Living the Gospel

 

A long-time friend, and a Benedictine monk of my acquaintance, have enjoyed a lively exchange of letters over the last few years. (I posted the contents of one of them on this blog on July 13, 2022, entitled “The Essentials”.) This letter (from the monk) is an excellent example of apologetics, and of the scriptural basis for living the Gospel. (One could also consider it a Bible study, considering the number of Biblical references it contains.) The monk introduces this text as follows: “Don't think these are simply memorized references to be fired off; I'm not one for either the fundamentalistic apologetic style, or for rote memorization. Rather, your letter led to me reviewing the New Testament as a whole with your implicit questions in mind. Each one of these passages in hand-picked.”

The letter follows:

I plan to begin with Jesus, [then] to Paul, [then] to what I would call – rather than the history of Christian Civilization – World history after the beginnings of Christianization. [Regarding the references] The very best bible I recommend now is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. They have an excellent one-volume New Testament, hardbound. Scott Hahn, the main writer, is one of the very best exegetes. If you read his introduction to the Ignatius Bible, after the first introduction, you will read an excellent summary of the Catholic approach to Scripture.

You are quite right to emphasize the love & mercy & compassion of Jesus. This is something that is very often underestimated or understood in the wrong way. This is true not only for those who forget that only God can judge a man's knowledge and intentions, and who confuse the objective moral truth of an objective disorder with subjectively judging a man's moral state; but also for those in special need of Jesus' mercy & compassion, but who run from a prayerful encounter out of fear that Jesus' knowledge and, therefore, objective judgment of a man's heart is for the sake of condemnation, rather than merciful love, healing & compassionate forgiveness, and for this full blossoming as the person he is meant to be, happy & at peace, because in harmony with himself, others and his loving Creator.

From the very beginning of such disorders the human race fled from God because he (Adam) saw that he was naked, and was afraid.

Jesus came to be the supreme witness to the truth (John 18:37-38) that God is not arbitrary condemnation but love (John 3:16-21). Love is what created things to be the good things that they are, and to find their full fulfillment in the full blossoming of their nature; and – for men – even a supernatural elevation & blossoming, which of course can only be a gratuitous gift.

The lie born of both fear (Adam) & envy of those in harmony (Cain & Abel) was that of God as naturally a severe judge, an arbitrary rule maker, and a condemnor of true freedom. The lie of Satan from the beginning (John 8:43-44) was – rather than acknowledging that a limited form of existence (a nature) was necessary for diverse individuals to exist – to claim that any nature was itself an unfair constraint on self-assertion and the will to power, and that a happiness of a form determined by a limited and harmoniously oriented nature was an affront to absolute freedom of self-determination and self-definition of one's fulfillment.

Thus began, from the very beginning, the Satanic project of (1) refusing such a harmony, even to the purposeful contradiction of his own fulfillment, in the name of an absolute freedom impossible to realize; and (2) out of hating and envy of that very source, means, and end of such natural & supernatural fulfillment; and so, to spite God the object of his loving and merciful designs, to lead everyone else to the same rejection – whether explicit or implicit – by means of more and more lies, obfuscation, seduction, confusion, etc.

But Jesus came precisely to be a living refutation of this. His most innocent, docile, receptive disciple came to understand all this in a particularly profound way (First Epistle of St. John 4:7-5:5). This is why He, Jesus, showed – emphasized – that the entirety of the laws that truly came from God could be reduced to loving God & others (Mark 12:28-34). Jesus manifested the true meekness & humility of His divine self toward creatures, and sought to teach men to imitate Him (Matthew 11:29-30).

But because mankind was suffering and broken as a result of the consequences of man's disorders – opposed to God's nature – namely pride, lying, murder, domination, hedonism, etc., Jesus came – as He repeatedly insisted – not to condemn, but to heal & teach which He often manifested through physical healings as well (Matthew 4:23-24, 11:4-6).

To those who had truly been offended, Jesus taught unlimited forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-22). To those leading more ordered lives but who thought it pious to abandon those who were more wounded, He insisted that He had come to save the lost (Luke 19:7-10), and that the greater the forgiveness received, the greater the fruit of love & gratitude (Luke 7:36-50). Not only had he come to save the broken-hearted, but to give them the means to help save others (Luke 5:8-11).

Jesus' entire mission was one of compassion toward our ignorance & weakness (Mark 6:34), and of bearing, himself, the cost of our disorders & errors (Matthew 8:16-17)

In return for this divine mercy & gratuitous forgiveness, Jesus asked only that we love as we should, and that that includes forgiving others the relatively tiny offenses they commit against us, in comparison to our offenses toward God (Matthew 6:14-15 and 18:32-35); and, not judging the hearts of others (Luke 6:37-42) as only God can do (John 8:13-19).

There were, however, those with whom Jesus had to be severe, in an attempt to wake them from their obstinate blindness, namely those leaders who, while ignoring true conversion of life, claimed to be the most righteous fulfillers of the externals of the law (Luke 11:37-44). For this purpose, they multiplied scrupulous regulations of an ignorant, material sort (Matthew 15:1-9), and mandated them to the poor people, who were crushed with absurd legalities (Matthew 23:1-36)(Mark 7:3-8, 14-23). Meanwhile, they refused to live the spirit of the true law and to teach it to the people (Luke 11:45-46, 52-53).

At the same time, they were merciless in their desire to ostracize & condemn the weak & sinful rather than to really help them recover & do better. They congratulated themselves on their supposed righteousness (Luke 18:9-14), which Jesus repeatedly showed to be only external and out of vanity (Matthew 6:1-8, 16-18). He preferred the weak & the wounded, who knew they needed healing (Matthew 9:10-13 and Mark 2:16-17) and sought it out (Matthew 21:28-32). He taught that all ritual offerings to God were only authentic if they were an image of interior sacrifice, forgiveness, & harmony (Matthew 5:20-24).

And so, these religious leaders themselves became the very image for the people of the false conception of God: severe judges, arbitrary rule makers, & condemnors of true freedom. In response, Jesus reveals what the true fulfillment [by Himself, i.e. what the old law was destined for] of the law is meant to be, namely, a transformation of the law from a body of material prescriptions to a body of spiritual precepts, to be lived out first interiorly, “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:16-26), and then expressed exteriorly in submission to God's loving plan, and in service to others. The commandments having to do directly with love of God, self, & others were not to pass away (Matthew 5:17-19) but to be fulfilled by a deepening of understanding of them, and a renewal of them, cleansed of all the compromises allowed to those who lacked the docility to live them out (Matthew 5:3-11, 21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 38-45) (Mark 10:1-12).

The commandments were no longer to be misunderstood as coercions opposed to happiness & freedom, but as the necessary means to that harmony that allows for true fulfillment; most of all in the supernatural union of life with God (John 14:15-21, 23-24) (John 15:9-17).

It was precisely because of the importance of allowing oneself to be loved by God, that Jesus also gave warnings & encouragements not to ignore his teaching, because of the dire consequences of separating oneself permanently from God's loving plan for the happiness of each one, dependent on their free will (Matthew 7:21-23; 13:47-51; 25:31-46) (Mark 3:31-35) (Luke 12: 22-34) (John 6:37-46).

This total renewal of love on earth was the fire that Jesus longed to ignite, knowing that its contrast with the desires of fallen men would lead to deep divisions (Luke 12:49-53). Thus although Jesus promised a deep interior peace from God (John 14:25-27), He also promised a sword (Matthew 10:34-36), divisions (Matthew 10:21-22), and hatred (Matthew 24:9-14), but in the end final victory over sin & death in loving union with Himself (Matthew 24:29-31).

St. Paul

In connection with the last section, as I had forgotten to say, it is only in light of what it means to love rightly that the famous central maxim of St. Augustine can be rightly understood: “Love, and do as you will.” It is no wonder, given the many misunderstandings of who Jesus is & what He said, that a number of persons misrepresent Paul in their writings & oppose him to Jesus. Even within the lifetime of the Apostles, his teachings, with their uniquely profound theological explanations of what other Apostles taught in more basic forms, were twisted and misused (2^nd Peter 3:14-18).

Now, before Pentecost, the Apostles were, on the whole, fairly lacking in understanding of the deep meanings and consequences of Jesus' teaching. For this reason, Jesus Himself, though He taught them many things apart from what He taught all the people (Matthew13-10-17), He withheld such profound and thorough explanations which they were unprepared, in wisdom and in intellectual penetration, to absorb (John 16:12-14). The Apostles were to await the gift of light from the Holy Spirit and special gifts of ministry (John 14:25-26). But for St. Paul, who converted after the Ascension, he couldn't be an eyewitness to the truth about Jesus without an extraordinary divine intervention whereby he would be taught by Jesus Himself, but would then be very careful to lay what he had been taught before the Apostles, so that they could confirm its authenticity as the true teaching of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-14, 2:1-2, 6-10).

Now, in teaching the non-Jewish peoples, Paul had three main difficulties to deal with: First, instilling a whole new idea of who God is in previously pagan minds, namely, a true, immediately present Person, who was truly loving & merciful; who really cared about each individual personally, and sought their true happiness, rather than any benefit to Himself. Again, that God was love, and was to be imitated in order to love more and more with His life.

For Paul, love is what gives true spiritual value to everything (1^st Corinthians 13:1-13); it fulfills the whole law (Romans 13:8-14) and is what prepares us for the coming of Christ. God is the Father of mercies (2^nd Corinthians 1:3-4), and nothing can separate us from His love, nor does God condemn those who allow Him to save them. (Romans 8:31-39). Thus, God did not save us when we were His friends, but when we were opposed to Him, like enemies (Romans 5:6-11). God destined us for personal friendship with Himself purely out of gratuitous love (Ephesians 1:5-10). God, who is rich in mercy (Ephesians 2:4-10), saved us spiritually from our fallen state, because He made us for Himself; not because He needs anything, but in order to share His infinite fullness with others (Ephesians 3:14-19) out of unbounded love.

For this reason, the only way to properly reciprocate His love – so far as a little creature can – is to go & do likewise by seeking and allowing God to clothe our souls with the garments – so to speak – of His grace (i.e. supernatural assistance in the form of supernatural habits of soul), which elevates & heals us progressively and which makes it possible to live out the humanly impossible demands of the Gospel, namely, a wholly supernatural life of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forgiveness, and love above all (Colossians 3:12-17).

For Paul, all this would result already in an interior blossoming of all that is beautiful & harmonious (Galatians 5:22-26).

As for those other two difficulties, they were very real threats to the happiness & freedom of those Paul had brought the Gospel. For this reason, it is here that he was forced to be a little firm, in order to nip them in the bud before they caused serious damage.

Paul, himself, had gone from being a violent, aggressive pharisee (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2) to being a gentle, meek Apostle of the Gospel of God's love, who was even blamed by jealous upstarts for writing powerfully but being weak & simple of speech in person (2^nd Corinthians 10:1-10; 11:12-13, 6-21). He refused even to accept financial support, in order not to be any hindrance, vs. the exploitative pretenders (2^nd Corinthians 12:11-14).

Paul greatly preferred not to have to be firm and severe (1^st Corinthians 4:14-21), nor to cause those whose joy & happiness he desired any more pain than necessary; and he was filled with anguish & sorrow at the thought of the dangers besetting them (2^nd Corinthians 1:23-2:4).

To those he put in charge of churches, Paul forbade unreasonable severity (1^st Timothy 5:1-2), as well as “stupid, senseless controversies” (2^nd Timothy 2:22-26) or quarreling. He spoke very strongly about the evil of judging another's heart, even within the Christian community (Romans 14:10-13, 1^st Corinthians 4:3-5). And as for those outside the Christian community, he refuses to judge them, but leaves them to God's knowledge & love (1^st Corinthians 5:9-13); i.e., he refuses to judge them even if they seem clearly guilty of serious faults.

Instead Paul emphasizes mercy & compassion and peace (Romans 12:14-21), forgiving & reconciling as apostles of God's forgiveness (2^nd Corinthians 15:16-21); and putting away all bitterness, anger, & malice (Ephesians 4:31-5:2) in order to be imitators of God, as his children (Titus 3:1-7).

Of those two aforementioned difficulties, the one of the Corinthians is more straightforward. St. Paul had a special solicitude for the community of the Corinthians, since Corinth was notorious in the classical world for being a very wealthy party town, and those Christians were not only surrounded by this seductive environment but had until recently been living accordingly. Soon enough, a number of them – even after they had embraced the Faith, and been well-taught about their obligations, and about what was good for them (or moral) and what was not – began sliding into old habits, or even worse ones than the pagans (1^st Corinthians 5:1-4)! And so, while living inauthentically, they boasted of their Christianity (1^st Corinthians 5:6-8). At the same time, they were quickly breaking up into quarrelsome factions (1^st Corinthians 1:10-13), and even suing each other before pagan judges (1^st Corinthians 6:1-6). Even though Paul needed to penalize the worst offender, he made sure that the community restore him to fellowship after a moderate time, and counseled forgiveness & comforting him (2^nd Corinthians 2:5-11).

As for the last difficulty, it was precisely an extension of what Jesus had to deal with because of the Pharisees & Scribes. Some Christian Jews refused to obey the teaching of the Apostles that all the endless material prescriptions of the law had come to an end, and that only the spiritual ones remained, and were fulfilled perfectly in the freedom of the New Testament or Covenant, the one Jesus inaugurated (Romans 3:21-31; 2:12-16). Paul speaks of himself to Peter the Apostle as having died to the law through Christ's death ([his] union with it), and now living with His new life (Galatians 2:11-21). This was because Peter, who was feeling self-conscious and succumbed to fear of the opinion of these same Judaic Christians, was doing an injustice to the non-Jewish Christians by eating separately from them, turning them into 2^nd class Christians.

This particular group came to be called the circumcision party (meaning faction, of course; as opposed to the other type of circumcision party! (Joshua 5:2-8)). They even traveled around where Paul had, and took advantage of the trust of non-Jews who believed that the Judaic Christians knew best how to be truly Christian, [i.e.] what Jesus truly wanted.

And so, the Galatians were the most quickly misled (Galatians 1:6-8). Paul taught them that the rigors of the old law were a protective & educational measure taken by God for the Israelites until they would be mature enough to live the life of the spirit in faith without disciplinary, remedial prescriptions (Galatians 3:23, 4:7). That they weren't called to the old covenant wherein fearful reverence for God was emphasized for those who didn't know how to obey out of love for goodness & for God; but that they were called rather to be beloved sons of God, their “Abba” or “Daddy”, to live as heirs in the freedom of the love of Christ: Not a freedom to throw themselves again into disorder, but a freedom to do good for its own sake, out of love for God & others (Galatians 5:13-14).

Paul likewise warned the Romans of these dangers, especially considering the considerable number of them – the Christians – who were Jews (romans 7:4-6; 8:15-17). Likewise, to the other churches, he explains the fulfillment in Christ of what had only been prepared for and foreshadowed in the old covenant or testament (2^nd Corinthians 3:7-11, 17-18) (Colossians 2:16-17), and that they shouldn't let themselves be subjected to the old dietary & ritual cleanliness restrictions (Colossians 2:21-23).

Instead, God's universal church includes all men, uniting Jews & Gentiles, abolishing the law of material commandments & ordinances, and bringing about one body in Christ, who is our peace (Ephesians 2:13-22). No longer will it be allowed that there be a difference before God of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female (Galatians 3:28-29; Colossians 3:11).

World history after the advent of Christianization

Whereas one could write whole books – and has done so – on all these topics, I can now limit myself (being finished with the core material) to a few main comments.

Since Christianity is opposed to the ends & spirit of fallen man, and since men remain fallen, and since even Christian baptism does not remove the fallen tendencies to fall back into self-destruction & that of others, Christianity experiences a whole gradation throughout time and various cultures of either being whole-heartedly accepted, half-heartedly accepted, or rejected & persecuted. The Church makes do with the success that it had, in order to bring men even a little closer to the full truths and to living out the full Christian life.

However, some historians then often point to any event within any culture that even has a light veneer of Christianity, and often blame Christianity for the divisions that occur.

Now, it has been true in every age that even many leaders of the Church at various levels have not themselves committed whole-heartedly to the truth, and from this came the worst scandals of all (Psalm 49:16-21).

Another major aspect has always been the political one. When Roman emperors converted to Christianity, they didn't stop thinking like emperors, i.e. that religion being the most powerful reality that binds a society together – that the emperor needs to help govern religion, and call councils, and suppress dissidents as political threats. Of course it gets far more complicated when shortsighted men on both sides encourage such thinking, or when groups really do adopt a heresy as the best means to begin a political revolt, and take up arms against orthodox believers; or when a leader sends an army after such armed heretics/revolutionaries. And all of this has been true from Constantine to the Arians to the Huguenots to the Communists. And the same goes for those leaders who themselves become heterodox. The Church has tolerated many political impositions over the years for the greater good of men's souls.

You also know that the Crusades were always a mixed bag. Whereas you did indeed have a good number of truly noble, supernaturally minded souls who desired to free the invaded & oppressed Christian populace and the sacred cites of Biblical history, you did have quite a number of persons who treated it as a land grab for their own dominion & profit. Even Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in Her appearances to St. Bridget – while extolling those who lived out faithfully their oath of Christian knighthood – sadly complained of these others who made a mockery & a scandal out of a fundamentally Christian cause.

And who can think of the horrendous sack of Constantinople without memories of most un-Christian, venal, Venetian intrigue; philistine rapine & destruction; and starving barbarian mercenaries assuaging their desperation with piles of Byzantine rump roast?!

Indeed, those who pay close attention to the Scriptures, although they rejoice in the spread of the Gospel to all nations, don't expect the majority of the population – sadly – to live accordingly. True Christians do want to be, for God and others, the salt of the earth & the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16), but they still know that to the extent that the world does not understand who God really is and what is truly for their happiness & peace, to that extent the fallen, disordered elements of society will always oppose him (John 15:18-21, 17:25-26).

By the way, as for the homoousion, Chesterton's response to Gibbon's quip was that there is only one letter difference between the words theist & atheist. But, as you can see, it makes all the difference in the world, even though people should not have killed each other over it. The fundamental difference between saying that Jesus was of a similar substance (homoi-) to God the Father, vs. that he was of the same (homo-), divine, immaterial substance [Uncreated Being] as the Father; it is the difference between His being a sort of preeminent spiritual being vs. His being the second personal, subsisting supposit of the unique Pure Being of God [just a bit of theological metaphysics terms], one in being & divinity & holiness & omnipotence & infinity with the divine Persons of the Father & the Holy Spirit. The result of the easier-to-think-about Arian heterodoxy would have been the very overthrow (were it possible for a divine institution) of Christianity.

This is because the Supreme Witness to who God is, and the supreme authority that can establish a new covenant or testament with the whole human race, and can oblige men to it out of love, can only be God Himself (Luke 10:21-22). Now, as many theologians point out, Christians are happily in the inextricable position – given all that Jesus said of Himself (and, by the way, which the pharisees heard very clearly, charging Him with blasphemy) – of either being very certain that Jesus is who He said He was (one God with the Father: John 10:24-30), or of being certain that He was a madman or a liar. Now, all His life and words show that He was not insane; and, along with His miracles, which could only come from God (John 3:2), they make it certain that He was not a liar. For we know that God does not back up a liar's words & claims, even if the pharisees didn't want to hear that (John 9:30-34, 41). Those who in the hope for a false feeling of harmony want to tone down this claim with various forms of syncretism & naturalism, not only have to contend with Jesus' repeated attempts to help others realize the fact in a non-coercive manner (Matthew 22:41-46; John 8:42-43), and His clear teaching to His Apostles (John 17:1-5, 24-26; John 16:25-33), but also with the clear reaction of the Jewish leaders when Jesus judged it at last the time to further unveil the truth that they had been supposed to be prepared for, and let them make a decision (John 8:53-59 [On the “I am see Exodus 3:13-15]) (Luke 22:67-71) (John 19:7-9) (John 18:33-37) (John 5:18-27).

Moreover, there are the Apostles' straightforward accounts of the manifestations that were meant to reassure them & confirm the truth (Matthew 3:13-17; 17:1-8; 2^nd Peter 1:16-21), as well as Jesus' clear acceptance of their acts of faith-filled certainty in who they had come to know Him to be, by the light of the infused certainty of supernatural faith (Matthew 16:13-19; John 20:26-29).

Now, you may have noticed that in some of the quotes above, Jesus – even while calling Himself the Son of God – also calls Himself the Son of Man & seems to contrast this with the Father... God. This is because He like to emphasize both that (#1) As divine Person of the Son, who continuously proceeds from the Father while remaining one in Being with Him [Too much theology here to explain it all], He receives all that He is – continuously – from the Father; and (#2) That existing also now as man, He delights to be – at least in this way – infinitely smaller than & totally dependent, humanly, on the Father, like us. He delights in this because He is now also a little man who, as man, can worship the Father, and throw Himself surrenderingly into the Father's infinitely loving arms. But, He eventually affirmed that there was quite a difference between the way that God the Father is His God & Father vs. the way that He is ours (John 20:17)

And so you see, Christianity, i.e. the truth of Christianity & its realization in men, is the greatest love story ever told; it is the divine romance of the universe, wherein the perfectly self-sufficient God nevertheless does not reject what He has made, even after the human race rejects Him. Rather, He comes in person not only to save us all, His lost sheep (John 10:11-21), as the divine shepherd; but to give us Himself and take us for Himself, as the divine bridegroom of our souls (John 3:27-36). And we monks and nuns – i.e. those who are faithful to the sacred vows they made to God, wherein they already in this life reserve all for Him – we enjoy already this conjugal bond of mind & heart with the world's Beloved, and we look forward to its full development in the life of the world to come.

There are two beautiful passages in which Jesus revealed Himself to John later on, with a vision of all that He is, as God & man (Revelation/Apocalypse 1:12-19), and as the divine bridegroom, who gave His life for His bride (Revelation 19:6-10, 11-16; 21:1-8).

As for Christians on earth being in danger, it is true that there is indeed a danger of a decline, at least in the West; not only because many comfortable Christians are very poor Christians; or not really at all; but also because – as Joseph Ratzinger put it – the “dictatorship of relativism” is on the rise, as it has been, with its inherent intolerance of any manner of thought and behaviour based on objective criteria of truth, nature & its fulfillment, and the goodness of perfected nature.

Yet, not only have Christians been forewarned of inevitable persecution, but Jesus indicated that a catastrophe of some sort would bring about a substantial reduction of those who believe in Him, in the end (Luke 18:18). But where & when this will be, we can only speculate about in various ways.

Alas, Christians themselves have often been a large cause of the truths of Christianity not being well understood or believed.

But true, faithful Christians, like God, desire “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 1:1-7). And like God, they do not desire even those who knowingly harm themselves and others, and offend God, to be lost, but rather that they be converted and live (Ezechiel 33:11-19).

So there you go, my comments are at an end, and, I would say, given the vastness of the matters concerned, not too long. I hope they may be enjoyable reading at least. God Bless.

Whose Presidency Was It Anyway?

I'm not sure I understand what all the fuss is about when it comes to “Who was in charge?” during the Biden administration, given that Biden himself was clearly not in charge, or unable to be in charge (even if he was), or deluded into thinking he was in charge (even though he wasn't), etc. The point is that someone was, indeed, in charge – even if we don't yet know who it was, and may never know for certain. It's hard enough to run a White House with no one in charge, let alone the Executive Branch, let alone the entire country (which includes foreign policy). And even if we say, well, it was more like a committee, well then who called the meetings of said committee, and who was in charge of implementing whatever they came up with? There really is no escaping this question. The White House can't be like some federal agencies, in which – as far as I can tell – no one does anything. Someone has to be doing something at least some of the time. There is, after all, discernible output, even if, in Biden's case, it could be pretty thin at times.

So the good news is that someone was in charge, because someone had to be. Ever heard of an ocean liner sailing across the Atlantic with no one in charge? Or a jumbo jet flying across the Pacific with no one in charge? No. No way. Now... someone with an excellent memory might recall what happened when Stalin died. Nobody dared to step in and single-handedly take over. After all, who could possibly fill Uncle Joe's shoes? So they came up with a “troika” – a team of three, one of whom was Nikita Khrushchev. For a while there it seemed to work, but eventually Nikita came out on top and became the new face of Soviet Russia.

But compared to the Biden administration, the post-Stalin years were a model of transparency, the way the post-Soviet years were right out in the open for everyone to see. (Even the post-Mao years had more transparency than the so-called Biden White House.)

So the first question ought not to be “who was in charge?” but “does it even matter?” The Republic survived what many (especially overseas) might consider an interregnum. And not only that, but there was nothing unprecedented about it. Any number of commentators have pointed out similarities with Wilson (with Edith taking the reins from the failing Woodrow), and with FDR (rumor has it that Alger Hiss was the one in charge at Yalta, at least).

But let's drill down a bit more. Can anyone realistically claim that Jimmy Carter was fully in charge during his term in office? (He certainly served as a convenient scapegoat in countless ways.) Or how about Bush II? It's pretty much conventional wisdom that Dick Cheney was running the show. (They even made a movie about it.)

Consider this. Presidents have a staff. They have advisors. They have aides. But they don't all have “handlers” (I call them “keepers”) – you know, people who are in charge of damage control, which means to (1) try and keep the boss from committing blunders, or gaffes, or looking bad in public; and (2) cover for him when he still messes up, by making excuses which border on the ridiculous at times; and (3) telling the viewing public not to believe their lying eyes – that the boss didn't really do or say that, and it's all a conspiracy theory and a “cheap fake” and “hate”. And, BTW, enlisting the help of the compliant media in constructing an impenetrable wall of lies. All of these strategies were on full display on a daily basis during the Biden administration – and I nominate “Dr. Jill” as the handler-in-chief, but she must have had plenty of help.

So there's a continuum, in a way, as defined by how many “handlers” a given president has, and how often they are called upon to function. I would say that Biden, at this point, anchors the scale on the high end, but one also has to consider Carter, Clinton, and Bush II as being high on the “handler” scale. Even JFK is along there somewhere. (Trump, OTOH, doesn't seem to have any handlers – not even one! What you see is what you get, and there's no one off-camera wringing their hands and wondering how to “explain this one away”.)

And – not to imply that there's anything unique about presidents here – this also applies to vice presidents, presidential candidates, vice presidential candidates, and not a few assorted governors and mayors. Politicians climb to the heights with “a little help from their friends”. 'Twas ever thus. But then why go to all that trouble? Why not just work for a candidate, or official, who's not such a handful? Well... the plus side, if you will, is that weak-willed and incompetent people are easier to manipulate and direct, so if you're in charge of a “challenged” politician you can, with any luck, basically take over and direct said politician in the ways you would like him or her to go. And this, of course, is exactly what happened with Biden; someone recently quipped that his debilitation was “not a bug, but a feature”. (Implication – the people behind the scenes are smarter than the guy out front. True! An amazing percentage of the time. Can you imagine Bush II's “aides” being dumber than he was? Not a chance. They could have been president, but they didn't have the curb appeal.) (Ever notice how often these “aides” – when you see them on camera, which is rare – look like those high school geeks who couldn't get dates? So they compensate by being the power behind the throne. Not a bad gig, when you think about it – four years of job security and absolutely immune from any blame or responsibility.) (Kind of like pretty much any government job, truth be told.)

Now, let's admit that anyone who is president, no matter their level of intelligence or competence or energy, has an impossible job. If you read the Constitution, the job of president doesn't sound all that complicated or difficult; you basically have to have a modicum of wisdom and have the best interests of the American people at heart, and be a competent administrator. But, 200-plus years later, the job has turned into, #1, more of a kingship than a mere office, and #2, an all-powerful image of someone who can do anything, who puts Superman to shame, and who merits worship more suitable for a Roman deity. The problem here is that it sets an impossible standard, and raises expectations to stratospheric heights, with the result that any perceived failure is met with anger, indignation, and – too often – homicidal rage. When your god turns out to have feet of clay, he must die! So what motivates assassins is, at least in part, frustration – their victim was not perfect. He was tried and found wanting, so he has to go, and they're the one to make it happen.

A while back I put up blog posts which touched on the subject of Obama as The Chosen One, and that he subsequently became the kingmaker, brushing off all contenders for the nomination in 2016, including Joe Biden, in favor of Hillary Clinton. And when she was defeated for reasons yet to be determined, he remained in that role and, four years later, brushed off everyone except his vice president, namely Joe Biden. And when Joe Biden started to stumble (literally and figuratively), guess what, Obama stepped in once again and helped to engineer what has been described as a “coup” (a palace coup, at least), putting Uncle Joe out to pasture and putting Kamala up for election.

And lest we forget, there are many other ways this could have been accomplished. Biden could have been persuaded to retire prior to the election, which would have made Kamala the president, and increase her chances of winning in 2024 (not guaranteed, as witness Gerald Ford). Or, they could have left Biden on the ticket, let him win in 2024, and then persuaded him to quit, which would have made Kamala the president anyway. In a sense, the path they chose was the most risky one – get Biden to give up on being re-elected, but keep him in office, and declare Kamala the nominee without benefit of a primary, but force her to campaign to the best of her abilities with limited time. It kinda makes you wonder... why did they choose that route? It's mainly because Trump at that point was under siege, and everyone was convinced he'd be in jail by Election Day, which would sort of put a crimp in his chances of winning (even though he could, theoretically, have been elected while in jail – it's happened elsewhere in the world, and more than once). So with Trump on the defense on all fronts, Kamala seemed like a shoo-in.

But Trump fought back – and when you think about it, what does it take, after all, to make it big in New York City? And in real estate? You have to deal with regulations, corrupt politicians, the Mob, bankers, the media, the unions... it's basically impossible, and yet the tough somehow manage to survive. Now, given that, compared to New York City Washington D.C. is a much deeper cesspool of corruption and is a much bigger power center with a much larger entrenched bureaucracy, Trump's experience from his years in NYC paid off – first in 2016 and then again in 2024 (once he “wised up” about Washington, since he had underestimated it in 2016 and pretty much took office in 2017 as a lame duck).

But now, wait a minute! I said that Obama helped to engineer the “coup” that took Biden out of contention for 2024. People talk about Pelosi and Shumer, but no one mentions Obama.  "Ignore the man behind the curtain!"  So let's go back to 2017 when Trump takes office for the first time. What does Obama do? Does he retire, in the Bill Clinton mode? Does he go on book and lecture tours, or take a cushy job in academics or at a non-profit? No! He moves into a mansion in D.C., and... what? How many ex-presidents have taken up residence in Washington, D.C.? Only one, as I recall. But why? And why, despite all that, did we hear and see very little of him during Trump's first term? What was he doing all that time? Remember that he's an activist – a community organizer – a rabble-rouser. A true believer. Is he just going to fade away? Of course not.

My theory is that Obama was, during Trump's first term, running what is called The Deep State, i.e. the massive, unelected bureaucracy, and that their sole purpose during that period was to thwart, prevent, and sabotage if need be, any and all of Trump's initiatives and programs, which, let's admit, they pretty much did. Not only that, but they came right out in public and admitted it, for example in the impeachment hearings. It was their patriotic duty, after all. (So much for the Deep State being a “conspiracy theory” – they stood right up to be counted, with the cameras rolling.)

And it worked – or some will say that it worked, the proof being that Biden defeated Trump in 2020, whether legitimately or not matters little at this point. And Trump could have just gone back to his good life as a real estate tycoon, shaken the D.C. dust from his shoes, and pronounced a curse upon politics. And this is what everyone was hoping for – including, let's admit, most Republicans. The Never Trumpers became the Never Again Trumpers. And yet... after four years of “lawfare”, guess who won the nomination without even participating in any of the primary debates?

But let's get back to Obama for a moment. Let's say he really was running the Deep State all during Trump's first term – with the blessing of the Clintons, of course, who remain the true spiritual (if that is the word) leaders of the Democratic Party. So Biden takes office in 2021. Does Obama say “mission accomplished” and finally retire? Not a chance. Suddenly the Deep State becomes the state, and who better to stay in charge of it than Obama? (You think he'd trust Biden with anything that important? Or Kamala? Cue the laugh track.) And when the 2024 election loomed, the king maker became the king breaker (and the queen maker), calculating that the proper strategy was to get Biden to drop out of the race but not leave office until after the election. A risky strategy, as I said, but everyone on that side underestimated not only Trump's base, but the sophistication of his (and the Republicans') election watchdogs. (“We won't be fooled again.”)

So now we have, first, what I call Obama's third term, namely Trump's first term, followed by Obama's fourth term, namely Biden's first (and only) term. So... is it time for Obama to really and truly retire, at long last? Can he finally become history, rather than current events? Another way of putting it is that Obama, for all intents and purposes, served for four full terms – which beats FDR, who gave it a try but was rudely interrupted by his own demise. (Seem like there's something in the Constitution about all this, but like so many things in the Constitution it's pretty much either forgotten or ignored.) (And! If Kamala had won last November, we'd be at the start of Obama's fifth term! And here I thought only third-world countries had “presidents for life”.)

Now, of course, we have Trump trolling the media and the Democrats by talking about a third term for himself. Who knew you could have so much fun pretending to set fire to the Constitution? Frankly, if Trump was already thinking about the 2028 election, he wouldn't be on a search and destroy mission vis-a-vis the Deep State. As it is, he has nothing to lose, and even if he doesn't succeed in driving a stake through the heart of the Deep State, he's certainly put it on notice that it's not all-powerful, and has exposed its machinations through the efforts of the gnomes of DOGE.

So, boys and girls, the bottom line (for now) is that, yes, someone is always in charge. The world is too big and too complex for it to be otherwise. Plus, power has always been a great magnet (some would say aphrodisiac) for certain types of people. So that's not the question. The question is who, what's their agenda, and what's their strategy? And an even better question is simply this: Are you pleased with the results? No matter who was actually running things for Biden's four years in office, was the country, and world, better off at the end of his term than it had been at the start? That should be the sole criterion for any assessment of his presidency, even if he was no more than a propped-up figurehead. The verdict may not be against him, but it has to be against someone. Or for someone. You make the call.

The Coming Battle

 

In the midst of the election circus, whether we are participants or simply onlookers, it's easy to forget, at least for the moment, the much more profound and deep-rooted problems that plague our society, and that no candidate – no “winner” in the looming election – is thinking seriously about. And, in fact, no matter who “wins”, and who is sworn in in January (not necessarily the same person, note), these problems will remain, and will remain insoluble.

It's happened over and over again throughout history. A society commits itself to a given world view and the actions that view inspires, and by the time the sheer folly and stupidity are exposed it's too late – that society has to undergo radical change or complete annihilation – and history is replete with examples of each.

The point at which it's too late to prevent catastrophe is sometimes referred to as the “inflection point”. In our case – in the case of the American Empire – that point has been reached and passed. Precisely when it was, and why – when the scales were tipped – can be debated. The war in Vietnam is certainly a good candidate, because our defeat (yes, that's what it was -- let's not quibble) in that war was, or should have been, an opportunity to drastically alter our world view. We could have gone from missionary zeal – from “spreading democracy” – to a much more modest (dare I say humble) point of view, accepting that we are one among many, and it's really not our business to convert the world to “democracy”, or whatever it is that means, any longer. (One might say we were committed to spreading the myth of democracy, as opposed to the real thing, which we are becoming worse at with each passing day.) Add to this that the world doesn't really seem to appreciate our efforts any longer – assuming they ever did. Oh sure, they don't mind being bailed out of their own foolish wars by Uncle Stupid, and basically becoming welfare recipients for generations. (There is no pride in that, and no shame either. But when's the last time anyone in Europe spoke about pride, much less shame?) It's really a marvel when you consider how well off we still are, economically, given that we've been hemorrhaging wealth since World War II, and it invariably winds up in pockets of foreign leaders who are even more corrupt than our own.

But, as a wise man one said, if something cannot go on forever it will end. The American economy may not be on life support quite yet, but it's showing plenty of wear and tear. Plus, the elephant in the room is the national debt, much of which is held by foreign entities. This is something no one wants to talk about (have either Trump or Harris mentioned it lately?) because it's beyond intractable – it's hopeless. It will never be repaid -- not in ten years, or a hundred. And it is the direct result of folly – of our being overextended overseas and wildly optimistic on the domestic front.

But then – if the situation is genuinely hopeless – would anybody, especially any foreign entity, government or otherwise, want to “own” a large portion of our national debt? Simple answer: You own the national debt, you own the U.S. It's that simple. The amount of leverage involved.... well, consider what happens when a man is hopelessly in debt to another man or a bank. They basically get to run his life. They get to dictate terms, and if he doesn't like it they call in their notes and... well, we don't have debtor's prisons any longer, but we do have bankruptcy, which amounts to the same thing in many respects. What it means is that you're no longer trusted to manage your own affairs, so someone else has to do it for you. You're in receivership, in other words.

But for all that, the national debt, while intractable, is only one symptom of an even bigger problem, which is that the government has adopted – fairly recently in the scheme of things – a globalist view. The American economy, and the American people, don't really count according to this point of view. What counts is that we have become part of an empire larger than our own. The problem is that some of our elite may have thought that we could just move in like some mob boss and take over, and everyone else would have to dance to our tune. The models for this include the (failed) League of Nations, which, basically, boiled down to us and some other guys, i.e. we were supposed to be the leader of the pack. Then you had the United Nations, which is still around, although it can be debated how much good it does (or has ever done), and that was us and some other guys until enough of those other guys got together and started to vote against our interests. (Oops! That's not what we had in mind. Too late now... )

And then there's good old NATO, the ultimate “us and some other guys” organization, which has now embarked on a war with Russia with Ukraine as the battleground. And so far the “other guys” seem to be in favor of it all, since they are a whole lot closer to Russia (geographically) than we are. We have talked them into thinking that Russia is an existential threat to them because they (Russia) want to reclaim some pieces of the eastern Ukraine. Today Donbass, tomorrow Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, etc. (They really believe this! Or at least they say they do.) And besides, they have been asked to contribute little or nothing to the effort; it's all on us (shades of Vietnam, anyone?).

And yet, at the same time our politicians seem to pay a lot more attention to the globalists in the European Union than to our own citizens. Their loyalties have gradually morphed, over time, from American Empire (which is at least an “America first” attitude) to Globalist Empire (which they fancy is, as always, us and some other guys, but they may be in for a surprise).

See, any empire is a good thing as long as we're in charge. And it doesn't matter how many sacrifices have to be made on our own domestic front – it's the glory and power that count. But what if it turns out that the new Globalist Empire is run from Brussels, say? (What has Belgium ever done for us, anyway? Don't ask... ) Then we are no more than a subsidiary – and possibly a wholly-owned subsidiary (remember the national debt?).

But wait a minute. I call it a globalist empire, but how global is it, really? It consists of the EU, the U.S., and the other English-speaking countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and probably a handful of Pacific islands). It's kind of like referring to the final baseball games of the year as the “world series” when all the teams are from the same country. We also have what is called (patronizingly, by us) the Third World, which starts at the Rio Grande and extends south to Tierra del Fuego, plus Africa and Asia. But there's a new kid in town, namely BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China – Russia having been the leader of the forgotten Second World during the Cold War).

Population-wise, BRIC is overwhelmingly bigger than the Globalist Empire (formerly the First World), and is catching up fast economically. To which we must add – another topic most of our politicians would rather avoid – the significant gains China has made in terms of taking over major sectors of our own economy, including technology, the social media, and large portions of agricultural land, not to mention their influence in our higher education sector. Add to this the “fentanyl war” which reminds me of nothing so much as the Opium War of times gone by. They are using a powerful drug as a weapon against our society on all levels, and we seem to be absolutely helpless to stop it, because secure borders (land, sea, and air) are, you know, racist, selfish, uncaring, etc. etc. So yes, China is taking over, by hook and crook, and nothing is stopping them (not that it has anything to do with the number of our politicians they have purchased on the open market, of course).

But now wait a second. China is coming on strong from across the Pacific, and the globalists are coming on strong from their stongholds in Europe. At what point do they wind up “toe to toe” – with a shootout (literal or otherwise) at high noon, to determine who's in charge, and who gets to carve out which pieces of the American economy (and, in turn, impact our culture in every way)?

And please note that there is no, repeat no, resistance to this from the vast majority of our elected officials, or the deep state, or most major economic sectors (not to mention the mainstream media, who are hard-core globalists). We have officials who have been bought off by China, others who are totally committed to the globalist agenda, and for all I know some who have dipped into both pots (not really a whole lot different from Third World leaders during the Cold War who took bribes from both us and the Soviets).

You know... when I look at this picture I start to wonder if the whole idea of treason has become totally outmoded. When our leaders are competing to see who can sell us out the most, and the fastest, and who can render us weaker and more vulnerable to potential enemies (other countries, but also non-state organizations) you just have to wonder – has “America” already slid into the category of myth (or worse, the ash heap of history)? Is what appear to be suicidal policies (open borders, defunding the police, pointless foreign wars, national debt, etc.) now the fashion, and if so what does our elite want? Well, they want power – first, last, and always – and all that goes with it. And they may put on some temporary muscle by joining forces with globalists, but China? Really? If history serves, when a hostile power takes over a given country they may enjoy the cooperation of collaborators for a while, but before long they realize that collaborators are, by nature, deceptive and unreliable, so they wind up getting eliminated in short order. In other words, if they betrayed their own country they're certainly capable of betraying occupiers.

And here's the paradox. Our elites want power, but they are also hell-bent on destroying what many would consider to be the essentials of American culture – not only in the present day but in terms of history, tradition, ideas, and so on – things we have always regarded as our strengths. So... cultural suicide and power? Seems like a contraction, until you reflect on what the effects of a vanishing culture are – namely disorientation, confusion, depression, fear, helplessness, and – the real key – desperate motivation to look to government for answers... for solutions... to bail us out... to relieve our intolerable fear. Our elite have tried the old “carrot” technique – basically bribe the citizenry into complacency (include games and circuses if you like, as well as drugs, alcohol, and sex without consequences) – but that hasn't sufficed, so now it's time for the “stick” – namely fear. They fire up what I call the Fear Machine -- and the mainstream media are the primary component of this. That will unite the country! Well, it will turn most of the citizens into abject, quivering balls of protoplasm, which means they will be easily ruled and exploited. And yes, our elites would rather rule a slave state than a nation of free, proud, and independent citizens; this is what it's come to. (In this, are they different, in any discernible way, from the ruling elites of communist “people's republics”? Not that I can tell.)

So this is the coming battle. China and the globalists have staked various claims, but so far they've been careful to avoid a confrontation. But how long can it last? Each side wants it all, basically. The United States, as troubled as it is on many levels, and as close as it's coming to being a failed state (it has already reached that point with its borders), is still the pearl of great price, in a sense – and a lot of this has to do with our hubris – with our insistence that “democracy”, American-style, is the answer to all the world's problems (with the ironic result that, over the years, we have variously supported pseudo-democracies, monarchies, and dictatorships in order to “spread democracy”). At best, the rest of the world has taken us for naive and idealistic, but also dangerous, fools, while at the same time throwing themselves on our charitable impulses (including fighting their wars for them). But it looks as if they are finally getting tired of that game, and that it's time to assert themselves as distinct cultures, and to toss off the yoke of Americanization. The American ideal may have been at least tolerable for a while – an acceptable contribution to the dialogue, and offering opportunities for exploitation – but they can see how shopworn we have become, so it's clear that those ideas have long outlived their “pull date”.

But if the above is true for the Third World, what about the globalists? Don't they still believe in democracy? Don't they have “democratic” governments, by and large? Well, I guess you could say they have pseudo-democratic governments, the way we do. But the decisions are made by an unelected elite. We have our deep state, and so do all the countries in Europe, and so does the E.U. (In fact, the E.U. is totally out in the open – it's not “deep” at all. It's overt rule by bureaucrats.)

And this, in fact, is why we are able to merge so seamlessly into the Global Empire. It's a military/industrial/intelligence entity, and so are we. It may not be long until even the illusion of democracy is no longer considered necessary – you know, silly things like elections, Congress (or parliaments), an independent judicial system, etc. These are the habits that we cling to in a sentimental manner, the way an impoverished formerly-wealthy family will try to “keep up appearances” until even that seems transparently futile.

And on the other side of the globe we have nations and cultures that consider democracy a foolish and half-mad idea. They are committed to raw power, as they have been for millennia, and China is a prime example. So if it ever comes to a showdown between unabashed believers in raw power and those who insist on maintaining illusions of democracy, guess who is more likely to win. (Another way of putting it is that American democracy is a house divided against itself, and I suspect European democracies are similar.)

But this is a conflict of historic proportions, and the battle is not yet joined. At this point, the opposing forces are being assembled and prepared for battle, while regional wars, i.e. proxy wars, are being waged by both sides. Right now we are fighting a war with Russia using Ukrainian troops. But China is helping Russia, and even North Korea is sending troops into the fray. Russia is fighting what they consider to be an existential war, and we are fighting not so much on our own behalf as on behalf of the Globalist Empire, which we fancy that we are in charge of – but if that's so why are we the only ones spending billions on the effort? Aren't we, basically, economic cannon fodder? Where are the European countries which, you would think, would have much more to fear from Russia than we do? Well hey, if you can get someone else to fight your wars for you, then life is good, right? So as always, they are cynically taking advantage of Uncle Stupid, because we are the ones with ideals. We are “defenders of democracy” and they are just normal countries that unapologetically pursue their own interests.

One factor which has not escaped the attention of people with a sense of history is that China is extraordinarily patient when it comes to foreign affairs. They don't insist on instant results. They would rather fight a war of attrition if possible, they prefer proxy wars to direct conflict (think Korea and Vietnam), and better still prefer to fight a war on the economic, vs. military, level. And this is precisely what they are doing at this point, with the exception of whatever aid they are providing Russia (no troops, you'll notice, unlike their attack dog North Korea).

It bears mentioning that there are a few “wild cards” out there, and they may exert a disproportionate influence in the matter. Iran is one, and they are clearly more aligned with BRIC than with anyone in the West. The other is Israel, which has the full support of the Globalist Empire (even though Israel, per se, cannot be described as strictly globalist – they are too concerned with their own survival to be distracted by anyone else's utopian schemes). So the Iran-Israel conflict is a precursor, or beta version, if you will, of the larger conflict that is looming on the horizon. Whether that conflict will accelerate the onset of the larger conflict is a good question. I suspect both sides (i.e. the globalists and BRIC) would prefer to keep it “local”, but things do have a way of getting out of control (recall that World War I started in Bosnia). But there are, it seems, “cool heads” on both sides – China with its legendary patience and the Globalist Empire with its bureaucracy. They're not about to do anything to jeopardize their ambitions for world domination (or even half-world domination). No one in their right mind wants to wind up ruling an ash heap. (I doubt if too many people in their wrong mind would want that either. Even the most abject anarchist wants to wind up in charge of something.)

What am I saying? That cool heads are preferable to hotheads? That, as Winston Churchill said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war? Yes, but with the stipulation that the opposing sides have some moral sense, or at least some vestigial human inpulses. I'm not sure that would be guaranteed in this case. Not only does power corrupt, but it changes human beings into something less than human.

And maybe, after all, these two entities will get together like Mob bosses divvying up cities like Chicago, and cut America up like a Thanksgiving turkey, or a beached whale, or a diagram on a butcher's wall. The process is underway, and has been for a good while, and there is every sign of it picking up speed. Whether it gets settled relatively peacefully, or reaches and then exceeds critical mass like a faulty nuclear reactor, remains to be seen. The ultimate basic question is this: Will either side be satisfied with only half the world, or will they get grandiose and insist on the whole banana? We have seen what happens when empires start getting global ambitions. It's the same dreary trajectory throughout history. In this battle of pachyderms the U.S. is likely to be more of a victim than a “mover and shaker”, and this is something we aren't at all used to, but we may not have a choice. For the first time in our history, we are caught between two opposing forces, but what makes it unique is that a good portion of our politicians are on the side of one or the other of those forces. The number who hold out for our independence is in the minority, which means that most of those in power have given up on the idea of the United States as a sovereign nation, and the greater pity is that the bulk of the citizenry seem to agree – without consciously realizing it in most cases. (Or, let's say that, at the least, they don't disagree, which clearly has an influence in elections.)

It's hard enough holding a nation together that one believes in. It's impossible if that belief has been fatally compromised and replaced with apathy, indifference, greed, and adherence to “strange gods”, e.g. globalism.

History will judge whether the world was better off with us in charge (of much of it, if not all), but that can't happen until we are definitively no longer in charge and are willing to take an honest look at our history, and that day has not yet arrived.

The Great Leveling

 

My previous post (“The Long Game”, June 13) dealt with the ruling elite's campaign to turn the U.S. into a new and improved version of the Soviet Union – “new and improved” for a number of reasons, including:

1. Universal surveillance. The KGB of old could only dream of what our rulers already have at their disposal – GPS tracking, social media (the great seductress), and data bases (FBI, IRS, Social Security, health insurance, facial recognition, banking and credit cards, as well as any number of “non-governmental” and “non-profit” data collection centers). And it's not as if those in charge constantly track every movement and transaction of every citizen, but they could if the need arises. Clearly, the ultimate tool of control for any totalitarian state is universal surveillance (one dystopian film showed a TV in every room – it broadcast propaganda and spied on the inhabitants at the same time). I've always said that one reason the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight was that half the population was employed in spying on the other half. But that was a relatively crude, ham-handed operation. If they had had the automation, artificial intelligence, and analytic capability that we now have, they'd still be in business. (As a side note, I love these news reports of some crime which include “security footage” which typically shows a pretty lousy, low-resolution picture of the “perp” – as if we didn't have image capability way in advance of any of this! But this is very much the same strategy we always used during the Cold War – show the “other side” what we have in the way of technology, but never show them the most advanced stuff. Let them think they're ahead.)

2. Public education – which uses much of the same technology, on top of good old, tried-and-true brainwashing and propaganda (sometimes termed “socialization”). The process is much less painful, and less likely to result in pushback, when it's started at a very young age (with or without the consent of the parents).

3. Communications media and “entertainment” – another arm of the propaganda apparatus, again a quantum improvement over the relatively crude resources of the Soviet Union, e.g. film, radio, newspapers, posters, and very limited television.

4. “Games and circuses” as a form of mass anesthesia, along with a vast array of new and ever more powerful drugs (all the Russians had was vodka).

5. Most importantly of all – the shift from fear as the prime motivator to techniques based on the pleasure principle – sex, addiction, entertainment, sloth, gluttony, as well as envy and hero worship (this time a cultural phenomenon, including professional athletes, rather than the more typical Soviet worship of military heroes and cosmonauts – although, to their credit, they did consider master chess players to be heroes as well).

So if the totalitarian revolutions of old were invariably bloody and took a great death toll, the ongoing revolution of our time is more about appealing to primitive drives and impulses, and what amounts to mind control. Add super-powerful drugs and even mind control isn't that challenging – or perhaps we should call it “no-mind control”.

But my emphasis in the previous post was on this country, by and large, although I did mention Davos and related conclaves as the fountainhead of these ideas and strategies, including the abolition of property rights and of property altogether. But again, the plan is to pull this off in as non-violent and subliminal a way as possible (under normal circumstances, allowing for the occasional riot during election season). Simply talk people out of their rights, or of caring about them – offer them something better, like the all-hallowed “security”, and some of its features like a guaranteed income and the plethora of new “rights” that dominates our public dialogue. What's significant about this is that these new “rights” will eventually take the place of all of our traditional rights, like the ones mentioned in the Constitution. This is already well underway. These will be the “rights” of a defeated, anaesthetized, passive, dependent populace – totally unlike the citizenry of the Founding Fathers' day. But again, to quote one of the Davos speakers, “You'll own nothing, and you'll like it.”

But the U.S. is not, after all, “an island, entire of itself”. It shares a planet with countless other countries, nationalities, kingdoms, creeds, tribes – where do they fit in with all this? First we have to think about globalism as a concept, and as a fact. Where, and when, did it begin? Well, when you consider that globalism, collectivism, and secular humanism are highly correlated if not identical, you might ask where, and when, humanism became dominant in a government, and I would say the French Revolution is as good a place as any to start – and yet that event was highly inspired by the American Revolution, which may not have been explicitly secular, and was certainly not anarchistic, but which nonetheless bore the seeds of humanism. And a bit less than a hundred years later, Karl Marx appeared on the scene with Das Kapital. (And in the meantime, we had the widespread revolutions of 1848 in Europe, and the Paris Commune of 1871.) So the collectivist/totalitarian idea was born (or, let's say, grew to full size, since there had been minor, local collectivist movements up to that point, especially – note! – in the United States, almost always connected to a religious movement or cult – but they were voluntary, unlike the collectivism that stems from humanist politics).

And it hardly needs mentioning that major collectivist and totalitarian movements were almost invariably secular, and usually explicitly anti-religion, since religion – especially of the monotheistic type – naturally tends toward hierarchies. This is why “organized religion” and humanism/collectivism/totalitarianism are natural enemies and will ever remain so. It's ultimately about the world view, and the idea of the nature of mankind and of life in general.

So the globalist agenda, which, I would say, is centered in Western Europe with the American ruling elite as a subsidiary (since we're still a bit cranky about these things, and not as likely to rush into complete socialism as are the Europeans) is dedicated to not only humanism in the classical sense, but to a radical form of humanism which I'll call “leveling”, and which is to be accomplished by means of collectivism and totalitarianism, not just for one country but, ultimately, for the entire world. (Note that there was a debate in the early years of the Soviet Union as to whether to devote more resources to promoting international communism or to perfecting the Soviet version. As I recall, the local version won out as a starting point, with the international version being fully supported but not having priority – “first things first”, if you will. Note also that Trotsky disagreed, and wound up in exile where he could still not escape assassination by Soviet agents.)

And after all, if all men (oops, humans) are created (oops, I mean “evolved through random mutation and natural selection”) equal, then it makes perfect sense that all should enjoy the exact same “rights” (the new kind, not the old kind), and enjoy them to the same exact degree. There is nothing new about this, since when the Soviets collectivized agriculture it was declared to be “fair”, because no one would have any advantages over anyone else – not in terms of land, money, housing or any other resources. (The Chinese under Mao copied this idea almost exactly. If a poor farmer rented a shabby room to some laborer, he was declared to be a “landlord” and was thus subject to arrest.)

But even Russia in the old days was not an entirely peasant society. There was a huge industrial work force as well, and the military. So how does one achieve perfect equality, or “fairness”, when there are so many people with different skills performing a great variety of tasks at many skill levels? You simply declare that no one has any property rights, or property, and that no one is getting paid for their labor. You eat in the government cafeteria, you sleep in the government dormitory, your clothes are doled out to you by the government, and any tools you require are loaned to you, one day at a time, by the government. (And by the way, your children, if you have any, are taken care of by “experts”.) And as to your skills or lack thereof, the government will match you with the most appropriate job. Problem solved! So “equal rights” became, more often than not, equal misery – but at least it was fair!

Or was it? Well – a certain modicum of supervision had to be established, and political officers had to be sent out to every village and town (and military unit) in order to keep people thinking properly and staying with the program. And so these apparatchiks constituted a slightly higher class of citizens, in a way – but don't you dare ever point this out! They were loyal supporters of the revolution, and heroes (I mean, look at all the medals they got to wear). And they only enjoyed a slight degree of inequality for the sake of overall equality. Right, comrade?

And, as I pointed out previously, the elimination of the middle class is, and always was, the sine qua non of any revolution, so at best they could have been kept around in a more servile capacity until they had handed off all of their functions to “the people”. And there is nothing fictitious about this – it happened in Russia, and in China, and in any number of smaller (but in some cases even more radical) countries. And if it could happen there, it can happen here – and in fact is already happening, to a significant degree. (Note that, among other things, the middle class is the “cash cow” which supports the federal budget. So what happens when they disappear? Where's the money going to come from? Don't expect this to dawn on any of our utopian thinkers until it's too late.)

Now, it would be too simplistic to claim that the U.S. is nothing more than a “test case” for globalism. There are plenty of nations far more socialistic, and collectivized, than ours. But the U.S. is the sine qua non. Globalism can only go so far, and will eventually fail, unless the U.S. is fully committed to the idea and acts accordingly. And this has to do with our remaining economic power and influence (even though we're bankrupt and in hopeless debt) as well as our usefulness as a scapegoat. The globalist narrative – quite explicit at times – is that the U.S. is, in fact, the Great Satan, and that if it weren't for our imperialism, aggression, threats, and pushing our weight around, the world would be a much better place. So the U.S. has to be subjected to the globalist agenda through diplomatic and economic incentives, but it also has to have a ring put in its nose so it can be humbled, and pacified, and led around by its masters in Brussels, Davos, Martha's Vineyard, etc.  (A major piece of this humbling process, by the way, is the increasing tolerance -- nay, encouragement in some cases -- of crime, up to and including murder, in many of our large cities -- the ones in which the mayors, district attorneys, prosecutors, and judges have been replaced by globalist pod people.)

So while one can claim that globalism, in applied terms (the philosophical basis having been firmly established generations earlier), originated with the League of Nations (the “beta version” if you will) and really blossomed with the establishment of the U.N., and while the U.S. was the prime mover in each case, it has been taken over by visionaries and utopians who owe no allegiance to any nation. They are the true “rootless cosmopolitans”, but this is their strength since they are not held back by any traditional ideas, values, customs, or loyalties, so they can devote all of their energies to one thing, which is to do away with nations and nationalities, as well as with ethnic, racial, and religious loyalties – not to mention a sense of place, or belonging.  (A "world citizen" is a citizen of nowhere, in other words.)  The idea is that to belong to the grand collective is enough, or ought to be – and if anyone disagrees, we have many means of reeducation at our disposal.

Another way of putting it is that the American Empire (economic, social, political, military, diplomatic, geographic) is gradually being taken over by the Global Empire, the way a young, ambitious son will take over the family business from a doddering, aging parent. (We see this playing out quite literally at present.) The globalists are already busily expropriating our best resources and the best of what we have created, leaving the rest behind to rot on the vine, if you will. (Consider that among the losers in this whole process are the labor unions – ironic, since they have always been the darlings of the old Left and have been its unstinting supporters. Union members who wander off the reservation and start supporting Trump are called sell-outs, traitors, and worse. But he sees what is going on, even if the union leadership doesn't – or, more likely, doesn't care.) (And recall that, in my previous post, I pointed out that union labor is properly considered middle class, which means it has that target on its back as well.)

But wait a minute – all well and good if we're talking about Western Europe and the U.S., along with other English-speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They can form an empire to their hearts' content, but it can hardly be called “global”, since the bulk of humanity is not involved. Well, consider, for one thing, the new colonialism – not military this time, but economic – which has put sub-Saharan Africa firmly into globalist hands, and is a major factor in East and Southeast Asia as well – not to mention military occupations of varying degrees in the Middle East. And consider also that Eastern European countries, still fresh from throwing off the Soviet yoke, are eager to join the club, except for holdouts like Hungary which still believe in national sovereignty.

Then you have Latin America, which is also a victim of the new colonialism, especially the “non-European” countries. By this time we're talking about most of the world except for Russia, China, and the other two BRIC nations, India and Brazil. The battle lines are most obvious in the war in Ukraine, which is basically the globalists, as represented by the U.S., NATO, and the E.U., against Russia. China is an interesting case, because although they are officially our economic “rival” if not a declared enemy, they have managed to take over large chunks of the American economy -- with the full blessing of the ruling elite, or at least their benign neglect. So is there a battle line running through the U.S. between the globalist faction and China? If there is, our home-grown globalists don't seem to be taking it very seriously. If the marriage of the U.S. to the global empire brings with it a fat dowry, and the Chinese are taking possession of more of that dowry every day, you'd think this would be a basis for a major confrontation – and yet I don't sense that one is happening, or even likely. And yet the globalists are not just going to walk away and leave the U.S. to the mercies of China, are they? Unless... a deal has already been worked out, the way the old time Mafia dons would divvy up a city.  But then why can't they work out a deal with Russia as well? I guess you call these growing pains on the road to a globalist Utopia.

But back to the Great Leveling. Let's say that, as an interim goal, the target average household income in the U.S. should be equal to that in Western Europe, i.e. in the E.U. This would not shake the economic foundations of any of the nations involved (although the E.U. did suffer some inconveniences when the financially incompetent Southern European countries were yoked to more sober Northern Europe).  (In fact, many Americans would be far better off if this were enacted!)

But thinking ahead – and don't forget the drive right here in the U.S. for a “guaranteed annual income”. Where is that going to come from? Well, from people who have a higher income than the guaranteed one, of course. So this would be a leveling process, but not radically different from the one already in force by way of the income tax and welfare systems, just turned up a few notches. (Note that the “poverty line” is also the income level at which people don't have to pay income taxes.)

But what if this were to be applied on a truly global basis? What if the median income in, say, Burundi was mandated to be equal to the median income in Luxembourg? Any chance that would create some economic upheavals? And yet it's the logical reductio ad absurdum of utopian thinking – the kind of thinking that attracts “itchy ears” in places like Davos and Ivy League faculty lounges. But again, it's not really “income” we're talking about, is it? Because those same idealists want to do away with money, i.e. currency, altogether. It's more about standard of living, or quality of life – and how one goes about equalizing that among billions of people without undreamed-of coercion is beyond me. But the current administration is making a significant start by letting millions of immigrants into the country to share in our so-called prosperity. So their standard of living increases dramatically, while for the rest of us it's slowly eroding. This is, if you will, an exercise in global leveling, and it's already happening right here.

But even the globalists are patient, in their own way. They're playing the long game – but then so is China, and so is Russia (or trying to, at least). Each generation will have to judge its own accomplishments while setting the stage for what follows, just as one presidential administration in the U.S. spends enormous amounts of time and energy on its “legacy”, and on paving the way for even more of... whatever... by those who follow.

The only thing that refuses to die in all of this is the globalist dream – and that will hold much of humanity in chains until something better comes along (something, perhaps, more – gasp! – traditional, like a newfound respect for eternal verities like race, ethnicity, tribe, family, gender, culture, and religion – and sense of place).

Plus, there has never been a truly global world empire, outside of science-fiction novels. There have been great empires, certainly – and one recalls Rome, the Ottomans, the British, the Soviets, and many more both ancient and modern – but they have all collapsed of their own weight, or have been over-extended, or have been pecked away at by rivals or local rebellions. Or – they have rotted from within, when the levels of competence that were required to build the empire were no longer there to even sustain it (this, by the way, being a major reason for our shift from being our own empire to being a part of the global empire).

Here we run into human nature, as usual (unless they want to change the human genome – well, I'm sure they're working on it) – can a global empire fare any better in the long run? Perhaps we expect it to be run by aliens from another world, with super-sized brains. Well, dream on. Our salvation is not in men, or in aliens either.