Miserable Creatures

         Abstract:  Many privileged Americans wearing National Football League (NFL) uniforms have decided to use their celebrity status to make a political statement.  This is their choice.  They are free to do this in America, even in London.  They obviously have no idea that to express such political freedom is an American right, a right that does not exist in other parts of the world such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, or China.  In expressing their right, they insult the millions who have given far more to protect this right.  Perhaps someday they may finally realize what it means to truly be American.  This article examines these circumstances 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 closes with a reflective observation from John Stuart Mill about the American Civil War.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, I woke this morning to a headline in USA Today:  “Jaguars owner Shahid Khan joins in on NFL's national anthem protests.”  To aggravate the act, it took place during an exhibition game in London.  Then, throughout the day other teams in America participated in similar protests.  AM, like these NFL players you and I wore a uniform, you for over 35 years and I for over 34 years.  What are your thoughts?

AM:  My first thought was disappointment that Americans, especially on foreign soil, would disrespect the flag and the national anthem—symbols of America that represent the idea of what America stands for: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Many of our fellow Americans gave life and limb to protect and to advance these rights for America and other nations.  I pictured the thousands of crosses, and among these crosses Stars of David, strewn across Europe and the Pacific Theater marking the graves of fellow Americans who gave their lives liberating others from the tyranny of socialist fascism.  Fascism and socialist communism in the Soviet Union and China were and are oppressive ideologies.

The image above is from Lorraine American Cemetery in France.  None of these individuals had a labor union to keep them from working more than 40 hours in a week, to insist upon overtime pay for more than 40 hours, or to sideline for a concussion.  The image I saw this morning was a stark contrast:  privileged athletes making a political statement, apparently about racism.  My first reaction was to break out in uncontrollable laughter.   Not a single one of these athletes was forcefully hauled to this field, suited up, and then released from ankle chains to harvest a win for the team owner.  In fact, all the athletes wearing a uniform on that field earn more in one year than 95% of Americans earn in several years.  What racist institutions kept them from this athletic achievement?  The majority of NFL players do not represent the nationwide demographics.  So, if America was racist, then why are there so many minority players wearing NFL uniforms?

Old Gadfly:  Keep in mind this is all a reaction to President Trump’s public language in (a) suggesting the NFL should fire players that disrespect the flag and National Anthem and (b) disinviting the NBA basketball player that publicly proclaimed he would not attend the White House celebration.

IM:  The President campaigned on Making America Great Again.  The professional athletes in the NFL and NBA are apparently not happy about that.

Old Gadfly:  They certainly are not alone.  Others feel the same way.  For example, look at the push back Denver Bronco Derek Wolfe received when he disagreed with kneeling during the National Anthem.

AM:  Thank God for red blooded Americans with NASCAR!

Old Gadfly:  I think this all boils down to a fundamental understanding of what America is all about.  There are Americans who believe in the American dream—that through hard work and perseverance as good patriotic citizens of a Constitutional Republic the pursuit of happiness is real.  There are others that believe differently.  They believe in a large central government that promotes social justice in the pursuit of utopia this side of death (read Bernie Sanders' book, Revolution).  Thus, America is in the midst of a culture war.  Amazingly, today’s conversation began in London.  At the start of the American Civil War, a British political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, convinced the British government not to intervene in the American contest.  In his article, he made this closing observation: 

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

           I would submit that those taking a knee are not doing it for patriotic reasons.  To the contrary, they are instruments—they are miserable creatures serving a master's cause.  Who is the master?  The master is an ideology that is Marxist and that can only be justified by a belief in oppression, whether real or imagined.  Where are these players in expressing outrage about the real oppression in Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea?  The NFL players should stick to the direction of their coaches since this is a business contract.  If they want to protest the social contract with the American society, then they should do their due diligence to see where the real injustice exists, such as our inner cities managed for decades by a particular political party.  The majority of Americans believes in the idea of America and wants to Make America Great Again—for ALL Americans.  NFL players can become great again and real American role models, if they stop serving dangerous ideological masters. 

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).

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 1,000—do 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.      

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 19^th century slavery and 20th and 21^st 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.  

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.