A Time for Truth

 

by

Gadfly

The title of this article is inspired by William Simon’s book, A Time for Truth, published in 1978.  In his Preface to the book, Milton Friedman observed, “The socialists and interventionists, who have wrongfully appropriated in this country the noble label ‘liberal’ and who have been the intellectual architects of our suicidal course, will suffer no severe personal injury—at least in the near future—if they fail to recognize the error of their ways.”

The book was a serious look at the state of America and the evolution of our political institutions in an apparent deliberate drift toward socialism.

I read A Time for Truth on a French troop train as an Air Force captain and fighter pilot with my wife enroute to Berlin in 1980.  Berlin was an occupied city in communist-controlled East Germany.  We had an opportunity to see and taste the stark contrast between socialism’s austerity and the American-led West’s prosperity.

That was 40 years ago.

A Domestic Enemy Hiding in Plain Sight 

           Now for a bold headline in the Air Force Magazine, dated December 22, 2020: “Brown: ‘Shame on Us’ if Military Diversity Efforts Falter.”  Brown is the Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Q. Brown, Jr., who took command of the Air Force on August 6, 2020.  As a black officer, it seems ironic that his advancement to the very pinnacle of success in the Air Force is in stark prima facie contrast to his call for more diversity and inclusion.

              To justify his emotionally judgmental call for change, Brown uses as a springboard a recent Inspector General (IG) report that documents racial disparity based on some disciplinary statistics and anecdotal evidence.  The report provides two very important qualifiers.  First, the report does not complete a root cause analysis to understand factors contributing to the disparities (i.e., do most recruits come from inner cities that do suffer from systemic racism?).  Second, the report states: 

Finally, please note that the identification of racial disparity does not automatically mean racial bias or racism is present. This Review focused on the existence of racial disparity, but it did not specifically assess racial bias or individual acts of racism within the DAF, which may cumulatively contribute to racial disparity overall. Thousands of black service members and civilians reported experiencing issues ranging from bias to outright racial discrimination. These experiences indicate bias and isolated individual acts of racism may contribute to the racial disparities identified in this report (bold italics added for emphasis).    

What is wrong with this picture?  For decades now, the military has installed Equal Opportunity (EO) offices in all units.  They are required by law to collect, process, and adjudicate complaints of racial discrimination.  EO offices are also mandated to submit quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports.  The IG report mentioned above provides absolutely no data from decades of EO reporting.

Moreover, when the US Air Force Academy football coaches published on July 7, 2020 a video in support of Black Lives Matter and the Superintendent claimed systemic racism, I filed two Freedom of Information Act requests for: data on the number of racial discrimination complaints filed for the past 15 years, of those filed how many were validated, and of those validated what was the nature of discipline imposed.  Over five months later, I am still waiting for answers.     

Is it possible that facts do not support the narrative? 

More seriously, how does such a diversity narrative affect the cohesiveness of a fighting force? 

If blacks feel oppressed and whites are being shamed, how does that unify?  It does not.

Manning Johnson, a former American communist (who happened to be black and now deceased), bemoans how he was duped by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in his book, Color, Communism, and Common Sense (available here).  The thesis of his book, based on his lived experience, is that the Communist Party in America deliberately exploited black racism before the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.  The animus from perceived discrimination or oppression was easily weaponized. 

The Manning Johnson experience was not isolated.  One can easily visit the CPUSA website here to see the comprehensive and extensive involvement in American politics.  CPUSA has been in continuous existence since it was established in 1919.  As one can see from its website, it has successfully infiltrated and coopted America’s Democrat Party.  Its National Chair gave CPUSA credit for the successful 2018 midterm elections.  It is not yet known to what extent the CPUSA influenced the outcome of the 2020 election.    

Our institutions, to include our military, have been infiltrated by a dangerous ideology:  Critical Race Theory (CRT).  CRT derives from Critical Theory, advanced in the early 30s by scholars with the Frankfurt School.  Critical Theory puts an academic happy face on Marxism.

The Air Force’s affliction with ideology--and submission to a domestic enemy--is not an isolated case.

Knock It Off, Knock It Off, Knock It Off[1]

As we reach the end of the year, 2020 anno Domini (AD), it is a good time to reflect upon this particular year within America’s historical context.  This has been a troubling year for Americans, as well as the world, mostly stemming from ideology and actions imposed upon others by political elite.

Context

           Let us start with a brief discussion of time.  We are all aware of the passing of time, a concept that connects past with present realities and an anticipated future.  Time is an a priori concept:  we know it exists, yet we cannot prove it through mere observation of phenomena in a scientific sense.  For each of us, there is a beginning and an end—a finiteness of time.  Yet, our finite time is a subset of a larger set of phenomena that has no beginning and no end—the infinite unfolding of reality.

           History is a concept that involves the recording of observable past events with some analysis for meaningful explanations of motivations and implications related to events.  We link these events to a lineage of time based on a Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII).  My graduation diploma recorded my Bachelor of Science degree “. . . in witness whereof we have set our hands and fixed the seal of the United States Air Force Academy this sixth day of June in the Year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-three.”  This background is important in realizing that two thousand and twenty years later, our historical timeline begins with the birth of Jesus Christ.

           One’s view of the world (epistemology) can influence how one observes reality and then processes it.  For example, a positivist makes no prejudgment about phenomena.  She observes it and then analyzes/evaluates data associated with a phenomenon to draw conclusions from it.  A positivist typically begins with a hunch (a “small t” theory) based on already being somewhat familiar with the phenomenon.  This is how Charles Darwin developed his seminal work, On the Origin of Species.[2]

           Then there are normativists who observe the world the way it ought to be, based on an adopted set of norms, and set about to make it so.  This view often involves denying tradition, rewriting history (such as The 1619 Project), or erasing history to make an imagined future possible.  This is what progressivism is all about.  Political elite, with a normative world view, impose ideology and corresponding values on others, even if it requires coercion, to progress toward utopia.

           The famous British scientist and atheist (and apparent normativist), Richard Dawkins, in his book, The God Delusion, implies Darwin was an atheist by quoting a passage from the first edition of The Origin of Species.  It is a powerful closure to Darwin’s research:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

There are six editions of The Origin of Species.  In editions two through six, Darwin inserted “by the Creator” to say more clearly “. . . originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one . . ..”  For Dawkins, it appears acceptable to deceive the reader.  Moreover, if the idea that science is the discipline of knowing (i.e., “scio” is the Latin root verb meaning “to know”), then to imagine the possibility of an atheistic scientist seems oxymoronic.[3]  On the other hand, in his own book, The God Delusion, Dawkins does conclude from his tortured logic that “God almost certainly does not exist.”  This may explain why those with a normative worldview prefer ideology over truth.  They can choose what to believe, whether true or not.

           Human behavior is a challenge for scientists.  Unlike physical phenomena, such as weather, human beings have intention and motivation that influence actions (behavior).  Scientists can observe behavior, yet only infer motivation or intent; even asking a person what motivated her action assumes honesty in the response.  Of all the living creatures, only human beings possess the capacity to lie, which makes ethical and moral behavior a mixed bag.[4]  For example, a behavior may appear to be noble while the motivation is based on devious ulterior motive.

Truth versus Ideology

           Let us begin with definitions. 

Truth is “the body of real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY.”

Ideology is “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.”

Ironically, many people treat ideology as if it is truth.  A good way to understand the difference is in Plato’s set analogy as depicted below:

Beliefs can be true or false.  Many beliefs are fictional, based on myth or folklore.  Only when a belief can be validated as truth does it become knowledge.  Thus, science is the pursuit of knowledge based on truth.  Yet, when truth is available in the form of data from EO reports, the myth of systemic racism is a preferred belief (ideology) because it better supports the power of political elite (even those in the military uniform[5]).

America’s Drift Away from God

The first half of the Twentieth Century involved major foreign wars—World War I, World War II, and Korea.  The latter two involved opponents characterized by godless ideologies--communism and fascism.  These ideologies contrasted with a very religious America. 

Ideology tends to conflict with faith in a supreme being.  In America, secular humanism (a “demigod” religion) now competes with traditional religion.  This accelerating trend appears to have begun around the 1960s symbolized by the US Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vitale, which claimed prayer in school was unconstitutional.

Satan has lieutenants working on his behalf.  Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer, trained or inspired many lieutenants, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force Academy graduate, represents a campaign on behalf of the Aesopian Military Religious Freedom Foundation to liberate America’s military from religion. 

While many would have no interest in Engel v. Vitale and others would consider it trivial in the grand scheme of things, this one act changed conditions in a way that opened the door for socialism (as well-documented in Simon’s A time for Truth). 

To further develop this point, the following is an updated excerpt from my article, “Socialist Infiltration of America,” published August 9, 2019: 

Younger generations have not been taught any of socialism’s history.  Rather, the focus has been a new form of patriotism:  a progressive patriotism that looks toward a perfected future—utopia.  It is pure socialism.  Progressives have been successful in taking prayer out of schools and other public venues, facilitating a trend toward atheistic nihilism.  According to Gallup surveys, those affiliating with Judeo-Christian religions have decreased by well over 30% since 1956 (when 99% of those surveyed affiliated with Judeo-Christian religions).  Other surveys show similar declines in church membership, with Catholics showing the sharpest decrease (likely a result of the public narratives on abuse scandals—even though there are mitigating circumstances such as communist and homosexual infiltration as reported by Bella Dodd in her memoir, School of Darkness, and Enrique Rueda’s analysis of the homosexual political movement in The Homosexual Network:  Private Lives and Public Policy). These trends allow the state to increasingly fill in as the moral authority.

Karl Marx would be proud of socialism’s success in America.  Education has played a critical role.  In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, education is mentioned 68 times.  The Manifesto states: “All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.”  Last year, Democrat-led Colorado approved funding for all-day kindergarten.  Nation-wide, teachers’ unions exercise tremendous power in classroom curricula, manipulating the composition of school boards, and funding political candidates.

Conclusion

As we approach a new year, it would be prudent to understand where we are as a Nation and to be prepared to surrender to its current drift or to resist it to restore the essence of what America was intended to be as a Constitutional Republic.  For those in America’s military in particular, to include its veterans, be prepared to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. . . . So help me God.” This truly is a time for truth.

 

---

[1] In a fighter training scenario, when circumstances are getting increasingly dangerous, at least one fighter pilot in the scenario is expected to call over the radio “knock it off, knock it off, knock it off” to reset the conditions.

[2] The complete title is The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

[3] Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes for Health, was an atheist until the age of 26.  Then, to find justification for his atheism, Collins read C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.  According to Collins, this book shined a light on a reality beyond pure science and compelled his conversion to Christianity.

[4] For an excellent treatment of this topic, see Christian B. Miller, The Character Gap:  How Good Are We?

[5] For more on this theme, see my article, “A Praetorian Guard?”

A Democracy If You Can Keep It

by

Gadfly

           Oops.  Didn’t Franklin say, “A Republic if you can keep it”?  Yes, he did.
  

Then why do so many say that President Trump is a threat to our democracy?  Even Chris Wallace from Fox News argued for a free press to protect our democracy.

The problem with the public drama surrounding the political removal of a duly elected president is that it is compelled by distortion of the truth—some deliberate, some likely from ignorance.  Either way, there is no justification for it.  I’ll use two major examples to rebuke this concerted scheme (in vogue now by Democrats):  democracy versus a republic and foreign influence.

Democracy versus Republic

There appears to be a complete disregard or obliviousness to the distinction between a democracy and a republic.  Despite our Framers being frequently cited in current rhetoric, our Framers were explicit about their disdain of democracy.  Therefore, they formed a Constitutional Republic. Federalist 10 explains this rationale.  Furthermore, in the 1840s, Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned about the inevitability of tyranny and despotism in a democracy.

  

Despite clear and unequivocal intent by our Framers, there are two major forces that have emasculated our Republic.

  

Secularization

A set of political movements have influenced a loss of American affiliation with religion.  The left advances secular values that are contrary to religious values, especially Judeo-Christian.  A reduction in religious affiliation has led to moral relativism, which enables immorality from a religious perspective.

  

Former Bill Clinton has been in the news due to his own impeachment experience.  Most focus on the perjury charge as not rising to the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors.  He lied to a grand jury about engaging in sexual behavior with someone other than his wife.  Most of Clinton’s supporters would tell us that the sexual behavior is a private matter and of no concern.  Yet, the behavior was with a much younger intern, in the Oval Office no less.

  

Based on Department of Defense zero-tolerance policy, I witnessed the firing of a commander, a full bird colonel, for tolerating sexual harassment.  In this case, the commander was present in a bar-room setting among members of his unit when another person told a joke that offended the individual who filed the complaint.  Aware of the President’s behavior, many of our military personnel were perplexed by the apparent double standard, especially when the behaviors were so starkly contrasted—one involved a bystander to a risqué joke in a bar, the other an adulterous activity with a much younger subordinate in the Oval Office.

     

John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Administrative State

The other major force is the ubiquitousness of the Administrative State.  Our Constitution was designed to limit powers at the national level.  Yet, specific powers delineated to the three separate branches of government have passed to an unelected and mostly unaccountable bureaucracy.

  

Hillsdale College provides a tremendous public service by providing online courses at no cost to the general public.  One of those courses is Constitution 101.  Lesson 10 addresses the Administrative State.  Here is the overview for the lesson:

  

The modern administrative state transformed the American republic into an oligarchy. Today, an elite and insular administrative class rules without the consent of American citizens. Moreover, administrative rule is both anti-constitutional and pre-constitutional, because it replaces the rule of law with unaccountable regulatory agencies.

The trillions of public debt and unfunded liabilities closely correlate with the growth of the Administrative State.  Moreover, corporate cronyism and welfare contribute to the oligarchic nature of America’s system of governance.  The original understanding of our Constitution provided for a republic that would have been resistant, and far less vulnerable, to the corrupting powers enabled by democracy and now manifested as an oligarchy.

Foreign Influence


           Democrats accuse President Trump of engaging in efforts to meddle in elections through foreign influence.  They allege Trump leveraged critical military aid in order to pressure the new Ukrainian President to get dirt on a political opponent in the 2020 election.  How do they know?  They base it on two narratives:  one by the so-called whistleblower and one by a dramatic performance by Congressman Adam Schiff.  This is called framing, and George Lakoff (a progressive UC-Berkeley professor) is a master at how to do this.  As he asserts, it is the frame that matters, if facts fit, great; if not, the facts are irrelevant.  This is obvious when comparing the whistleblower and Schiff “frame” with the actual transcript of the telephone call.
   

Democrats pontificate that our Framers were extremely sensitive to the threat of foreign influence in our presidential elections.  A review of The Federalist Papers (the authoritative rationale for our Constitution) reveals a different story.  There are multiple mentions of foreign influence.  None address concerns that a president might seek foreign influence in elections.  Only one—Federalist 68--relates to foreign influence in a presidential election.  It explains how the Electoral College mitigates this threat.  Yet, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College.  Other Papers—3, 5, 7, 43, and 48--explain how a republic over a looser democratic confederation reduces the threat of foreign influence.  More significantly, other Papers—16, 22, 55, 59, and 75—argue how easy it is for foreign influence on corrupt government officials, such as members of Congress and its staff.  Therefore, a republic, with an executive elected by the Electoral College, is superior to a parliamentary democracy.

The current Democrat impeachment effort, complete with its lack of legitimacy regarding an impeachable offense, fully intends to emasculate the executive—in terms of enforcing the law of the land (i.e., Biden bribery) and advancing foreign policy—is a clear scheme to meddle in the 2020 presidential election.  Fortunately, polls are reflecting that the public sees through this scheme.

Getting through this chapter is not enough.  We cannot simply be content with winning the current impeachment contest.  The impeachment represents a symptom of far greater issues that stem from deviating from the essence of a Constitutional Republic.  We must restore our Constitutional Republic, enabled and fortified by a moral and religious people.    

Ideology and Conflict

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, have you read George Friedman’s geopolitical assessment of the Paris shootings? 

Dr. Friedman reinforced my own understanding that religion and secularism (e.g., the progressive movement) are forms of ideology.  I hope we will be able to discuss the implications of Dr. Friedman’s assessment in future conversations.  Meanwhile, with permission from Stratfor, Dr. Friedman’s assessment is republished below:

A War Between Two Worlds

by

George Friedman

January 13, 2015

Stratfor Geopolitical Weekly

The murders of cartoonists who made fun of Islam and of Jews shopping for their Sabbath meals by Islamists in Paris last week have galvanized the world. A galvanized world is always dangerous. Galvanized people can do careless things. It is in the extreme and emotion-laden moments that distance and coolness are most required. I am tempted to howl in rage. It is not my place to do so. My job is to try to dissect the event, place it in context and try to understand what has happened and why. From that, after the rage cools, plans for action can be made. Rage has its place, but actions must be taken with discipline and thought.

I have found that in thinking about things geopolitically, I can cool my own rage and find, if not meaning, at least explanation for events such as these. As it happens, my new book will be published on Jan. 27. Titled Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, it is about the unfolding failure of the great European experiment, the European Union, and the resurgence of European nationalism. It discusses the re-emerging borderlands and flashpoints of Europe and raises the possibility that Europe's attempt to abolish conflict will fail. I mention this book because one chapter is on the Mediterranean borderland and the very old conflict between Islam and Christianity. Obviously this is a matter I have given some thought to, and I will draw on Flashpoints to begin making sense of the murderers and murdered, when I think of things in this way.

Let me begin by quoting from that chapter:

We've spoken of borderlands, and how they are both linked and divided. Here is a border sea, differing in many ways but sharing the basic characteristic of the borderland. Proximity separates as much as it divides. It facilitates trade, but also war. For Europe this is another frontier both familiar and profoundly alien.

Islam invaded Europe twice from the Mediterranean — first in Iberia, the second time in southeastern Europe, as well as nibbling at Sicily and elsewhere. Christianity invaded Islam multiple times, the first time in the Crusades and in the battle to expel the Muslims from Iberia. Then it forced the Turks back from central Europe. The Christians finally crossed the Mediterranean in the 19th century, taking control of large parts of North Africa. Each of these two religions wanted to dominate the other. Each seemed close to its goal. Neither was successful. What remains true is that Islam and Christianity were obsessed with each other from the first encounter. Like Rome and Egypt they traded with each other and made war on each other.

Christians and Muslims have been bitter enemies, battling for control of Iberia. Yet, lest we forget, they also have been allies: In the 16th century, Ottoman Turkey and Venice allied to control the Mediterranean. No single phrase can summarize the relationship between the two save perhaps this: It is rare that two religions might be so obsessed with each other and at the same time so ambivalent. This is an explosive mixture.

Migration, Multiculturalism and Ghettoization

The current crisis has its origins in the collapse of European hegemony over North Africa after World War II and the Europeans' need for cheap labor. As a result of the way in which they ended their imperial relations, they were bound to allow the migration of Muslims into Europe, and the permeable borders of the European Union enabled them to settle where they chose. The Muslims, for their part, did not come to join in a cultural transformation. They came for work, and money, and for the simplest reasons. The Europeans' appetite for cheap labor and the Muslims' appetite for work combined to generate a massive movement of populations.

The matter was complicated by the fact that Europe was no longer simply Christian. Christianity had lost its hegemonic control over European culture over the previous centuries and had been joined, if not replaced, by a new doctrine of secularism. Secularism drew a radical distinction between public and private life, in which religion, in any traditional sense, was relegated to the private sphere with no hold over public life. There are many charms in secularism, in particular the freedom to believe what you will in private. But secularism also poses a public problem. There are those whose beliefs are so different from others' beliefs that finding common ground in the public space is impossible. And then there are those for whom the very distinction between private and public is either meaningless or unacceptable. The complex contrivances of secularism have their charm, but not everyone is charmed.

Europe solved the problem with the weakening of Christianity that made the ancient battles between Christian factions meaningless. But they had invited in people who not only did not share the core doctrines of secularism, they rejected them. What Christianity had come to see as progress away from sectarian conflict, Muslims (and some Christians) may see as simply decadence, a weakening of faith and the loss of conviction.

There is here a question of what we mean when we speak of things like Christianity, Islam and secularism. There are more than a billion Christians and more than a billion Muslims and uncountable secularists who mix all things. It is difficult to decide what you mean when you say any of these words and easy to claim that anyone else's meaning is (or is not) the right one. There is a built-in indeterminacy in our use of language that allows us to shift responsibility for actions in Paris away from a religion to a minor strand in a religion, or to the actions of only those who pulled the trigger. This is the universal problem of secularism, which eschews stereotyping. It leaves unclear who is to be held responsible for what. By devolving all responsibility on the individual, secularism tends to absolve nations and religions from responsibility.

This is not necessarily wrong, but it creates a tremendous practical problem. If no one but the gunmen and their immediate supporters are responsible for the action, and all others who share their faith are guiltless, you have made a defensible moral judgment. But as a practical matter, you have paralyzed your ability to defend yourselves. It is impossible to defend against random violence and impermissible to impose collective responsibility. As Europe has been for so long, its moral complexity has posed for it a problem it cannot easily solve. Not all Muslims — not even most Muslims — are responsible for this. But all who committed these acts were Muslims claiming to speak for Muslims. One might say this is a Muslim problem and then hold the Muslims responsible for solving it. But what happens if they don't? And so the moral debate spins endlessly.

This dilemma is compounded by Europe's hidden secret: The Europeans do not see Muslims from North Africa or Turkey as Europeans, nor do they intend to allow them to be Europeans. The European solution to their isolation is the concept of multiculturalism — on the surface a most liberal notion, and in practice, a movement for both cultural fragmentation and ghettoization. But behind this there is another problem, and it is also geopolitical. I say in Flashpoints that:

Multiculturalism and the entire immigrant enterprise faced another challenge. Europe was crowded. Unlike the United States, it didn't have the room to incorporate millions of immigrants — certainly not on a permanent basis. Even with population numbers slowly declining, the increase in population, particularly in the more populous countries, was difficult to manage. The doctrine of multiculturalism naturally encouraged a degree of separatism. Culture implies a desire to live with your own people. Given the economic status of immigrants the world over, the inevitable exclusion that is perhaps unintentionally incorporated in multiculturalism and the desire of like to live with like, the Muslims found themselves living in extraordinarily crowded and squalid conditions. All around Paris there are high-rise apartment buildings housing and separating Muslims from the French, who live elsewhere.

These killings have nothing to do with poverty, of course. Newly arrived immigrants are always poor. That's why they immigrate. And until they learn the language and customs of their new homes, they are always ghettoized and alien. It is the next generation that flows into the dominant culture. But the dirty secret of multiculturalism was that its consequence was to perpetuate Muslim isolation. And it was not the intention of Muslims to become Europeans, even if they could. They came to make money, not become French. The shallowness of the European postwar values system thereby becomes the horror show that occurred in Paris last week. 

The Role of Ideology

But while the Europeans have particular issues with Islam, and have had them for more than 1,000 years, there is a more generalizable problem. Christianity has been sapped of its evangelical zeal and no longer uses the sword to kill and convert its enemies. At least parts of Islam retain that zeal. And saying that not all Muslims share this vision does not solve the problem. Enough Muslims share that fervency to endanger the lives of those they despise, and this tendency toward violence cannot be tolerated by either their Western targets or by Muslims who refuse to subscribe to a jihadist ideology. And there is no way to distinguish those who might kill from those who won't. The Muslim community might be able to make this distinction, but a 25-year-old European or American policeman cannot. And the Muslims either can't or won't police themselves. Therefore, we are left in a state of war. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has called this a war on radical Islam. If only they wore uniforms or bore distinctive birthmarks, then fighting only the radical Islamists would not be a problem. But Valls' distinctions notwithstanding, the world can either accept periodic attacks, or see the entire Muslim community as a potential threat until proven otherwise. These are terrible choices, but history is filled with them. Calling for a war on radical Islamists is like calling for war on the followers of Jean-Paul Sartre. Exactly what do they look like?

The European inability to come to terms with the reality it has created for itself in this and other matters does not preclude the realization that wars involving troops are occurring in many Muslim countries. The situation is complex, and morality is merely another weapon for proving the other guilty and oneself guiltless. The geopolitical dimensions of Islam's relationship with Europe, or India, or Thailand, or the United States, do not yield to moralizing.

Something must be done. I don't know what needs to be done, but I suspect I know what is coming. First, if it is true that Islam is merely responding to crimes against it, those crimes are not new and certainly didn't originate in the creation of Israel, the invasion of Iraq or recent events. This has been going on far longer than that. For instance, the Assassins were a secret Islamic order to make war on individuals they saw as Muslim heretics. There is nothing new in what is going on, and it will not end if peace comes to Iraq, Muslims occupy Kashmir or Israel is destroyed. Nor is secularism about to sweep the Islamic world. The Arab Spring was a Western fantasy that the collapse of communism in 1989 was repeating itself in the Islamic world with the same results. There are certainly Muslim liberals and secularists. However, they do not control events — no single group does — and it is the events, not the theory, that shape our lives.

Europe's sense of nation is rooted in shared history, language, ethnicity and yes, in Christianity or its heir, secularism. Europe has no concept of the nation except for these things, and Muslims share in none of them. It is difficult to imagine another outcome save for another round of ghettoization and deportation. This is repulsive to the European sensibility now, but certainly not alien to European history. Unable to distinguish radical Muslims from other Muslims, Europe will increasingly and unintentionally move in this direction.

Paradoxically, this will be exactly what the radical Muslims want because it will strengthen their position in the Islamic world in general, and North Africa and Turkey in particular. But the alternative to not strengthening the radical Islamists is living with the threat of death if they are offended. And that is not going to be endured in Europe.

Perhaps a magic device will be found that will enable us to read the minds of people to determine what their ideology actually is. But given the offense many in the West have taken to governments reading emails, I doubt that they would allow this, particularly a few months from now when the murders and murderers are forgotten, and Europeans will convince themselves that the security apparatus is simply trying to oppress everyone. And of course, never minimize the oppressive potential of security forces.

The United States is different in this sense. It is an artificial regime, not a natural one. It was invented by our founders on certain principles and is open to anyone who embraces those principles. Europe's nationalism is romantic, naturalistic. It depends on bonds that stretch back through time and cannot be easily broken. But the idea of shared principles other than their own is offensive to the religious everywhere, and at this moment in history, this aversion is most commonly present among Muslims. This is a truth that must be faced.

The Mediterranean borderland was a place of conflict well before Christianity and Islam existed. It will remain a place of conflict even if both lose their vigorous love of their own beliefs. It is an illusion to believe that conflicts rooted in geography can be abolished. It is also a mistake to be so philosophical as to disengage from the human fear of being killed at your desk for your ideas. We are entering a place that has no solutions. Such a place does have decisions, and all of the choices will be bad. What has to be done will be done, and those who refused to make choices will see themselves as more moral than those who did. There is a war, and like all wars, this one is very different from the last in the way it is prosecuted. But it is war nonetheless, and denying that is denying the obvious.

Note: “A War Between Two Worlds” is republished with permission of Stratfor.
The newest book by Stratfor chairman and founder George Friedman, Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, will be released Jan. 27. It is now available for pre-order.

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.