Saturday, August 19, 2017

Propaganda in Full Bloom

Abstract:  Frankly, the dark side of our nation has achieved great momentum in seizing the initiative, in military terms.  We are in a war—a cultural war.  According to the public narrative, the left is successfully isolating President Trump, attempting to make him completely impotent politically.  No need for impeachment.  The left is essentially diminishing him in a similar fashion that Stalin and his propaganda machine diminished his relatively more liberal nemesis, Trotsky, of the Menshevik socialist faction.  Diminishment was not enough—Trotsky was ultimately assassinated.  And now we see elements of our history being assassinated.  It would be one thing for the media to objectively point out abuses of power or other forms of corruption.  During the previous eight years, Americans were aware of abuses of power and forms of corruption; yet, the leftist press showed little to no interest.  On the other hand, we have yet to see any objective reporting; rather the left deceives the public with propaganda, as this new Gadfly article argues in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with and inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).
Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, it’s been a week since the Charlottesville spectacle.  Your take?
AM:  We’re witnessing emergent propaganda in full bloom.  I say propaganda because the messaging represents the full meaning of propaganda:  “information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.”  I say emergent because there is no single, central organizing agent; yet, the messaging is concerted and consistent because of a central, self-organizing ideology called socialism.
IM:  The propagandists create and perpetuate folklore.  They want the public to believe Charlottesville was a contest between groups that are far right and left of the political center, suggesting the so called “white supremacists” and the KKK are far right-wing extremists.  Before we dig deeper, we should first examine how the stage was set.  The individual who organized the “unite the right” assembly, supposedly on behalf of the groups protesting the city’s plan to take down the General Robert E. Lee memorial, was Jason Kessler.  Kessler is an experienced agitator.  According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Kessler has experience in matters such as this, to include working with Occupy Wall Street, a left of center movement; and he apparently voted for Obama.  The SPLC is a well-left-of-center group.  They classify other groups that have different value systems as “hate groups.”  
AM:  One other question to ask:  why did the Charlottesville police, first responders, and national guardsmen—over 1,000do nothing to squelch the anarchy?  Would a life have been saved had they intervened?  For the left, letting the clashes unfold was good for the optics—they make news cycles easier and so much more visceral in advancing their propaganda.  Given how these groups are generally characterized by the left and understood by the “nice” public, Charlottesville was a setup to further demonize President Trump.  They insist he is a racist (because they cannot call him the N-word) and that white supremacists represent his base.  Although it is factual that Trump has said things used against him, they generally related to concerns about violations of the law (such as illegal aliens associated with sex and drug trafficking) and conflicts of interest (a judge refusing to recuse himself from a Trump lawsuit despite known ties to La Raza—“The term expresses ethnic or racial pride”).  The left has developed these kinds of tactics for decades.
IM:  Let me describe another example.  The media has even drudged up comments made by President Trump about General Pershing related to suppressing a Muslim insurgency in the Philippines (click here for a good history).  Although Trump’s description used during the Presidential campaign represented some enduring folklore about bullets dipped in pig’s blood, his recent tweets merely referenced General Pershing.  Here is what Trump actually said in his recent tweets within the context of terroristic assaults on our culture:  “study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. . . . There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!”  Notice the difference.  Being caught is not the same thing as being shot.  The historical reference is to the Moro rebellion in the Philippines (an interesting history involving presidential politics demonstrating similar parallels to our most recent experience in the Middle East).  Here is a quote from Pershing’s own autobiography: 
These juramentado were materially reduced in number by a practice the army had already adopted, one that the Mohammedans held in abhorrence.  The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig.  It was not pleasant to take such measures but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins.

AM:  Since there is ample evidence of propaganda, let me offer one more example.  I was alerted to this example from a recent Facebook entry where the author spoke about how our military leaders were even rebuking Commander-in Chief Trump for his insensitive Charlottesville remarks.  Unaware of this, I searched for evidence to confirm this allegation.  Sure enough, major newspapers were advancing this meme (incidentally, recall a conversation we had five years ago on memetics and politics).  Here is a quote from the Los Angeles Times:   
America's top-ranking military officers spoke out forcefully against racial bigotry and extremism, a rare public foray into domestic politics that revealed growing unease at the Pentagon with some of President Trump's policies and views.
The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the senior uniformed brass of the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force -- all posted messages on their official Twitter accounts to denounce the far-right extremists behind Saturday's violence in Charlottesville, Va.
The messages did not mention Trump, who is the commander in chief, by name. But the rebuke seemed clear in several posts given the bipartisan furor over Trump's insistence Tuesday that "both sides" were at fault for the violence. 
“The Army doesn't tolerate racism, extremism, or hatred in our ranks,” Gen. Mark Milley, chief of staff of the Army, tweeted Wednesday. “It's against our Values and everything we've stood for since 1775.”
To the undiscerning eye, the Times author wants you to believe the military leaders are rebuking the President, not the extremism.  The President rebuked racism, extremism, bigotry, and hatred.  The military leaders’ statements are completely congruent with the President’s.  Notice General Milley never used the term “far-right” in his statement.  Nor did any other military leader.
 Old Gadfly:  For so many “nice” Americans, they are at the mercy of a leftist media, relying upon their reporting as settled truth.  We know the KKK spawned as a domestic terrorist group on behalf of the Democrat Party during the post-Civil War reconstruction era.  According to the left, white supremacists are supposed to represent fascists, Nazis, and neo-Nazis because historical revisionists and progressives deny that these groups spawned from socialism, which is a left of center ideology.  The left sets the rules for the creation of truth, and they define or characterize the political right.  They do this by distorting history and creating labels (racist, xenophobe, misogynist, homophobe, etc.) reminiscent of the N-word.  The hateful left wants “nice” people to think the right is hateful.  Unfortunately, the right lacks a deeper understanding of these concepts and how they actually manifested in history; thus, they silently acquiesce to the deception.  This is not new in history.  Hayek observed and documented similar developments in his seminal book, The Road to Serfdom, initially published in 1944 for a Western European audience.  Here is an excerpt from Chapter 11, “The End of Truth”:
The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants (bold italics added for emphasis; p. 171).
Predictably, Hayek’s book was roundly rebuked by the progressive left in academic, media, Hollywood, and political circles.  So, he essentially went into hiding for a few years to collect his bearings.  He resurfaced with some lectures at the University of Cairo to vet his ideas about the concept called liberty.  These lectures provided the inspiration and logic for his next seminal work, The Constitution of Liberty.  Ironically, Hayek revised the Foreword to The Road to Serfdom in 1956 for an American audience.  A year later, speaking at America’s National Press Club, Soviet communist leader Nikita Khruschev taunted Americans with this statement:  “. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society.”
This brings me back to the dynamics of Charlottesville.  Good classical liberals mostly represent the Republican Party based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government (via a Constitutional Republic) and the rule of law, private property, a free market, and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Pathetically, a growing number of so called Republicans betray these principles and their corruption weakens any resolve to combat the forces intent on destroying the idea of America.  See for example Ken Buck’s excellent book, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse than You Think.  Classical liberalism is the form of liberalism that socialists in Europe, especially Germany, and the Soviet Union attacked.  Socialism is a left of center ideology.  This can and should be understood as a political axiom.  Communism is a left-wing manifestation of socialism.  Fascism and Nazism are a right-wing manifestation of socialism.  Both manifestations are left of center on the broader political spectrum.  Both are illiberal.  Yet, the left has been very successful in convincing too many “nice” people, whether American or European, that fascism and Nazism are an extreme right of center phenomenon.  This makes it easy then to appropriately demonize Nazi, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist groups and then to associate them with the Republican Party and conservatives.  Since the left claimed the liberal label, even though their concept did not even come close to representing the classical liberal principles, classic liberals then took on the label of conservative.  People forget or do not even recall what the Reagan conservative movement was all about.  He championed the conservation of classical liberal principles.
Too many “nice” Americans live in their comfort zones while being programmed to “act spontaneously” based on leftist propaganda.  Even some of my closest friends have lamented Trump’s tweets.  But when I asked if they receive them directly, they admitted they did not, which means they only know about the tweets based on how the leftist media portray them.  The left now attacks our history (whether good or bad).  It won’t be long before they attack “nice” people in their comfort zones when the left crosses the threshold of (a) realizing taxation is not enough to meet the demands of a large central government and welfare state and begin confiscating private property (like your retirement accounts that you built based on your own labor); and (b) prosecuting those who question their deceptions and actions as hate speech.
We must warn our family and friends.  There is no straddling the fence here.  One cannot claim political independence and hope others solve our problem.  The idea of America is under full assault.  The left controls the public narrative.  Americans must break out of their “nice” trance.  Become discerning.  Be outraged at “the end of truth” tactics of the left.  Be courageous.  Pick the right side:  either a truly liberal America or a socialist tyranny.  Fight for truth and justice.      

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Ideologues Attacking Antiquity

Abstract:  As we sift through the media coverage of the Charlottesville event and the news cycles stemming from it, it is amazing to see the propaganda at play.  If you are not yet afraid of manufactured developments, then you may not be sufficiently prepared for the consequences to follow.  Hayek warned about these developments in his chapter, “The End of Truth,” in his Nobel prize winning book, The Road to Serfdom.  At the time of its publication, Hayek received a brutal wave of criticism from the then liberal academic establishment.  These liberals turned out to be “modern liberals” and today’s progressives (socialists in sheep’s clothing).

The media completely misses the essence of what is going on in Charlottesville, which is a symbol of the competition of visions in America—those who want to transform the idea of America and those who want to preserve it.  This Gadfly Corner article touches upon this theme.  

            IM:  I’m trying to understand why the left is so insistent upon destroying Confederate statues.

Old Gadfly:  Try to think through the motivation.

IM:  The statues represent individuals who played a critical role in advancing the goals of the Confederacy.

Old Gadfly:  Do we really understand the goals of the Confederacy?  What motivated the push for secession from the union?  The reasons are fairly complex.  To keep it simple, let’s talk about Charlottesville, Virginia and the decision to take down Lee's statue.

IM:  A white supremacist group had applied for a permit and received approval to assemble for the purpose of protesting the removal of a General Robert E. Lee statue.


Old Gadfly:  It seems as though the focus has been on the nature of the group and not on the reason for the request to assemble.

 IM:  That’s because the nature of the group, as a white supremacy group, represents a perceived assault on nonwhites.   The manufactured debacle at Charlottesville is an extension of the belief that Lee is perceived to have fought for the preservation of slavery—a human injustice—yet by today’s standards of justice.  This is the impugned motivation.  There is no movement to protest other forms of slavery in the past.  The debacle ignores an entire movement to demonize whites for the institution of slavery, even though blacks in Africa were a major part of the slave trade.  The debacle completely ignores Lee’s loyalty to the State of Virginian during a time when States exercised sovereignty consistent with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Old Gadfly:  So, you are indicating the complexity of conditions related to the American Civil War, such as the issues involved in preserving the union, State sovereignty, and the morality of slavery.

IM:  Exactly.

AM:  These arguments point to the real crime taking place.  The left wants to eliminate perceived injustices in history by eliminating statues as if this will correct the perceived injustices.  We have a completely different generation, living by different standards, judging previous generations based on today’s ideology.  How is this different from the destruction of antiquities by the members of ISIS?

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, AM.  The world is outraged by ISIS’s destruction of antiquities.  Why is there no similar outrage over the left’s attempt to do similar things in America?

IM:  One of the groups that contributed to the violence at Charlottesville was Black Lives Matter.  A great deal of its motivation was based on the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth from the event at Ferguson, Missouri, which turned out to be a fabrication.   Yet, they are a member of the left’s ideologues that represent the left’s army bent on destroying Trump and all that he stands for.  Because Trump understands what happened and made it known in his comment about more than one party being at fault for the violence at Charlottesville, he continues to be demonized by the left.  The left, which is more consistent with ISIS in its attempt to shape history and truth, but most importantly to engage in a campaign of conquest, dominates the news cycles.  Unfortunately, Rich Higgins attempted to reveal this strategy, but was fired by Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster (a brilliant warrior, but what is his political agenda?).  Higgins’ explanation of the different levels of narratives by the media is playing out as we speak.  Check out today’s New York Times, if not all the news reports whether local or national.

Old Gadfly:  Based on my own analysis of cultural developments in our society, I could have written the exact memo that Rich Higgins wrote.  Higgins is a patriot.  His analysis is on target.  Do we have others to take his place?

AM:  They can only operate informally.  The media and deep state (Obama holdovers) are not on our side.


Old Gadfly:   We are in a political war.  As difficult as it may seem, Americans will need to pick a side.  The challenge is that many, too many, Americans will have no idea why they should pick a side.   Too many have had the luxury of living in comfort zones and have long ago lost interest in what America is all about.   Too many refer to America as a democracy without any understanding of the founders’ intent on America being a republic.  Thus, they know not the difference between a republic and a democracy.  Too many know nothing of socialism and its cause of tyranny in recent history.   Too many are at the complete mercy of a leftist media that will influence the side they take.  In the end, we are all held accountable for the side we choose.  So, Americans, choose wisely.  Democrats are the party of 19th century slavery and 20th and 21st century institutionalized slavery in the form of inner cities and the welfare state.   Republicans believe in the dignity of the human being (i.e., prolife) and the importance of the rule of law in a constitutional republic.  We are mortal.  God will judge for eternity.  

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Colluding, Meddling, and Muddling

“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime,” Lavrentiy Beria


IM:  Gentlemen, are you angry with President Trump, yet?

Old Gadfly:  Why do you ask?

AM:  Probably because of the constant negative reporting in the mainstream news.   In all my time in special operations and with an unnamed intelligence agency, I have never witnessed such a comprehensive influence operation by a once-free press against American institutions.  Take for instance an op-ed in today’s New York Times:  “Oh, Wait.  Maybe It Was Collusion.”  The authors are former CIA operatives with experience in Russia, and one is a consultant for CNN.  In this influence op hit piece, they lay out a theory to support their proposition that collusion probably took place.  Probably?  For those of us who have actual experience in deriving an assessment based on triangulation of actual evidence, here is one major flag in their piece:  “It is our view not only that the Russian government was running some sort of intelligence operation involving the Trump campaign, but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.”  What are they implying?  Based on their own experience as intelligence operatives in Russia, this is how spy craft works.  But it’s alright for America to engage in these practices--such as influencing elections in Israel and other countries--but no other country can?  It’s highly likely that Russia was involved in attempting to influence our political dynamics because America has been involved in similar practices.  CIA Director Pompeo should initiate an investigation into both authors for potential violation of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities

Old Gadfly:  Alright, so even President Trump has acknowledged that other countries, to include Russia, attempt to influence elections—welcome to international politics.  Our senior intelligence officials are on record that no Russian efforts actually influenced the outcome—for example no votes were changed.  But, is there potential evidence to “prove” collusion?

IM:   Isn’t even an allegation of collusion based on reasonable cause?

Old Gadfly:   In this case, what might we conclude to be a reasonable cause?  In other words, what might have triggered suspicion of collusion?

AM:  The trigger was a Russian dossier that was released by CNN, starting this meme of Russian collusion in the public narrative.  Progressive politicians, such as John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff, knew that if they colluded with a progressive mainstream media, once the narrative achieved traction (it’s still thriving in daily broadcasts) the burden of proof would be on President Trump to prove he did not collude.  Recall the CNN-CIA authors statement above:  “. . . but also that it is impossible to rule out the possibility of collusion between the two.”?  So the meme has a long shelf-life, and progressive tactics are no less egregious than those employed by Stalin’s chief of internal security (note the quote above by Beria).

Old Gadfly:    So, if the left is concerned about corruption in the form of collusion, should they not be concerned about any collusion that may have taken place?

IM Yes, assuming the left has virtuous intentions.  Unfortunately, there is evidence of collusion in (a) the admitted unmasking of names by at least Susan Rice, ostensibly for political purposes, subsequently leaking “classified” information to the media, and then refusing to testify before Congress until actually subpoenaed (the deep state must have revealed some incriminating evidence on Lieutenant General McMaster to convince him to retain Rice’s security clearance); (b) the DNC working with GPS Fusion to fabricate the Russian dossier; and (c) the left’s acquiescence in a DNC-paid third party examination of DNC computers as opposed to insisting upon the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Old Gadfly:  The DNC computer issue is troubling on two counts.  First, the FBI would have had greater credibility in suggesting Russian hacking had they examined the physical evidence.  Second, given the damaging material in the Wikileaks release, there may have been even more incriminating information that had to be concealed from the FBI, such as a smoking gun on the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, assassination.

IM:  Apparently, Rod Wheeler, the original investigator, has shifted oars on the Rich story and has filed a lawsuit against Fox News for attempting to report on the nefarious circumstances surrounding Rich’s death.  The FBI denies any interest in the case.  The Metropolitan Police Department, which can be temporarily directed by the President under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, has been sued to release information of what has become a “cold case.”  July 2016 was a busy month:  Wikileaks released thousands of emails, emphasizing they did not come from Russia and implying a DNC insider was the source; Seth Rich was assassinated (there is some online testimony indicating Rich was alive when he was admitted to the emergency room and on the way to recovery, see also here, here, and here); and the FBI sought a surveillance warrant from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court against an alleged member of the Trump campaign. 

AM:  I watched in utter amazement how Democrats in Congress laid the stage for appointing a special counsel.  First, it began with the Sessions confirmation hearings.  All the Democrats expressed their contempt for Sessions’ insistence on enforcing the law.  But it was Senator Al Franken who actually set in motion the notion for a special counsel (watch a segment of the hearing here) by using the infamous Russian dossier to trap Sessions.  This obviously led to Sessions' recusal regarding any investigation into Russian collusion.  I loved the part where professional comedian and failed radio talk-show host Franken admits he’s not a lawyer.  Franken even repeated  concerns that Trump lauded Wikileaks for releasing classified information, but seems to have no concern about The New York Times or The Washington Post colluding in similar practices.  I believe Democrats anticipated the integrity-bound Sessions actually would recuse himself because they pulled a full court press against Rod Rosenstein at his confirmation hearing.  Every single Democrat beat the drum for a special counsel.  By now the leftist media giants The New York Times and the Washington Post had released numerous stories about Watergate parallels and the Saturday Night Massacre, where both the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned when asked to fire the special prosecutor.  Both the attorney general and deputy attorney general had been confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate within months prior after pledging they would not fire the special prosecutor.  Despite a landslide reelection, Nixon ended up resigning because of the court of public opinion.  As we have discussed before, Nixon was defeated by the left because of collusion between the prosecutor, judges, congress, and the media.  Sound familiar?

Old Gadfly:  And just today, special counsel Mueller has formed a grand jury.

IM:  Remember how the last one played out?   Remember the allegation that a crime had been committed by leaking the name of an undercover agent?  It turns out the individual was no longer undercover; thus no crime.  But, the investigation lasted until Scooter Libby became the sacrificial lamb—not the one who released Valerie Plame’s name to Bob Novak, but because he made conflicting statements under oath—bingo, perjury.  Do you remember who appointed the special counsel?  Then Deputy Attorney General James Comey.  In May, Comey pulled the trigger by illegally releasing a memo to justify a special counsel.  Thus, Mueller has a mission.  Isn’t justice pathetic when it is so politically manipulated?

AM:  The real injustice here is former FBI Director Comey.  He admitted to illegally leaking a memo to trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor.  Remember, he’s the adult in the room that usurped the attorney general’s authority by closing the Clinton investigation.  While Sessions has the integrity to recuse himself to avoid a conflict of interest, Mueller has no qualms about being a special counsel associated with Comey’s machinations even though it is becoming widely known that Mueller worked for Comey when Comey was the Deputy Attorney General and Mueller the FBI Director.  So far, only Seth Rich has been executed.  Perhaps the left is hoping this Administration will want to avoid a Russian Great Purge, capitulating to let the left win this debacle with President Trump, or one of his aides or family members, taken down by Mueller and the Democrat Party.

Old Gadfly:    I think the left has studied Sun Tzu and is employing his concept of attack by stratagem (or “the sheathed sword”):  “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”[1]     But, the left does not have truth and justice on its side; thus, at best their stratagem is merely meddling and muddling.  Most people would have withered by now from the constant attacks.  Trump’s resolve should be encouraging.  If members of the left were not so ideological (Marxist, progressive), then they should be asking why Democrats are not concerned about criminal activity by members of its own political cohort.  Virtuous behavior insists upon accountability.  Trump believes in accountability and has already indicated that if satellites within his administration have colluded with Russia, he would want to know.  And, despite apparent political motivation by Obama-placed federal judges, Trump has not nullified any federal court rulings, unlike his predecessor.  Further, while Comey claims Trump asked for loyalty, their notions of loyalty are different.  Comey’s is tribal and politically motivated.  Trump’s is tied to merit, to the rule of law, and to the institutions of our Constitutional Republic.  This is why he is a threat to the left.  Now, let’s see if Mueller will “find a crime.  While the left owns and controls the mainstream media, they do not own or control the truth.  Americans do; they yearn for it.  In terms of justice, criminal behavior has taken place.  There is plenty of evidence.  It’s time for accountability.




[1] Sun Tzu, The Art of War (edited by James Clavell; New York:  Delacorte Press, 1983), p. 15.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Republic versus Democracy by Dennis Haugh

The following article is definitely nonconventional in nature. It challenges a lot of orthodoxy, but it is based upon the basics of political thought and introduces an entirely new perspective on Marxism. Of course, it is not the only perspective possible.

What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? Americans today have gotten sloppy in referring to them as synonyms. They are definitely not, and the distinction is very important. As James Madison warned in Federalists #10:

Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.[1]


In other words, democracies do nothing to guarantee liberty or safety. In this article we will explain why democracies are incompatible with personal security and rights of property. Republics are not perfect, but they are superior. To understand why, we need to understand what the difference is.

Students are taught in United States’ civics classes that whereas democracy is direct involvement of the citizens, a republic is “representative government”. This statement is only partially true. It describes the implementation of the republic that the framers designed. What a republic really is requires understanding the abstract concept laid out by Aristotle over two millennia ago. In short, a republic is a form of government that enables the middle class to rule.[2] The key component to this definition is that what defines the middle class has nothing to do with wealth.[3]

Within society, there have always been the poor and the rich. Aristotle chronicled that as societies flourished a third, middle class grew.[4] Unlike our view today where these classes are defined by an artificial number based upon wealth, Aristotle’s categorization was based upon attitude.[5] The poor defined themselves by being envious. The rich were greedy. The middle class was neither greedy nor envious. As such, they would defend the poor from the power of the rich. In so doing, they ensure personal security. Conversely, they would defend the rich from the numbers of the poor; thus, ensuring the rights of property. Therefore, the “best” form of government is one where the middle class rules. That is what we call a republic.

On the other hand, we know that democracy is rule of the many (majority). The distinction with democracy is that the middle class is not large enough to buffer the enmity between rich and poor. Since the middle class is too weak to defend the rich from the numbers of the poor, democracy is rule by the poor – who are the majority. The rights of property become insecure because of the poor’s envy. With no security in one’s property, personal security becomes a casualty shortly thereafter.

Republics are inclined toward meritocracy. The pursuit of happiness is a natural phenomenon in a society that lacks greed or envy. Society profits as a by-product. A democracy is different. The envy of the ruling class (the poor) discourages personal improvement.

When I was a cadet at the Air Force Academy in the early 70’s, we all had to go through a simulated Prisoner of Was (POW) camp as a part of the Survival Escape Resistance and Evasion (SERE - pronounced “SEER-EE”, not “SEER”) program. (NOTE: with the change in enemies over the years the program has swapped the two E’s and the need for the POW training has diminished). The year after being an “object of the exercise”, I returned to the SERE program to be an “aggressor” (specifically an interrogator). We wore black-dyed fatigues and funky communist beanies with a red star. We called ourselves “The People’s Democratic Republic” (PDR). While we were trucked to Jacks Valley one day, I can remember reflecting how cynical it was that all the communist countries inserted “Democratic” into the title of their nation. Some also abused “Republic”.

Recently I began to realize that the communist use of the term “democracy” may in fact not be cynical. What I have come to realize is that Marx did not really create a new form of government. What he actually did was figure out how to stabilize democracy – sort of. If we look at the socialist/communist revolutions like the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao’s Cultural Revolution, what do we see? Ignoring Marx’s terminology, the masses (poor) rise up against the powerful (rich). After great turmoil (and death), the established traditions are replaced with new traditions to program the society to accept what is really an oligarchy in disguise. The transition from democracy to oligarchy is seamlessly done through coercion, but the social upheaval destroys any resistance to the new order. The poor are the enforcers because they are true believers. Subsequent generations are indoctrinated into the “traditions” of the new social order.

We tend to think that socialism only replaces tyranny, but that is not necessarily the case. Consider the following passage from Madison’s Federalist 10, which Madison wrote long before Marx.

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society[6]

All that is required to take down a republic is to move enough of the population from the middle class to the poor in order to enable Marxist dogma to activate. This can be done without taking a dime from anyone. All that must happen is to convince members of the middle class that they are being taken advantage of by “the rich” to amplify envy. The effect is to shrink the middle class and grow the poor, thereby creating a democracy where a republic had existed. The transition to a socialist/communist state is but a heartbeat away. All that is required is for the majority to focus on sharing over opportunity. That transition is Marx’s legacy.

The key distinction between a democracy in antiquity and a Marxist state is the programming of the poor. In antiquity the outcome was unpredictable. Socrates and Plato thought there was a cycle of government; Aristotle did not. Once Marxism is introduced and embraced, a totalitarian oligarchy prevails that is reinforced by the poor. Indoctrination of the young entrenches the system for potentially lifetimes.

Unlike during the Cold War, many Americans have embraced the notion that “socialism isn’t that bad” with the belief that an American version would be kinder and gentler than others. They are kidding themselves. F. A. Hayek grew up in the heart of socialist Europe prior to World War II. He was inculcated into socialism at a young age but witnessed the horrors begot by socialism first hand. As he writes in The Road to Serfdom, Hitler’s rise would have been inconceivable 15 years earlier. It took socialism to prepare the country.[7] Per Marxist doctrine, socialism is a transient state to communism.[8] The holocaust in World War II left six million dead in its wake, but the numbers of dead due to communism are staggering and dwarf the holocaust. A more complete compilation of the death toll can be found on http://victimsofcommunism.org/, but just consider three examples:[9]

·         Stalin was responsible for at least 60 million deaths
·         Mao’s Cultural Revolution killed 70 million
·         Pol Pot was responsible for killing 20% of the population of Cambodia

All deaths were within national boundaries and committed by fellow citizens. They do not include the loss of life during the Bolshevik Revolution, or a number of other communist purges. Our casualties during the Cold War were but a pin prick by comparison. To put it into perspective, our bloodiest war, the Civil War cost 620,000 lives over four years.

Does the government the founders laid out in the Constitution protect us from such a transition? The founders themselves didn’t think so. In his closing speech at the Constitutional Convention , Ben Franklin stated clearly that he thought the government would be well administered for a course of years but would eventually devolve to despotism.[10] Likewise, John Adams did not consider the Republic bulletproof:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.[11]

Franklin’s retort to Mrs. Powel when she asked him what kind of government the Convention had developed, “A republic, if you can keep it” further demonstrates that the founders well understood the vulnerability of the republic.[12]

How did the founders create a republic? They didn’t directly; they did it indirectly by enabling a population with a dominant middle class to rule itself by limiting government. An unlimited government will eventually become either a tyranny (like Franklin projected) or an oligarchy (as Marx designed).

The theory of a written constitution is to stabilize and restrict government for the good of society. The enumeration of powers and restrictions on powers are the key elements in the U.S. Constitution. The familiar separation of powers at the national level has actually been around since antiquity. Classically the three branches provided a way for the three classes of society to check each other’s power. Such a scheme is less effective in our “classless society”. This is why the innovation of a federal system of opposing governments was so important in limiting the power and the size of both state and national governments. It is no accident that the growth of the national government takes off in 1913, the year the 16th and 17th amendments were ratified. Coupled with the long-term effects of McCulloch v. Maryland, state government power has declined precipitously since. We will explore how federal the U.S. constitutional system is in the next article.



[10] Political Vertigo, Appendix A

Thursday, May 18, 2017

The Mueller Report: June 15, 2018

            IM:  Gentlemen, I had an interesting dream last night.  It involved a report by newly appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein.  It summarized findings stemming from his investigation.  With Rosenstein’s permission the report was allowed to be made public at a national press conference on Friday, June 15, 2018 at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.


            AM:  I suspect, as Democrats have been pining for, Mueller's report sought prosecution of President Trump and some of his lieutenants.  After all, when Mueller was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he actually reported to Comey when Comey was the Deputy Attorney General.  News reports indicate they had a cozy relationship. In the left’s opinion, prosecution would be suitable retribution for colluding with the Russians to steal the election.
            
          Old Gadfly:  IM, before we hear about your dream, let me remind you that there is a reason we have heard members of the left refer to the current developments as “Nixonian” or “shades of Watergate.”  There have been deliberate actions by Democrats that parallel efforts to take down Nixon.  The media amplified the effect then as now. On the 10th of May, this was a New York Times headline:  “In Trump Firing of James Comey, Echoes of Watergate.”  Today’s Democrats essentially held Rod Rosenstein hostage to the idea of a special counsel in order to secure confirmation.  Similar actions took place when Democrats held hostage Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus for attorney general and deputy attorney general, respectively.  This took place during Senate confirmation hearings as Watergate was unfolding.  Although this may sound like a strange connection, Richardson’s so called “independent prosecutor,” Archibald Cox, was cozy with Democrats, actually inviting Senators Ted Kennedy and the widow of Robert Kennedy to his swearing in ceremony.[1]  One would think that Cox would take the necessary precautions to avoid appearing partisan. 

As I explained in a previous discussion, in the 1950s U.S. Congressman Richard Nixon was the lead investigator that led to the conviction of Alger Hiss, a Communist agent for the Soviet GRU but a close friend of highly placed Democrats.  According to Philip Elman, in 1943, he, Alger Hiss, and Archibald Cox worked together under Dean Acheson at the State Department.[2]  Do you get the drift? 

Unfortunately, a lot of what we know about Watergate is folklore.  More recent historians secured access to recently released original documents that indicate Nixon was innocent of any crimes yet unjustly convicted based on fabrications and manipulation of the public narrative.  In other words, Nixon was tried and convicted in the public court, orchestrated by power centers on the left:  Democrats (elected and in judicial roles) and the media.  In the process, laws were broken in terms of conspiracy and collusion by prosecutors and judges.[3]  And the media loves leaks now as they did then.  Tell me again.  How are The New York Times and The Washington Post different from Wikileaks?
            
           AM:  They are worse—they betray the essence of freedom of the press in America.  However, there is some irony and an abundance of truth in Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s observation that American newspapers are like the Communist newspapers of the former Soviet Union.  So Trump is screwed!!  Déjà vu all over again!!  
           
           IM:  Take a breath guys.  Let me tell you my dream.  You are going to find this hard to believe.  Here goes . . .

Going into the summer of 2018, Democrats were projected to rout Republicans in the mid-term elections—nationally and at the state level.  The media was already spiking the football as public figures from the left talked about the final phase of a transformed America.  Finally, one political party was on the verge of completely dominating political values for America.  America was about to become Soviet America, adopting the Communist Party USA’s slogan:  people and planet before profit.

Democrats kept investigations going in the House and Senate, periodically giving press reports that they were close to completing them, that they were convinced of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Every week there was some bombshell report in The New York Times or Washington Post based on leaks from anonymous sources within the government.  Hillary Clinton began building a campaign staff for the 2020 elections.  Surprisingly, throughout this time, Mueller provided absolutely no reports on the investigation.  Miraculously, there were no leaks from his staff.

Then, on Thursday, June 14, 2018, Mueller announced that he would publicly present the results of the investigation the next day at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.  Not known for drama, Mueller requested a coliseum and maximum coverage on all the networks.  Republicans and Trump supporters were already preparing for the bad news.  Democrats and the media were already talking about lengthy prison terms and celebrating final retribution for stealing the election.

The appointed time arrived.  Mueller took the stage and announced two major findings.  First, there was no evidence of collusion with Russia.  Second, the investigation into any evidence of obstruction of justice revealed serious violations of the law.  Commentators on MSNBC and CNN wanted to be the first to start listing names of those they believed were involved:  President Trump when he suggested that “I hope you can let it go,” Lt General Flynn, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, and so forth. 

Then, Mueller looked into the camera and declared the investigation revealed a network of conspirators with an overwhelming rabbit trail of incriminating evidence.  Secret grand juries had already been held, gag orders were issued to all parties involved. 

The thread for this aspect of the investigation began with Comey.  Mueller wanted to know if the Wikileaks material had any other source other than Russia.  He discovered that the Washington DC police had been investigating the death of Seth Rich, an idealistic 27-year old staff member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) but had been pressured by Comey to back off since the FBI was already investigating this issue in light of the broader Russian collusion investigation.  Mueller discovered that while Russia had in fact hacked into the DNC email system, the actual material from Wikileaks actually came from Seth Rich.  Rich was found with two bullets to the back.  His wallet was intact with cash and credit cards—clearly the appearance of an assassination.  Authentic emails from Podesta previously expressed the intent to make an example of a leaker, “whether or not we have any real basis for it.”  This communication was more than circumstantial and far more egregious than President Trump’s “I hope you can let it go” request of Comey.  The Clinton campaign insisted upon not working with the press, unless they could directly control the narrative.  Yet, when it came to their attempt to spin the news with the trumped up Russian dossier on candidate Trump, I became very concerned that the FBI actually contributed to the narrative by leaking it to the press.

Obviously, we opened the aperture and justified reopening the Clinton email case.  We reversed immunity granted to various members associated with this case.  Despite an aggressive attempt to destroy evidence—an act that is obstruction of justice—we gathered sufficient evidence to seek indictments from a grand jury.  Besides Hillary, husband William, John Podesta, Sidney Blumenthal, and a host of other associates, we will be pursuing prosecutions and maximum sentences.  Commentators on MSNBC and CNN were visibly shocked.  Some began to cry uncontrollably.

Mueller continued.  The thread of our investigation led to other criminal activity within the Justice Department, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the National Security Council (NSC), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  Although Lois Lerner deserved prosecution for her role in censoring voices on the right, we granted immunity to get evidence that took us not only to the political officer appointed to the IRS, but to members of the White House staff.  Valerie Jarrett immediately sought immunity to provide evidence that proved Barack Obama was involved in covering up illegal activity in Fast and Furious, the Benghazi attack, prisoner exchanges with Afghanistan and Iran, and other less known activities.  Attorneys General Holder and Lynch also conspired to support political actions contrary to public law.  These were the big fish in the conspiracy.  Since the evidence is irrefutable, we are pressing forward with these prosecutions as we also continue to follow the thread throughout the conspiracy, to include leakers within the NSC, the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA.  We are also considering seditious behavior considerations for journalists who collaborated in these activities knowing the motive or intent of the leakers was to subvert the legitimacy of a constitutionally elected President.

Although I did not vote for President Trump, nor do I even appreciate his agenda or style, as a man of the law, I had no other moral obligation but to enforce actions in his attempt to drain the swamp.  That completes my presentation; I will be taking no questions.

AM:  Wow.  Your dream is wishful thinking.

Old GadflyCicero observed similar dangers in his own day.  We would be wise to recognize the similarities captured in Cicero's statement:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Let us hope that Mueller understands this caution and helps our nation save its soul.   




[1] For a well-documented history on Archibald Cox and his Watergate connection, see Archibald Cox. (2017, May 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:50, May 18, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archibald_Cox&oldid=780960548
[2] Norman I. Silber, With All Deliberate Speed:  The Life of Philip Elman:  An Oral History Memoir in Mr. Elman’s Words, (Ann Arbor, MI:  The University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 140.
[3] For instance, see Geoff Shepard, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down, (Washington, DC:  Regnery History, 2015).