Authoritarianism

by

Gadfly

          In my lifetime, the only American President I have heard or read to be an authoritarian is Donald Trump.  For example, see here, here, and here.  Even worse is the example here:  The “evidence” offered to support the authoritarian premise is tautological (i.e., a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form) in its construction . . . but it sure reads like the truth.

          Most of Trump’s Executive Orders were designed to reduce the insidious authoritarian policies from previous regimes.  When progressive federal judges imposed injunctions, Trump honored them until they were overruled by higher courts in accordance with our Constitution.

          Yes, Trump did fire members of his staff when their agenda was not compatible with his.  Trump was the one elected by “we the people,” and his allegiance was to them via Constitutional authority.

          What is missing from the left’s domination of the public narrative is that while Trump did not accept the explanations for the 2020 election (e.g., we’re still waiting to hear the results of the Arizona audit) he voluntarily left the White House.  There was no coup. 

Yet, talk about insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, completely ignores or denies the actual insurrection that took place across America during the summer of 2020.  Here is an excerpt from Mike Gonzalez’s recently published book, BLM:  The Making of a New Marxist Revolution:

Today, the First and Fourth Amendments prohibit much of the domestic surveillance work that would have been necessary to know how much of the 2020 protests were organized by a tight-knit group of Marxists.  We don't have the liberal democracy village by letting others destroy the liberal democracy village.  But have we left ourselves without adequate protection?  The changes that the leaders of the BLM organizations want would erode or extinguish our liberties.  This presents a conundrum.  Any conservative who may be tempted to think that those constitutional protections leave us vulnerable must balance that very real concern with the equally valid consideration of what an unleashed FBI could do to conservative movements freely carrying out constitutionally protected activity [Note: consider, for example, the FBI manufactured “right-wing conspiracy” to kidnap a sitting governor].

As a result, there is no place in the federal government--not in the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or the DNI--where one can find out how much the 2020 protests, and all the deep societal changes that have followed in their wake, were the work of a network of groups whose leaders are committed to implementing a communist blueprint in the United States.  PolitiFact's Tom Kertscher is completely right in saying that many Americans who reject communism support Black Lives Matter.  When my well-meaning neighbors put up lawn signs that both praise BLM and declare "silence is violence," they don't get the contradiction.  They don't know what they don't know (pp. xx-xxi).

          With all the hype about a leftist authoritarian characterization of Donald Trump (and Trump voters by association), Joe Biden is being celebrated for his actual authoritarianism.  His calls for unity belie the demand for surrender and cooptation.  As F.A. Hayek observed in his chapter, “Planning and Democracy,” in The Road to Serfdom,

The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the labors of society for a definite social goal. That our present society lacks such “conscious” direction toward a single aim, that its activities are guided by the whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals, has always been one of the main complaints of its socialist critics.

In many ways, this puts the basic issue very clearly.  And it directs us at once to the point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism.  The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, etc., differ among themselves in the nature of the goal toward which they want to direct the efforts of society.  But they all differ from liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme.  In short, they are totalitarian in the true sense of this new word which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism (p. 100; bold, italics are mine).

           We are being told the greatest threat to America is domestic white supremacy.  Yet, despite the evidence of thousands killed via Islamist ideology and hundreds of riots in 2020 stemming from leftist BLM and Antifa ideology, we are led to believe the January 6 Capitol riot represented an existential threat of white supremacy led by Donald Trump (like Orwell's manufactured Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984).  

Hundreds of Capitol rioters have been incarcerated for months without bail for mostly misdemeanor charges.  Some are in solitary confinement.  One Capitol rioter was returned to jail after being released on bail with a mandate from the judge to refrain from use of the Internet (a form of censorship).  Eerily, this form of government power was emphasized by Orwell in 1984 when O’Brien lectured Winston Smith: “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”     

The FBI has already reported there was no conspiracy to incite an insurrection on January 6, but Congress presses forward with its "insurrection" meme via a special committee to investigate the Capitol riot, issuing hundreds of subpoenas.  

Americans (to include a former president) with unacceptable political views are being "deplatformed," some even denied banking service. 

Then, there is the complicated set of lockdowns, quarantines, and mandated vaccinations and masks.  Check out this Tucker Carlson segment from his September 14 program.  In addition to explaining the little known (media suppression) loss of medical personnel from hospitals because they choose not to be vaccinated, Carlson explains how this Administration further divides Americans in terms of those who comply with authoritarian dictates and those who do not.

Last week, in an unprecedented action, 11 members of the Academies' Congressionally mandated Boards of Visitors were illegally/unconstitutionally terminated because their "values" were not aligned with the current Administration.

This week we learn from Bob Woodward that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley conspired against President Trump (see my earlier articles about Milley here and here).  If true, Milley’s actions are far more egregious than the private letter General Douglas MacArthur sent to Massachusetts Congressman Joe Martin in 1951 expressing his disagreement with President Truman’s policies for prosecuting the war in Korea.  When the Congressman made the letter public, Truman fired MacArthur.  Expressing concerns about policy with an American Congressman is significantly different from undermining an elected president in communications with a foreign counterpart.

What does all this mean? 

Leftists (even some right of center politicians) keep calling America a democracy, even though our Framers deliberately formed a republic as an offset to the dangers of democracy (see for example Federalist Paper 10).  Alexis de Tocqueville predicted what happens in a democracy (bold italics added for emphasis):

After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.  It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.  The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided:  men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting:  such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.  I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.  Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free:  as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once.  They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people (Democracy in America, 1840, p. 398).

Anyone familiar with communist/fascist regimes should recognize the signs of a similar regime emerging in America.  Hannah Arendt taught us about these dynamics in her books, The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition; F.A. Hayek shared his observations and analysis in The Road to Serfdom; and C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man.

If we fail or refuse to recognize authoritarianism so we can stop it, we will repeat 20^th Century totalitarianism, unified in collective misery in a wretched ash heap of history.

  

Mass Psychosis

 

by

Gadfly

According to the National Institute for Mental Health:

The word psychosis is used to describe conditions that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. When someone becomes ill in this way it is called a psychotic episode. During a period of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disturbed and the individual may have difficulty understanding what is real and what is not.  Symptoms of psychosis include delusions (false beliefs) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear). Other symptoms include incoherent or nonsense speech, and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. A person in a psychotic episode may also experience depression, anxiety, sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulty functioning overall.

Context

The above description of psychosis regards an individual and his or her association with reality.  Can it be induced by external influences?  The novel by Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange, presents such a case. 

Reports of mind manipulation are not fiction.  Cult leader Jim Jones had such an influence.  Over 900 lost their lives through murder or suicide due to mind control.

Controversially, following the Korean Conflict, American prisoners of war (POWs) were given an opportunity to voluntarily repatriate to America, assuming successful brainwashing had changed their allegiance to North Korea or China.  This was negotiated via a program called Operation Big Switch.  Some defected. One source documents 21 defectors.  Another source lists them by name.   Here is another source.  Building upon recently declassified documents, Monica Kim provides a compelling (if not disturbing) account in her book, The Interrogation Rooms of the Korean War:  The Untold History. 

Aside from reports about mind manipulation of American POWs during the Korean Conflict, here is a short interview with Yeonmi Park, a former North Korean who defected through China and Mongolia to America.  She captures her experience and insights in her book, In Order to Live:  A North Korean Girl’s Journey to Freedom.  Ms. Park authenticates experiencing mind control, not only in North Korea but also as a student at Columbia University.  Former American Communist, Bella Dodd, reports a similar experience at Columbia in her memoir, School of Darkness. 

In an attempt to diminish the notion of mind control (brainwashing), here is another article that unwittingly validates mind control because such activities did in fact influence the way people thought about it.

Mind Control and Mass Psychosis

          Based on the above definition, the American public is experiencing mass psychosis.  Why?  A recent Daily Wire op-ed by Brad Schaeffer, “Climate Change, Public Health, Racism: The Church of Leftism’s Diabolical Trinity,” compellingly argues how the left is exercising mind control over the American public.  Others have also been warning us for quite some time:  Aldous Huxley in his book, A Brave New World; George Orwell in his books, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm; F. A. Hayek in his book, The Road to Serfdom; C. S. Lewis in his book, The Abolition of Man; Hannah Arendt in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism; and more recently, by Rod Dreher in his book, Live Not by Lies:  A Manual for Christian Dissidents; and Mike Gonzalez in his books, The Plot to Change America:  How Identity Politics Is Changing the Land of the Free and BLM:  The Making of a New Marxist Revolution.
          How can mass psychosis happen?  As a trained psychologist, I strongly support the explanation provided in this well-packaged video (warning it is fast moving, so be prepared to pause periodically to absorb and process the evidence).

Solution

          For those Americans capable of thinking for oneself, the evil forces at play must be identified, called out, and diminished by advancing truth.  This is truth that emanates from the trials and wisdom of tradition.  It is discovered, not created. 

The principles and values that underwrite our God-given inalienable rights have been articulated in our Declaration of Independence.  This was not a random, capricious undertaking.  It was a deliberate process to capture and understand the wisdom of achievement, disaster, and folly in human affairs.

          Organizations exist and are forming to resist and counter the forces inducing individual (increased suicides is an unfortunate effect) and mass psychosis in America.  A newly formed organization, founded by veterans, is Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc. (www.STARRS.us).  It has been called “controversial.”  Those making such claims appear to favor racism and radicalism in the Services; or, worse, they have surrendered to the powers inducing mass psychosis.

For now, most organizations are growing in terms of supporters, yet work in isolation from other like-minded organizations.  When more of these organizations form partnerships in achieving mutually agreeable goals, they will develop the necessary synergy to counter the mass psychosis and restore a healthy Republic.

As I was about to publish this article, I stumbled across a short video (published three days ago) by Catholic Bishop Robert Barron, “The Threat of Totalitarianism.”  His message captures far more eloquently the solution to the problem of mass psychosis.  You will want to watch it more than once.        

Slippery Nipple

 

by

Gadfly

A Slippery Nipple is a cocktail.  Here is one description:  The Slippery Nipple is a layered cocktail shooter most commonly composed of Baileys Irish Cream and Sambuca. When prepared properly, the ingredients remain in two distinct visible layers due to the relative densities of the ingredients.   Afterall, even diversity among forms of alcohol can appear “multicultural.” 

Here is one source for how to make a Slippery Nipple along with some variation:  Slippery Nipple Cocktail Recipe - Cocktails With Class.  A Slippery Nipple is very tasty; but I still prefer a Manhattan—a sipping drink for those who are philosophically inclined.   

Why does how to make a slippery nipple matter?  Most good bar tenders know how to make one.  Expertise matters, even in such simple areas as making a Slippery Nipple.

I suspect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (AOC), a bar tender after graduating from Boston University (majoring in international relations and economics), knows how to make a Slippery Nipple.  Now, she is a second term U.S. Representative, representing New York’s 14^th Congressional District.

Somehow AOC has acquired expertise in “green” energy and a wide range of social issues.  She somehow has discovered the benefits of socialism.  This may have manifested before or because of campaigning for Bernie Sanders.  So, she benefits from followers who believe there is a free lunch, and they vote for her.  Most of her followers likely have no idea what happened to Venezuela—a thriving capitalist nation killed by socialism.  This is not unusual or unprecedented.  Rod Dreher captures this naivete among citizens who previously lived in totalitarian regimes in his book, Live Not by Lies:  A Manual for Christian Dissidents. 

AOC has had no children—from bringing them into this world and raising them.  Yet, she rails about Texas’s recent legislation on abortion.  Less than 1% of abortions stem from rape or incest (see my article about The Logic of Abortion).  About 99% of pregnancies stem from consensual sex.  Pregnancy manifests based on natural law and human choice; it is not an indiscriminate airborne disease. 

Expertise matters.  AOC:  Stick to slippery nipples.

Hints of Totalitarianism

by

Gadfly

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

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

  

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            

America’s Dreyfus Affair

Abstract:  Making sense of the political tension and division within America is no easy task.  For most Americans, we are experiencing conditions without precedent.  Yet, history has documented similar circumstances in the past.  Why not examine these recorded observations to ascertain what ever wisdom might be derived from such an analysis?  This article attempts such an examination in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with an inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).  Gadfly then summarizes the discussion and offers two predictions.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, are you familiar with the Dreyfus Affair?

IM:  Yes, in 1894, a French Jewish artillery officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was accused of spying, court-martialed, convicted of treason, and sentenced to life in prison at Devil Island.  Before imprisonment, he was paraded before the public where they shouted, “Death to Judas, death to the Jew.”  Two years later, evidence eventually surfaced that another French (non-Jewish) officer, Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, was the actual traitor; Esterhazy was court-martialed but not convicted.  In 1899, Dreyfus was again court-martialed and again found guilty, yet was quickly pardoned.  Finally, in 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated in the French army.

AM:  This sentiment coincided with the anti-Semitism that permeated Western Europe, Russia, and even the United States.  For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a widely circulated publication that claimed Jews were colluding to dominate the world.  In Europe, the Rothschild family was particularly singled out because of its vast wealth.  In America, Henry Ford purchased and then distributed 500,000 copies of The Protocols within America.  Ford even published a series of anti-Semitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned.  In hindsight, historical facts now show that Ford materially contributed to a false narrative.

IM:  Ironically, today Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.  The nearly wealthiest man in the world is deliberately and aggressively consolidating the retail industry and possibly the news industry.  Bezos’ consolidation efforts crush competition and the novelty of diversity of ideas—not the left’s arbitrary distinction in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth.  Where is the opposition from the left?  Perhaps the answer is because The Washington Post is clearly anti-Trump.

Old Gadfly:    Do you see any similarities between The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and any other publication in America?

IM:  Yes,  the so-called “Russian Dossier” is a similar publication.  The Protocols document was a complete fabrication of lies; yet it had a huge impact in fueling anti-Semitism.  Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, identified the phenomenon of anti-Semitism as a critical seed in the emergence of totalitarianism, which included both forms of socialism--communism and Nazism.  Like The Protocols, the Russian Dossier also fabricated lies for effect.  The Dossier fueled the Russian collusion sentiment that still exists, especially in the justification for the current Mueller investigation. 

Old Gadfly:  In regard to the Russian Dossier, here are some questions the public deserves to know:  How did Senator McCain get word of the dossier?  Why did he unilaterally dispatch an aide overseas to get a copy?  Was this an act of collusion?  Should he be questioned in the same manner as Donald Trump, Jr., who met with a Russian lawyer by invitation?

AM:  Great questions, Gadfly.  It appears anti-Trump Republicans initially paid GPS Fusion (headed by Glenn Simpson) for opposition research against candidate Trump.  The research was then handed off to another paying customer—the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Further, “British-American businessman and anti-Kremlin crusader Bill Browder” claims GPS Fusion took money from the Russian government.  This is why Congress is now investigating the Russia GPS Fusion connection (collusion?).

IM:   Do you know who Bill Browder is?  He is a billionaire who, after the fall of the Soviet Union, has done extensive business in Russia.  He is now an anti-Putin activist, seeking justice for the conviction, torture, and murder of his Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.  Browder’s grandfather, Earl, headed up the American Communist Party, twice running unsuccessfully for President of the United States in 1936 and 1940.  Browder tells his story in his recently published book, Red Notice:  A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism.  She does an excellent job explaining how anti-Semitic sentiment contributed to the phenomenon of totalitarianism.  After the book’s release, she was very careful in responding to critiques to point out that “seeds” may have been more accurate than “origins,” because it is difficult to establish precedents for the unprecedented.  Yet, it was the hatred and contempt that coalesced against a perceived enemy that allowed the seed to crystallize over time.  In the early 1900s in Europe and Russia, the hatred and contempt crystallized among those on the collective left against those who had different beliefs and values such as those who appear to be aligned with individual liberty, private property, and free-market capitalism.  In today’s America, there are groups such as the New Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other leftist groups characterized by anger and hatred. The left loves to claim the KKK and white supremacist groups are far right; but, they are not.  Historical records explain the true nature of these groups and they tend to be leftist—Marxian, Nietzschean, and so forth.  To suggest a white supremacist group is right-wing, conservative, or Republican is political heresy.  It is like certain politicians (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, or Tim Kaine) advocating for abortion or same-sex marriage rights while also claiming to be devout Catholics.  In this case, progressive orthodoxy trumps church orthodoxy.

There is a new leftist hate group called Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (check out the video).  Notice also, the accelerated aggressiveness of the Communist Party USA (until it’s taken down, the homepage has a headline:  “Can Trump Forge a New White Supremacist Governing Coalition?”).  Here is a print screen image of the homepage:

IM:  Another “seed” discussed by Arendt was imperialism--in the form of ideological world domination.  Arendt’s first chapter under the section on imperialism had an interesting title:  “The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie.”  In this case, the bourgeoisie represented those who controlled the centers of production (and wealth).  Bourgeoisie did not include the “aristocracy”—those in government roles—or the labor class (the proletariat in socialist orthodoxy).

Old Gadfly:  What can we learn from this?  How does it apply to today’s circumstances?

AM:  Obviously, it is very dangerous for business leaders to align with a particular political ideology.  And by ideology, I do not mean a political philosophy; I mean orthodoxy or dogmas that become moral truths.  Progressivism in America is an ideology—it believes in secular humanism, the redistribution of wealth, and other man-made rights (e.g., reproductive rights to justify abortion, sexual orientations) that are contrary to the laws of nature and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Progressivism is coercive in that progressive values must become everyone’s values.  Those that resist are punished.  This is why the left, and not the right, has invented moral slurs for those who possess different values:  slurs such as homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogynist, and so forth—modern equivalents of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.  In 2006, Bernard Lewis argued antisemitism represents a special case of prejudice and hatred, that it is directed against people who are different from the rest and deemed to represent “cosmic evil.” This is why progressives such as UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff feel compelled to indoctrinate the masses by publishing books with such titles as:  Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  Lakoff’s framework justifies explaining that conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.  This is also why those who are skeptical of the anthropogenic theory and so called “settled science” for climate change are labeled “climate deniers” and considered evil.  For interesting contrary “evidence” on the subject see recent Congressional testimony by Dr. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

IM:  Given the rampant crony capitalism and corporate welfare that characterizes the current situation in America, there are now perverse incentives for the government aristocracy and the business sector to collaborate for the expansion of power and the perpetuation of that power.  Remember the “business world” reaction when then Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law?  The act was eventually amended to accommodate the demands of the LGTBQ special interest group who pressured businesses to boycott Indiana.  There have been other cases as well.  Last year the Seattle Seahawks chef faced similar pressures.  Recently, President Trump gave Congress six months to provide legislation related to the unconstitutional Presidential policy known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  A 31-year old Millennial, who happens to be the fifth wealthiest man in the world (for inventing a gossip platform—arguably a modern Marxist opium for the alienated masses), quickly organized a joint letter with roughly 300 business leaders representing the politically emancipated bourgeoisie to demonize Trump’s adult, well-reasoned constitutional action.  After all, authority for immigration policy rests on the legislative powers of the U.S. Congress, specifically articulated in Article I of the Constitution.

Old Gadfly:  It seems as though secular humanistic movements are aligning against America’s Judeo-Christian tradition.  Is this a modern “anti-Semitic” development?

IM:  If it is such a development, then it reflects concerns Arendt shared in a reply to a letter from Professor Eric Voegelin, another prominent political philosopher, in 1953.  The excerpt below talks about a lack of common interest and the atomization of society (something clearly reflected in social media phenomena):

For similar reasons and for the sake of distinguishing between ideas and actual events in history, I cannot agree with Mr. Voegelin's remark that "the spiritual disease is the decisive feature that distinguishes modem masses from those of earlier centuries." To me, modern masses are disintegrated by the fact that they are "masses" in a strict sense of the word. They are distinguished from the multitudes of former centuries in that they do not have common interests to bind them together nor any kind of common "consent" which, according to Cicero, constitutes interest, that which is between men, ranging all the way from material to spiritual and other matters. This "between" can be a common ground and it can be a common purpose; it always fulfills the double function of binding men together and separating them in an articulate way. The lack of common interest so characteristic of modern masses is therefore only another sign of their homelessness and rootlessness. But it alone accounts for the curious fact that these modem masses are formed by the atomization of society, that the mass-men who lack all communal relationships nevertheless offer the best possible "material" for movements in which peoples are so closely pressed together that they seem to have become One. The loss of interests is identical with the loss of "self," and modem masses are distinguished in my view by their selflessness, that is their lack of "selfish interests" (p. 81).[1]

In the following excerpt, Arendt emphasizes the danger of atheism:

I know that problems of this sort can be avoided if one interprets totalitarian movements as a new--and perverted--religion, a substitute for the lost creed of traditional beliefs. From this, it would follow that some "need for religion" is a cause of the rise of totalitarianism. I feel unable to follow even the very qualified form in which Professor Voegelin uses the concept of a secular religion. There is no substitute for God in the totalitarian ideologies - Hitler's use of the "Almighty" was a concession to what he himself believed to be a superstition. More than that, the metaphysical place for God has remained empty. The introduction of these semi-theological arguments in the discussion of totalitarianism, on the other side, is only too likely to further the wide-spread and strictly blasphemous modem "ideas" about a God who is "good for you"-for your mental or other health, for the integration of your personality and God knows what-that is "ideas" which make of God a function of man or society. This functionalization seems to me in many respects the last and perhaps the most dangerous stage of atheism (pp. 81-82).[2]

Old Gadfly:  How would you characterize these observations in relation to the American culture?

IM:  The idea of America, “our nation,” has been deeply rooted in an understanding of human dignity and the need for a political system to protect that dignity.  Donald S. Lutz, a political scientist at the University of Houston, conducted an analysis of archived documents between 1760 and 1805 to determine the source of influence in political thought during the founding of our nation.[3]  The number one source cited was the Bible with 34% of the citations.  The number two source, representing 22%, was a set of Enlightenment authors with Montesquieu topping the list.  The implication is that political thought inherent in the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.  It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that championed tolerance for faith, regardless of the religion or lack of religion.  The Declaration clearly established “self-evident” truths and rights—all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There was no implied source for these truths and rights.  Our founders explicitly identified the source:  “their Creator.”  In the early 20^th Century, members of the U.S. armed forces received citizenship training that was grounded in ethical and legal foundations.[4]  This 179-page manual includes an explicit explanation of the role philosophy and religion play in understanding individual liberty and the moral duty of citizenship.  Culturally, Americans predominantly affiliated with the Judeo Christian tradition, peaking in 1956 with 99% of surveyed Americans—71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, and 3% Jewish.[5]  Since 1956, the number of Americans affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition now represent 72%, a decrease of 27%--37% Protestant, 10% Christian nonspecific, 22% Catholic, 3% Jewish.[6]

Old Gadfly:  Arendt’s explanation of the decline of the Christian tradition combined with the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie established conditions for imperialism.  Imperialism for many is commonly understood to represent the colonization that European nations engaged in during previous centuries.  How would you explain imperialism in the 21^st Century?

AM:  Progressives in America and Europe believe in the power of central planning.  This is why they are strong advocates for the United Nations and other international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  In today’s vernacular, they are not imperialists; they are globalists.  This is why it is becoming more common to hear globalists, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, call themselves “citizens of the world.”  International institutions can be useful if understood as collaborative instruments in support of sovereign nations and people.  Unfortunately, progressives (globalists) see them as primary authorities.  Arendt reminds us that Soviet Communism and German Nazism were intended for world domination.  Progressivism and its central planners have a similar intent.  By the way, Hillary’s recent book title is What Happened.  A quick glance at the content reveals a lot of complaints about her struggle-bound presidential campaign and all the great ideas she had for policies across the board for social, political, and economic life for the masses.  I could not help but think that a better title for the book would have been My Struggle, but another figure in history already used that one.

IM:  Pretty clever, AM, on the book title observation!  But, then again, I noticed Samantha Power wrote the “Introduction” to the 2004 edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism.  The “Introduction” has two parts.  The first was a brilliant analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of Arendt’s thinking.  The second part revealed Power’s progressive and globalist nature.  I was not surprised then to recently learn that she participated on behalf of the Obama Administration in the “unmasking” of individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Old Gadfly:   Let me summarize this excellent discussion and then close with two predictions:

Summary:  First, America’s Dreyfus Affair is an attempt by the leftist progressives to create anger, contempt, and hatred against Donald Trump and all that he symbolizes—to include Americans Hillary Clinton demeaned as “deplorables.”   Second, there are anti-Semitic-equivalent movements that need to be called out and diminished.  Third, there is an imperialistic manifestation in the form of the business sector aligning with the political ideology of progressivism, further compounded by the unholy alliances of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.  These developments should also be called out by virtuous customers and politicians.[7]   

          Prediction:  First, it is now becoming apparent that moral (not political) courage helped Trump get elected.  Ninety-three percent of Americans classified as “Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians” voted for Trump.  Only 1% voted for Clinton. If Donald Trump survives the manufactured Russia collusion scandal, those who believed in his sincere and authentic vision of the American idea (“Make America Great Again”) will become greater in number and more courageous in fulfilling their moral duty, grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition. Second, virtuous Democrat leaders will realize the opportunity they have to “heal” the anger, contempt, and hatred that is so prominent (and rampant) among those who vote Democrat.  However, this will only come about after a serious evaluation of the progressive “ideology” and its dogmatic principles that are intolerant of other ideas and values.

---

[1]  Arendt, H.  (1953). [The Origins of Totalitarianism]: A Reply, The Review of Politics, 15(1), 76-84.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert S. Lutz, The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (March 1984), 189-197.

[4] See Training Manual 2000-25, Citizenship, November 30, 1928.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.pdf

[5] Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

[6] Ibid.

[7] See for example, Ken Buck, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse Than You Think, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2017).