Old Gadfly:  We have previously discussed how controlling the narrative is critical for the progressive movement.  Manipulating language to conflate and obfuscate is an important tactic.   A university professor describes how this tactic was employed in 2006 by the State of Maryland to successfully pass legislation allowing state taxpayer funds for human embryonic stem cell research.^[3]  She emphasized the role of “clear, non-controversial terminology in debate, discussion, and potential compromise. . . . For instance, what does the term ‘embryonic’ stem cell evoke in ordinary citizens, and how can policymakers avoid images of little fingers and toes, or abortion clinics, when discussing them?”^[4]  After describing the chronological development of legislation, the professor highlighted the key changes in wording that led to successful passage:  “Throughout the bill, the words ‘human embryo’ were replaced by ‘certain material’ or ‘unused material.’”^[5]  She continued with this observation: “Proponents of stem cell research funding had to learn to use less politically sensitive terms, substituting ‘unused material’ for ‘human embryos’ when discussing donations from infertility treatments.”^[6] This is clearly an example of one ideological group—that is, the elite, central planners--manipulating language to achieve a desired outcome. Once enacted, settled law achieves momentum that makes it difficult to reverse or change course.  As my good friend, Dennis, and I discussed just yesterday, settled law, or legal precedents, are treated as unchallenged axioms, even though subsequent conditions and circumstances may be significantly different.

AM:  Are we destined, then, to be “a flock of timid and industrious animals” controlled by the administrative state?

Old Gadfly:  Not necessarily.   Americans have unwisely and unwittingly outsourced that political power to a growing administrative state.  For those Americans that possess the capacity to think for themselves, “we the people” still have inherent, political power and unalienable rights that are God-given.  I believe we still have time to restore the balance of political power.  The Article V Convention of States project (www.ConventionofStates.com) provides such a remedy, and I am fully on board with this peaceful, Constitutional solution. 

IM:  Count on me being part of the reawakening!

AM:  Count me in as well.    

---

[1] See Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York, NY:  The Penguin Group, 2006 [1963]).

[2] F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2007 [1944]), p. 171.

[3] Patricia M. Alt, “The Political Linguistics of Maryland’s Stem Cell Research Bill,” Ethics Today, Volume 8, Number 4, Summer 2006, retrieved October 7, 2011 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/aspa/unpan024115.pdf 

[4] Ibid, p. 5.

[5] Ibid, p. 11.

[6] Ibid, p. 12.

The Banality of Evil

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, yesterday morning I read an article where Bishop Tutu proclaimed, “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. . . . I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven.  No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place.”

AM:  (an American seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  I may have read the same article. Tutu was speaking in connection with the United Nations’ global campaign to advance gay rights.

IM:  Yes, and I also came across a headline, “‘Pope Francis Apologies to LGBT Youth at World Youth Day Event:’ My Prayer for the Church.”  The headline, which was imagined, and its corresponding article were written by a Catholic priest.

AM:  I think what is disappointing about the LGBT issue is that there are many who disagree with the morality of LGBT behaviors, yet still have love and compassion for those who engage in such behaviors.  Labeling these people as homophobic is disingenuous and pejorative.  But, by using such terms, there is a deliberate effort to change the values we internalize.  We talked about this in our last discussion on the end of truth. There seems to be a contest between secular and religious faith systems.

IM:  Ironically, I recently learned that an Air Force Chaplain assigned to Joint Based Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) has been censored for posting an article entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes:  Chaplains Gave All in World War II.”  Within five hours of receiving a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the base commander had the essay taken down. Remember, MRFF is headed up by Mikey Weinstein. 

AM:  What was it in the essay that offended readers?

IM:  The essay’s theme was about faith.  Before it is completely censored, here is the original essay that I was able to recover from Fox News:

Chaplain’s Corner: No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II”

By Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes

Many have heard the familiar phrase, “There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.”

Where did this come from?

Research I verified in an interview with former World War II prisoner of war Roy Bodine (my friend) indicates the phrase has been credited to Father William Cummings.

As the story goes, Father Cummings was a civilian missionary Catholic priest in the Philippines.

The phrase was coined during the Japanese attack at Corregidor.

During the siege, Cummings had noticed non-Catholics were attending his services.

Some he knew were not Catholic, some were not religious and some were even known atheists.

Life-and-death experiences prompt a reality check.

Even the strongest of beliefs can change, and, I may add, can go both ways – people can be drawn to or away from “faith.”

With the pending surrender of allied forces to the Japanese, Cummings uttered the famous phrase “There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole.”

In one of my many discussions with Roy, he distinctly remembered a period on the “Hell Ships” – these were ships the Japanese used to bring POWs from the Philippines back to Japan.

They were unmarked and thus ‘fair game’ for attacks from the allies from the air and sea.

Of the 3,000-plus POWs listed on the ships, only 180 survived the journey.

“When our own planes were attacking us,” Roy said, “I remember Father Cummings calming us down by reciting the Lord’s Prayer and offering up prayers on our behalf.

For a brief moment I did not hear the yells and screams of dying men as our boat was attacked by our own men.”

He went on to say, “There was a peaceful quiet during the attack that I cannot explain nor have experienced since.”

Later on during the trip to Japan, Cummings, after giving his food to others who needed it more, succumbed to his own need and died of starvation.

Everyone expresses some form of faith every day, whether it is religious or secular.

Some express faith by believing when they get up in the morning they will arrive at work in one piece, thankful they have been given another opportunity to enjoy the majesty of the day; or express relief the doctor’s results were negative.

The real question is, “Is it important to have faith in ‘faith’ itself or is it more important to ask, ‘What is the object of my faith?’”

Roy never affirmed or expressed whether his faith was rooted in religion or not, but for a moment in time on the “Hell Ships,” he believed in Cummings’ faith.

What is the root or object of your faith?

Is it something you can count on in times of plenty or loss; peace or chaos; joy or sorrow; success or failure?

Is it something you can count on in times of plenty or loss; peace or chaos; joy or sorrow; success or failure?

What is ‘faith’ to you?

AM:  The essay is brilliantly written.  The chaplain gave interested readers encouragement to reflect upon the source of their faith, whether religious or secular.

IM:  Yet, here are accusations from the Foundation’s letter to the JBER base commander:

·        Referring to the term “atheists” the letter claimed the essay included a “bigoted, religious supremacist phrase which defiles the dignity of service members.”

·        The letter goes on to say, “I do not have faith. Several of the 42 clients currently assigned to JBER who requested the MRFF intercede in this instance do not have faith, and they still proudly defend their country in uniform. Lt. Col. Reyes has both violated that fundamental level of respect and current Air Force regulation. As the current commander of JBER, as the officer appointed to care for the 42 service members who have reached out to us, it is your duty to see to it that this behavior is corrected. Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately reprimanded, and his 'No atheists in foxholes' article must be removed from the post website.”

Old Gadfly:  What is the definition of faith?

IM:  Let me look it up on my Smart phone . . . According to Dictionary. Reference.com,  there are five definitions in this order:  (1)  confidence or trust in a person or thing; (2)  belief that is not based on proof; (3) belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion; (4) belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.; and (5) a system of religious belief.

Old Gadfly:  I have three points to make based on these definitions.  First, a close reading of Reyes’s essay clearly reveals that he pays respect to all five definitions.  Second, notice that in the definition of faith, God and religion are listed after two other definitions.  Secularism is a form of religion.  Obama clearly wants 99% of Americans to have faith in him and his hope and change agenda.  Recall our discussion on Prog: The god of Progressivism.  Finally, the bulk of what we understand as science is based on the second definition.  For example, physics is a scientific domain.  Most of physics is based on units of time.  Can you prove time?  Of course not.  Time is considered a priori knowledge.  We infer the phenomenon of time based on abduction, a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning.  Yet, we have faith in the system of science that requires time for a meaningful understanding of the world in which we live.

AM:  So, do you think Weinstein has faith?

Old Gadfly:  Unless, we deliberately redefine what “faith” means, of course Weinstein has faith.  Unfortunately, his faith is similar to Al Sharpton’s.

AM:  Wow . . . how did Sharpton enter the picture?

Old Gadfly:  What we see playing out in Weinstein and Sharpton campaigns is opportunism, whether it is for power or greed.  Consider Sharpton’s behavior—that is, the so called Reverend Sharpton.  Without apparent racism, he has no role.  He would be like a doctor without sick people.  Is Sharpton’s behavior that different from the African tribal chief’s behavior during the era of transatlantic slave trade?  Tribal chiefs exploited the well-being of their own people to profit from the Dutch who needed cheap labor.[1]  Why would not the Reverend Sharpton be interested in eliminating the apparent causes for the adversities of blacks in America:  violence and poverty most of all?  He is an angry, irritated, and irascible man—routinely complaining, accusing, condemning.  He agitates and organizes the Saul Alinsky way.  Alinsky, another angry, irritated, and irascible man, dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer. 

IM:  Weinstein also seems opportunistic in exploiting the Zeitgeist of humanistic secularism.  This might explain why he had no interest in criticizing the openly gay Acting Secretary of the Air Force who proselytized gay behavior in Afghanistan.  It appears that proselytizing secular faith values by senior government leaders is allowed.  To add insult to injury, “hate speech” against Christian faith values is acceptable and encouraged. 

Old Gadfly:  Hannah Arendt’s account of the Eichmann trial in the 1960s captures the essence of what our discussion is about.  The subtitle of Arendt’s book about this account included the expression, the “banality of evil.”  Last year, we talked about this concept in IM’s dream involving “dry, parched lips.”  IM, see if you can find definitions for these words, banal and evil.

IM:  Dictionary.Reference.com defines banal as “devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite.”  Hackneyed means “made commonplace or trite; stale; banal.”  Trite means “lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition.”  Now, let’s see how evil is defined.  Three of the five definitions are of particular relevance to our discussion:    (1) morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked (e.g. evil deeds; and evil life); (2) harmful; injurious (e.g., evil laws); and (5) marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc. (e.g., he is known for his evil disposition).

Old Gadfly:  I wanted us to take the time to define some key words because they apply to what we see happening in the stories involving Bishop Tutu, the Catholic priest, the attack on the JBER chaplain, and the Acting Secretary of the Air Force.  Amos Elon provided a penetrating introduction to Hannah Arendt’s book, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil.  Here is a key observation:

In The Origins of Totalitarianism [Arendt] held on to a Kantian notion of radical evil, the evil that, under the Nazis, corrupted the basis of moral law, exploded legal categories, and defied human judgment.  In Eichmann in Jerusalem, and in the bitter controversies about it that followed, she insisted that only good had depth.  Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet—and this is its horror!—it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world.  Evil comes from a failure to think.  It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there.  That is the banality of evil.[2]  

Old Gadfly:  Think about the banality of evil in the stories we just discussed.  Tutu assigns privilege to a class of people, even expressing a judgment that he acknowledges might be contrary to the God in which he purports to serve.  He even uses the emotionally-charged word, “homophobia,” to diminish and disrespect the views of the non-privileged class.

AM:  Gadfly, let me interrupt you just for a quick observation.  Hayek, in his foreword to the 1956 American paperback edition to The Road to Serfdom astutely observed that true liberals tend to describe themselves as conservatives, and that there is great danger in this misunderstanding.[3]  He said, “A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of the government for the protection of privilege.”[4]  Those who fight for the privileged, whether they represent crony capitalism, labor unions, claims for reproductive rights, gay rights, same-sex marriage rights, illegal immigrant rights, minority rights, and so forth, claim to be liberal.  Progressive is probably a more precise label.

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, AM.  It clearly sharpens our analysis and understanding of the issues we're discussing.  Let’s continue.  The Catholic priest admits to being gay.  He wants to be Catholic and gay.  This is like Lucifer, who chose evil in defiance of God’s will, yet would still want to remain God’s greatest angel.  The attack on the JBER chaplain is exactly what we talked about in our last discussion about the end of truth.  The chaplain’s essay was actually very thoughtful.  Angry, irritated, and irascible people like Weinstein and Sharpton cannot allow thoughtful “examination of the premises and principles from which [evil] originates.”  Finally, the Acting Secretary of the Air Force faced no apparent pushback for secular proselytizing—his behavior is sanctioned by the religious tenets of progressivism.

AM:  Doesn’t Obama come across as angry, irritated, and irascible?

IM:  Absolutely.  In my mind, Obama’s evil disposition started with his opposition to waterboarding and NSA surveillance under the Bush Administration.  He called waterboarding torture and the NSA surveillance an encroachment upon domestic civil liberties.  Now, he speaks of “phony scandals,” trying to diminish a “thoughtful” examination of serious issues that threaten our viability as a Constitutional Republic:  the circumstances surrounding Benghazi; the IRS suppression of the Tea Party and other nonprogressive groups during national elections; Department of Justice incompetence in the Fast and Furious case, its bullying of journalists and various state players, and so forth.  If I were to write a 21^st Century American version of Orwell’s Animal Farm, it would look like today’s American progressive politics.

AM:  Yet, for a man who wanted to establish a superior moral foundation before becoming President, Obama took credit for the battlefield execution of bin Laden in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and had no moral reservation about the assassination of American citizens through drone attacks.  And, in terms of civil liberties, he insisted upon a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that gives him the authority to arrest American citizens and to detain them indefinitely without legal representation.  Combine all this with the looming impact of Obamacare and we have examples of the definitions of evil.

Old Gadfly:  Remember, banality involves a characteristic of triteness:  “lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition.”  Obama is already into his fifth year of blaming others for the economic situation and others for denying privilege to protected classes, while repetitiously boasting of stimulus policies that are improving the economy with no evidence to support such a claim.  Obama and those who thoughtlessly follow him are the very essence of the banality of evil.

IM:  When will the remaining “good” Americans wake up and speak out against the evil that is spreading like a fungus?

Old Gadfly:  How many Americans are fully aware of the tyranny of the 20^th Century?  The numbers are rapidly shrinking.  How would the growing majority be sensitive to the tyranny that is unfolding before them?  Copernican drones lack the capacity to think for themselves, let alone think for others.  History is replete with this kind of behavior. 

IM:  The wisdom literature of the Bible’s Old Testament captured a great deal of this behavior.  One of my favorites is Proverbs 26:11.

 

AM:  I remember that one:  fools return to folly.

 

Old Gadfly:  And they don’t even know it.

 

AM:  Do you mean that they are fools or that they are returning to folly?

 

Old Gadfly:  Yes.

---

[1] James A. Rawley (with Stephen Behrendt), The Transatlantic Slave Trade:  A History, (rev. ed.), (Lincoln, NE:  The University of Nebraska Press, 2009).

[2] Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem:  A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 2006 [originally published 1963), pp. xiii-xiv.

[3] Old Gadfly is grateful to his fellow critical thinker who pointed out Hayek’s privilege distinction during a breakfast meeting earlier this week.

[4] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (the definitive ed.), (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2007), pp. 45-46.