The Ruler’s Lieutenants

by

Gadfly

         On July 29, 2021, Paul Jay interviewed Mikey Weinstein on his program, a Canadian-based podcast, The Analysis.News.  Here is the headline: “Full Interview – Powerful Christian Nationalists in Military See Trump as Vehicle for Authoritarian Religious State – Mikey Weinstein.”  The entire interview with adjoining transcript is available here.

         Here is how Weinstein was introduced: 

Now joining us is Mikey Weinstein. He’s the founder and president of the seven-time Nobel Peace Prize-nominated Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the MRFF. Mikey was named one of the 100 most influential people in U.S. Defense by Defense News, which is a major publication read by just about everybody in the “defense industry.” Mikey represents nearly 75,000 active and retired reserve service members.  He himself is an honor graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and formerly worked in and for the West Wing as a legal counsel in the Reagan White House. 

         The introduction alone begs questions.

First, how does Jay know the MRFF was nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Mikey told him?  Who nominated the MRFF for the Nobel Prize?  Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request might answer this question.

Second, named one of the most influential people in U.S. Defense by Defense News, was this a compliment?  Here are some of the individuals selected Person of the Year by Time Magazine:  Adolph Hitler, 1938; Joseph Stalin, 1939 and 1942; Nikita Khrushchev, 1957; Ayatollah Khomeini, 1979; Deng Xiaoping, 1985; Vladimir Putin, 2007; and Greta Thunberg, 2019.  Mikey is in good company.

Third, Mikey represents 75,000 active and retired reserve service members.  Really?  Of course, like the Nobel Peace Prize nominations, we must take his word for it.  Moreover, he’ll claim lawyer-client confidentiality.  Which brings us to the last achievement.

Finally, Mikey was an honor graduate of the United States Air Force Academy.  It is ironic that he achieved success in an honor code-based institution he denigrates for its alleged religious proselytizing while making dubious claims about the Nobel Peace Prize and the number of clients he represents, let alone all those he denigrates in the interview.

         If you are following my suspicion about Mikey’s intentions let alone his honesty, please watch the interview.  It begs many more questions. 

         Mikey represents the worst of what threatens America today—an anti-Judeo Christian ideology grounded in atheistic Marxism.  Sadly, the last war America won was the Second World War.  The following public domain picture from Normandy, France, which is representative of all American cemeteries in Europe and the Pacific stemming from WWII sacrifices, speaks volumes about the moral grounding of those who gave their lives to protect American style liberty and to liberate others under the oppression of ideological totalitarianism.

Who or what is Mikey’s moral inspiration?  Satan’s lieutenants (obedient to the “ruler of the world,” see John 12:  31-36) are working hard to suppress our understanding of natural law and its inspiration for the Declaration of Independence, codified in a self-governing Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If we do not recognize the danger and do what we can to stem this movement (do you recall what happened to the Tsar Nicholas II family at the hands of the Bolshevik movement?  See my article here.), we will slide into the same totalitarian fate of other nations during the Twentieth Century.  For an excellent analysis and implied prophecy, read Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism.  Conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

Newsflash:  Trump was the antithesis of this movement.  This should explain why he was so thoroughly demonized by the left and their blatant socialist impulses.   

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?”

It Can Happen Here

by

Gadfly

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

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

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

  

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

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

           Let us unpack this statement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

    

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

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

        

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

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

    

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

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

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

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

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

    

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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.