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. 

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.

Hints of Totalitarianism

by

Gadfly

           What is totalitarianism?  The Oxford dictionary defines it as “a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.  Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive description:

Totalitarianism is a political system or a form of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life.  It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.  Political power in totalitarian states has often been held by autocrats which employ all-encompassing propaganda campaigns broadcast by state-controlled mass media.

  

Examples of autocrats are V. I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-Sung, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro.


           America’s political left wants us to believe President Donald J. Trump is such an autocrat and thus a threat to America and the rest of the free world.  After all, the left (i.e., House Democrats) impeached him without a single Republican vote last night.  No crimes were listed in the charges, just abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Technically and more precisely, the obstruction was resistance to the abuse of power by the Democrat Party.  The effort was so overwhelming and compelling, by Democrat standards, that the Speaker is now considering not sending the articles of impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate unless she and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can dictate the terms for the trial.  Of course, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the majority of Republicans in the Senate do not find the Democrat case for impeachment to be enough, let alone appropriate, for exercising the power of impeachment.
  

Despite three years of investigations and propaganda by the left, they still believe “the evidence to support what they want to believe is still yet to be found.”  Like true totalitarians, they also believe only one Party should be in control.  As Douglas Hyde (author of I Believed) and other Communist Party members clearly believed, it was the company line that mattered—facts did not need to get in the way.

As most will recall, from day one, President Trump was assaulted by leaks and anonymous sources in series after series of articles critical of his personality and agenda.  This phenomenon is not unique.  It has been tried and tested by ideologues for a long time, especially Marxists.  A former member of the American Communist Party and editor of the Daily Worker, Louis Francis Budenz explained how these tactics were used in his book The Techniques of Communism, published in 1954  Here is a lengthy excerpt (for its historical significance and for the extent of ideological infiltration) from the Chapter, “The Role of the Communist Press” (Note:  Budenz’s mention of “conspiracy” refers to Communist infiltration):

There is one practice of the Communist press which must be known if we are properly to appraise what it is up to.  It is the accumulation of a series of articles around a given subject.  It is used at times in order to cover up the Communist designs in vague phraseology, these being clarified and made definite by articles which follow up on the same topic.  The Communist functionary has this constantly in mind, and of course reads all Communist material as a whole.  It is only by doing as he does that the full content of certain official directives can be intelligently studied.

When in 1936, the American Politburo decided to support Franklin D. Roosevelt for president, the announcement was not made bluntly, and most of the country did not know that this was the Communist policy.  The official Red declarations accomplished this purpose by saying a few words critical of Roosevelt and then assaulting his opponents—the Liberty League and the “Hearst-McCormick-Patterson axis”—as “Fascists” and enemies of American liberties.  In accompanying articles, both in The Communist and in the Daily Worker, rising to higher tones of stridency as the campaign went on, the denunciations became centered entirely on the president’s opponents.  In this wise, concealed Communists in all sorts of organizations did everything in their power for the election of Mr. Roosevelt, swaying hundreds of thousands to favor him.  The sole cause for this attitude was that Moscow had divined that Mr. Roosevelt would be more favorable than his opponents to saving Soviet Russia from the Hitlerite regime which the Communists had helped to create.  But, as is always the Communist custom and as the CIO committees state in their findings against Red-ruled unions, this real object of the fifth column was hidden in a welter of charges against Roosevelt’s opposition on domestic issues.

And so in 1953, the “Resolution on the Situation Growing Out of Presidential Elections,” issued by the National Committee in February and July, 1953, would be almost unintelligible were it not for the articles in Political Affairs accompanying the resolution.  Without those articles, it could be seen that the Communists (taking advantage of the Trojan Horse policy in Moscow) plan to penetrate anew the Democratic and Republican parties.  This could be understood from the conclusion that the two-party system is still strongly entrenched in the United States and that the Communists must recognize this reality.  It could be gleaned from the statements indicating that “McCarthyism” is the main menace and that “pressure” must be exercised on certain politicians to combat this danger to the conspiracy.  It could be caught sight of in the declaration that “the masses” still cling to the Democratic Party, and that the Communists must not remain aloof from “the masses.”  But the official resolution becomes more sharply understandable in reading two concurrent articles, “Labor and the Democratic Party” and “The Anatomy of McCarthyism.”  From the former I must repeat what I have quoted earlier in this chapter: “The left today in any event needs urgently to reacquaint itself with the real situation in the local and state Democratic parties (and in many areas the Republican party).”  There is also instruction for “the left forces in the CIO and AF of L (as well as in independent unions) to explore new possibilities for united labor action in the legislative and electoral field.”  All of this is for the purpose of advancing in a “pro-peace direction” (that is, in the “peace direction” which Moscow desires) and to compel large sections of the Democratic party to speak out “for an all-out struggle against McCarthy and his crowd.”

From the second contribution, we learn definitely: “The immediate and broadest rallying ground in the struggle for democratic liberties in the fight against McCarthyism.  This means the fight against Joe McCarthy the individual, against each and every McCarthyite—the Jenners, Veldes, and McCarrans—and against all manifestations of McCarthyism.”  This fight is to take place everywhere, but particularly “in the political field.”  (For an intelligent examination of this matter, consult Political Affairs for June and July, 1953.)

From these directives, it is plain that the Soviet fifth column in mid-1953 planned to penetrate the Democratic party (especially its “liberal” wing, to which definite reference is made) and also areas of the Republican party.  The objective of this penetration was to halt all effective action against the conspiracy, which is labeled “McCarthyism,” and even to punish anyone who would dare oppose the conspiracy.  How far the Communists plan to go is exemplified by an editorial in the Daily Worker of July 30, 1953, entitled: “Expel the Stool Pigeons.”  This declaration demands nothing less than the discharge from his position of any person daring to testify at Congressional inquiries or elsewhere against the Soviet fifth column.  This bears out the contention that many of those who cry out about “academic freedom” and “civil liberties” in defense of the Communists, in the majority of cases have no interest in these topics.  They are bound by their Communist viewpoint that the civil liberties of all non-Communists must be destroyed.  They are bound immediately by the Daily Worker directives that all those acting against the conspiracy must be deprived of a livelihood.

In addition to the official publications mentioned, the Communists have built up auxiliary magazines and newspapers in the United States, as they do in all other countries.  One of the best known of these in the U.S.A. is Masses and Mainstream, published for the intellectuals at the same address at which Political Affairs is published.  Another pro-Stalinite voice, with considerable influence, is Science and Society, a quarterly devoted to the Marxist interpretation of higher intellectual subjects.  A number of foreign language dailies and weeklies, issued in almost every immigrant tongue, reach out into the “language communities,” and follow the line laid down by the Daily Worker. On the West coast is issued the Peoples World, a localized edition of the Red daily organ published in New York.  The Daily Freiheit, issued in the Yiddish language, is the second largest Red organ in circulation, after the Daily Worker, and is edited and printed in the same building with that paper.

Through these many channels, the Communist Party is able to transmit Moscow’s orders in the most diversified and speediest fashion.  By the uniformity of line which is established, and the readiness with which this line goes out of the Communist press into other journals, the publications under Moscow’s control are among the most powerful in this country.  They have not yet had the effect they had hoped for among “the backward masses,” for the man in the street in this country has shown an instinctive abhorrence for the Communist cause and its line which many others, far better educated, might well have imitated. The strength of the Red press, it must be repeated, lies in moving concealed Communists and their allies to prevail upon non-Communist organizations to speak out for the Kremlin’s position at any given time (pp. 146-149).

There are three major take-aways from this excerpt.  First, unlike the recent impeachment whistleblower, Budenz relates first-hand experience.  Second, Communists clearly backed and campaigned for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who ushered in today’s monolithic administrative state (the centralization of power and its extreme control over public—i.e., the emasculation of President Trump—and private life through excessive regulatory control that Trump is working to reduce).  Third, what we know of McCarthyism is more folklore than fact, thanks in no small part to the propaganda campaign waged by American Communists in concert with Democrats.  For more on this, read M. Stanton Evans book, Blacklisted by History:  The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy.  Evans threads together substantial documentary evidence to show significant collaboration between Communists and Democrats to thwart McCarthy’s effort to prove significant Communist infiltration (conspiracy) of American institutions.  American Communists are still at work.  They thrive today, see my article The Socialist Infiltration of America.

One other take-away not obvious from the above excerpt is that, while the centralized Communist line went away with the dissolution of the Communist International in Moscow, the Marxist ideology and its organizational and communications infrastructure are still in place.  The ideology is the organizing principle, much like militant Islamism. 

As I have written elsewhere (see for example America’s Dreyfus Affair), hatred and contempt are critical features of a political movement such as America’s current progressive movement (clearly Marxist by its manifested nature).  The means are in support of achieving ultimate political power.  The left fully expected to win the American presidential election in 2016.  We are learning more and more about the immoral means used to achieve it.  Then, there was the Mueller investigation.  When that failed, the left manufactured another means—impeachment.  I suspect Comrade, correction, Speaker Pelosi never read Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism.  Arendt explained how the Dreyfus Affair signaled the hatred and contempt that contributed to the conditions for the emergence of totalitarianism.

Many Republicans and the general public (the “backward masses” Budenz cites above) have seen enough over the past three years to truly understand that what President Trump believed, with his Make America Great Again agenda, is the importance of restoring our Constitutional Republic as a critical measure to prevent totalitarian urges by the left.

            

Political Malarkey

by

Gadfly

 

           Former Vice President Joe Biden has launched his current campaign in a bus with “No Malarkey” boldly painted on its sides.  What is malarkey?  “Meaningless talk; nonsense.”  Park this thought as we process yesterday’s (December 4, 2019) Congressional malarkey with four constitutional scholars serving as instruments for their drama.

           Since Democrats are the majority, they chose to bring three scholars for testimony:  Noah Feldman, Pamela Karlan, and Michael Gerhardt.  Republicans were allowed only one, a self-proclaimed Democrat who did not vote for President Trump:  Jonathan Turley.  All three Democrat scholars spoke passionately about the justification for impeachment.  The Republican scholar dispassionately argued that there is insufficient evidence, that the current case is merely inferential from circumstantial evidence when it could be much stronger (or weaker) based on knowable facts.  Turley also cautioned against setting a dangerous precedent for justifying future impeachments regardless of the Party involved.

           Do the math.  Three scholars adamantly voted for impeachment.  One said we don’t know enough to impeach.  Three to one in favor of impeachment.  Does this look like a kangaroo court?  Similar displays were called show trials in the Joseph Stalin era.  His chief of Soviet security and secret police apparatus, Lavrentiy Beria, acted on this maxim:  “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”  Sound familiar?  For another treatment of this subject see “The Syllogism of a Political Coup.”

           Today, Speaker Pelosi committed the House to impeachment:  “Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and our heart full of love for America, today, I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment.”  “Sad?”  “With humility?”  “With allegiance to our founders?”  “Our heart full of love for America?”  Pure rhetoric does not match actual actions.  Nor does it reveal actual motivations. 

           With such an ambiguous case, following a very unjust process, why would Pelosi press forward?  There are only three ways to remove a president:  ballot box, assassination, or impeachment.  So far, polls are in Trump’s favor for election.  Attempts to assassinate Trump’s image by a complicit and mendacious press are not having the intended effect on polls.  Thus, impeachment remains the only option so far.  If political power is the goal, then impeachment is the only “no malarkey” action available.  They know the Senate is not likely to convict and then remove the President, but the scorched earth tactic is the only one left to damage the President (and the 60+ million who voted for him, which is half of America).

           Meanwhile, in their strategy to generate emotional sentiment based on a clearly scripted presentation, Democrats invoked quotes by George Washington about foreign interference.  In his Farewell Address (see here for an analysis of the Address), Washington cautioned about America’s vulnerability to foreign entanglements and domestic factions (“domestic enemies”).  Washington wanted to avoid the insidious corruption that could threaten America’s independence, liberty, and republicanism.  Ironically, while President Trump was being presidential at a NATO summit (putting NATO member nations on notice to fulfill their financial obligations), members of America’s opposing political party held a public impeachment hearing (while the cat is away, the mice will play; or how about if left to their own devices, inmates will run the prison).  A video of Canadian and European leaders making fun of President Trump went viral and was immediately exploited by no malarkey Joe Biden in political adds saying other foreign leaders laugh at our leader.

           Think about it:  A manifest fear of Washington’s is now apparent as Trump is being impeached by an opposing political party for attempting to disentangle America from a foreign entanglement, one for which he and members of his political orbit have been unjustly accused and punished by elected Democrats, members of an unelected deep state, and an unabashedly biased media.  This is a never ending America’s Dreyfus Affair. 

           As a successful businessman, President Trump knows malarkey and profit do not mix.  This is a major reason he uses Twitter in a no malarkey manner.  Moreover, as a private citizen who never previously ran for public office, Trump has not undergone the political transformation that seeks power over principle.

           George Washington was even more concerned about domestic enemies of our Republic in the form of political faction.  This concern was also emphasized in Federalist Paper Number 10, which explained the mortal disease of faction and thus the reason for a republic as opposed to a democracy.  Yet, how many times did we hear elected officials refer to America as a democracy?  Too many.

           Those engaged in the impeachment effort, especially those who summon the wisdom of Washington, demonstrate their malarkey because their actions are contrary to Washington’s caution about the insidiousness of a faction-based despotism.  Here is what Washington said:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

           How prescient was Washington?  Look at today’s political map of America and geographical discriminations are obvious:  East and West coasts versus the Midwest; urban versus rural.  Compound this distribution with the current push to eliminate the Electoral College, and we risk losing our Republic and ushering in a popular form of democracy.  As Washington cautioned, this popular form enables “the alternate domination of one faction over another” inclining “minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”  Then the “chief of some prevailing faction . . . turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”  Examples in recent history include FDR and Obama.  Building on Obama’s record, Hillary Clinton took down Bernie Sanders and attempted to do the same for her political rival, Donald Trump.

             Democrats established credibility for their case by parading three constitutional scholars in front of the camera.  None of them were “fact” witnesses.  They merely offered opinions about allegations of crimes.  Allegations are not facts.  Almost exclusively, they use accusations in the whistleblower report as the premises (or predicates) for criminal behavior, even though a close reading of the actual telephone transcript reveals a completely different picture.  They would prefer to “create the truth” (thanks to the Schiff coordinated whistleblower report) when they could easily (and disappointingly) “discover the truth” from fact witnesses, such as the whistleblower.

           The Democrat puppet handlers know that a cross examination of the whistleblower would quickly reveal the corrupt web of conspirators that are opposed to Trump’s agenda; so, they have shielded him (even though his identity has already been revealed).  Democrats be careful what you wish for:  If Trump is impeached, the Republican-controlled Senate might put on public display witness testimony that will more completely reveal the extent and depth of the deep state.  Moreover, Democrat success in the 2018 midterms counted on the pending Mueller investigation and lies about Republicans wanting to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions.  This type of deception may only work for Party affiliates already comfortable with their delusions.

           And even when they attempted to offer analogies, the constitutional scholars perpetuated false information.  For example, Feldman said “Nixon sent burglars” to the Democratic National Headquarters.  Facts contradict this allegation (a “presumed” allegation that served as a predicate for impeachment; it was a myth along with the famous “Nixon is an unindicted coconspirator”).  John Dean directed the effort without Nixon’s knowledge.  Dean then orchestrated the cover-up before offering himself up as a prosecution witness with immunity.

           Nixon had just won reelection in a huge landslide.  What would motivate him to do something illegal or unethical for personal gain?  Nixon trusted Dean and unwittingly played into his machinations.  The best source for what actually happened is in Len Colodny’s book Silent Coup:  The Removal of a President (John Dean, Bob Woodward, and The Washington Post unsuccessfully sued Colodny and St. Martin’s Press to keep the book unpublished and out of the public domain.  Colodny donated his archive of interviews and documents to Texas A&M, accessible here.)  A 1991 interview on the first release of the book is available here.  Trump has had to deal with his own corrupt staff, many of whom he inherited from the previous administration.

           Why is this important?  Trump is confronted by a political faction that is loyal to its own progressive ideology—an ideology that is not consistent with the values Trump represents.  This faction accuses Trump of abuse of power even though those who support him believe he is simply fulfilling promises made in his election campaign.  This political faction (a domestic enemy) expresses outrage when they cite President Trump making statements like, “I can do anything I want.”  What they cannot comprehend is that he makes this claim with the confidence of a voter mandate to act on his agenda while also understanding the limits of his Constitutional authority.  On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi, the “chief of her party” may not make similar statements, but clearly acts as if she can do anything she wants (like conducting foreign policy overseas), even when no Republicans support her call for impeachment.  Is she really doing this for America?  Or is she doing it for political gain?

           Americans are smart enough to see through the deception and machinations.  What do Democrats offer going into the 2020 election?  Mostly costly programs that would immensely add to our national debt and additional encroachments on individual liberty in the interest of social justice.  Yet, from a more spiritual perspective, Democrats (a) divide America through memes such as the privileged versus the oppressed, (b) promote unscientific confusion about gender, and (c) advance values (e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage) that are contrary to our Judeo-Christian tradition.  Here again, Democrats would be well-served to summon more of George Washington’s wisdom:

      Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

           Yesterday, Winthrop was mentioned a couple times for his speech about America being “the city upon a hill.”  Yet, the collective actions by her fellow Democrats do not seem to spring from the same inspiration.

           Democrats now have two “no malarkey” chiefs further dividing America.  Both are Catholic.  In Vice President Biden’s case, for advancing political policies contrary to Catholic doctrine communion was denied by a “no malarkey” South Carolina priest.  In Speaker Pelosi’s case, she chastised a reporter for suggesting she hates President Trump, explaining this is not possible because she was raised a Catholic.  Yet, she openly supports abortion and same-sex marriage—not to mention doing nothing to alleviate the poverty and homelessness in her San Francisco district.

           As a Catholic, I truly appreciate the importance of grace as the divine inspiration of the heart.  Even the Sacrament of Reconciliation is an opportunity to receive grace when reflecting upon our immoral thoughts and actions, such as, in my case, feeling despair about the left’s concerted efforts to violate everything Washington advanced in his Farewell Address.

           Under President Trump, our economy is lifting all boats big and small.  Trump’s push to deregulate removes unwanted encroachments on individual liberty.  His America first foreign policy is exactly what George Washington encouraged.  Even though he is called a racist, misogynist, and so forth, his policies have benefitted everyone.  Even though he is accused of acting “above the law,” he is actually enforcing the law.  Although Democrats hypocritically invoke the wisdom of Washington in their rhetoric, President Trump is exemplifying the wisdom in his actions.

           What kind of person or faction did T.S. Eliot have in mind when he wrote “The Hollow Men”?  Certainly, the theme applies to those afflicted with malarkey.