Midterm Blues

My record as a prognosticator when it comes to elections is, let's say, sketchy at best, so I wouldn't blame anyone for putting on their skeptic hat at this point. But I'm not even talking about results – rather, about various factors and vectors that could feed into this process.

First off, the midterm elections are about Trump. And if you say gas prices, that's about Trump too. And so is everything else. And this is nothing new, since midterms are always about the president who happens to be in office at the time. So whether it makes any sense or not, your state and local elections, right down to the level of dogcatcher, are going to be about Trump. As the old activist song went, “Which side are you on?” (Implication – you have to be on a “side”. It would be downright un-American to be neutral.)

So let's talk about Trump's base, and more specifically the base known as MAGA. MAGA had its heyday in the first Trump administration. There was a sense of euphoria... of triumphalism... of inevitability... of revolution, even (or counter-revolution, technically), and the movement survived all of the attempts – many of them successful – to oppose and defeat Trump's initiatives and programs, and to remove him from office. But on the practical side – to paraphrase a song of some years back -- Trump fought D.C. and the mainstream media, and D.C. and the media won. So Trump wound up operating as, in many ways, a lame duck from the first day of his first term. (The “never Trumpers” in the Republican Party didn't help. But where are they now?)

But, like any halfway decent politician (not that he is one), Trump learned. He learned many lessons, and the most important one was that his opponents in the government and the media, who on any given day present an outward appearance of being kind of wishy-washy and wimpy, if not outright eunuchs, are in actuality the meanest, most vicious animals in the jungle. After all, they haven't stayed in power and in positions of influence for all these years – decades! – by being nice. So basically, he underestimated them the first time around, but when he began his second (non-continuous) term, he had his ducks more in a row and was loaded for bear (think DOGE).

So Trump, as of January of 2025, started out much stronger and more capable. He was tanned, rested, and ready – as the saying goes. He hit the ground running – and his MAGA base had survived the Biden years more or less intact. But then he and his administration tried their hand at some real issues, like:

• The Epstein files

• UFOs

• Ukraine

• Palestine/Israel/Gaza

• Iran

(They toyed a bit with the JFK assassination, and with 9/11, but apparently decided those topics were still too hot to handle after all this time. Plus it was “old news”, and nothing more had been added to what we already know. This was the allegation (either explicit or implied) at least, and so both of these issues were re-buried for the umpteenth time.)

The problem was that with each of these issues, and with their mishandling, Trump and his administration lost some measure of credibility with not only the citizenry in general, but also with their formerly solid base. So I suspect that there's a certain group – let's call it ex-MAGA – who are quietly disillusioned and who are unwilling to “vote Trump” next month, either by voting for other candidates or not voting at all.

Then you have the so-called independents, who may have voted for Trump in 2024 but who are more reality-based, and who may be suffering from “buyer's regret”, and who – like the ex-MAGA contingent – may vote otherwise or simply stay home. (These are, as is well known, the most flexible segment of the voting citizenry, and it's because they actually pay attention – not just to propaganda, but to results. And they don't get all sentimental about which party their parents or grandparents always voted for. They are, I would say, more “reality-based” than the loyal members of either of the major parties, and they constitute a swing vote in many cases.) (I wouldn't say that the “swing” in the “swing states” is composed entirely of independents, but they are a major factor, along with the people who just decide to stay home. You can vote by not voting, in other words – and both parties know this all too well.)

And of course the main problem with the issues listed above is there has been no resolution. No closure. Nothing to satisfy anyone's curiosity.

• The Epstein files remain a closed book, by and large – at least the “good stuff” – simply because they implicate pretty much the entirety of the ruling elite. Not that Trump is a member of the ruling elite, mind you (his main offense is that he's not in “the club”, and has no interest in being in it) – but he can't very well afford to offend them by exposing their, let's say, less-than-commendable interests and habits. And it's not certain if he realized this at first; the thinking then was “Aha! Now we'll catch all those Democrat and liberal pre-verts!” But upon digging a bit deeper, it turned into “Oops. Never mind. Nothing to see here.” And when the government says that, it's precisely because there is “something to see here”. So... excuses were made, jobs were lost, and the whole business was tossed down the memory hole – or at least an attempt was made, but we know how things live on on the Internet. But the bottom line was – zero closure! Zero justice! And we're still arguing about who, or what, killed Epstein. (When there are that many people who want you dead, it hardly matters who actually did the actual deed.) (Or I guess he could be alive and well and living on some tropical island with Hitler and Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.)

• UFOs – Oy, this ball has been tossed around ever since the late 1940s, and as always, any sort of inquiry or investigation runs into a wall of silence, along with bureaucratic, and this case military, resistance. (“Secret weapons” are supposed to stay secret, right?) Plus, the perennial problem is that you have people who are, basically, kooks or in denial, on both sides of the issue. It's “the truth is out there” vs. “there's nothing out there, it's just swamp gas, you're all imagining things, etc.” So once again, after great fanfare it quickly turns into a non-story and a non-issue. Another self-inflicted wound on the part of the administration. (The parallels with the JFK assassination and 9/11 are striking, in that in each case you have two opposing camps – the “conspiracy theorists” vs. the standard, i.e. government narrative, types. In this case it seemed like some in the administration were toying with the conspiracy position, but that was quashed quite promptly.)

• Ukraine – For starters, why did Russia let Ukraine go after the Soviet Union broke up? Could they really have done nothing to keep it within the fold? Either they couldn't (things were a bit chaotic there for a while) or they chose not to. But now they have the prospect of NATO being right on their doorstep, which Russia not only doesn't want, but we promised them it wouldn't happen and then broke that promise. So here we are, “saving democracy” for a corrupt and allegedly-democratic country that is in a war with a corrupt and never-democratic country. I swear, I think we got along better with the Soviet Union (“godless communism”) than we do with the Russia of today. And the U.S./NATO side of the issue has apparently never heard of “buffer zones”, which are a time-honored way of keeping major powers out of each other's hair. Why can't Ukraine be neutral? And if they are incapable of doing that on their own, why not move a U.N. peacekeeping force into Ukraine? We did it with (former) Yugoslavia. Clearly someone wants to keep this conflict going, as long as it doesn't get too hot (i.e. nukes). And if our “NATO partners” were too short-sighted to anticipate this, why did we have to be? So... chalk up a kind of stalemate, which we are heavily invested in with no clear result.

• Palestine/Israel/Gaza – another no-win situation (for us) because, quite simply, we have to share the blame for anything Israel does. So even if certain radical Muslim groups are determined to make themselves (and the citizens of Gaza) into martyrs, their blood winds up on our hands – or so many will say. (Unlike the Epstein and UFO and Ukraine issues, I'm willing to admit that this one was pretty much unavoidable. A Democrat administration would be just as entrapped in it as the Trump administration is.) (There's a faint echo here of the war in Vietnam, which had precursors in a Republican administration, but reached a high point in a Democratic administration, but then it landed in Nixon's lap and he wound up getting blamed for something that had been going on for many years.) (One might also ask why we have a habit of getting out of wars only by means of unconditional surrender, which is far from traditional from a historical point of view.)

• Iran – Well, once again, the stage was set decades ago, long before Trump or MAGA came on the scene, and yet they have appointed themselves the ones who can save the day like Mighty Mouse. As Daniel McCarthy said in a recent column, “Many Trump supporters are... outraged that we are in yet another Middle East war with no end in sight.” And if it comes to sending troops in, we could wind up being “waist deep in the Big Muddy” again (that expression dates from the war in Vietnam). And besides, some people are starting to suspect that the radical Muslim mindset is such that they not only don't mind dying for a cause, but absolutely relish martyrdom, since it advances their cause in the long run. This is something Americans can't be expected to understand, of course – and much less Trump and his administration, who want nothing more than to nail Iran's skin to the barn door (this is a re-boot of what LBJ said about Vietnam). The irony is that we're fighting to, supposedly, remedy a situation that started long ago with our interference in Iranian politics. So even if the Iranians win by losing, we will wind up losing by winning, because it will further solidify our image of being at war with Islam.

• And while we're at it, let's not forget all the relatively trivial, but highly symbolic, self-inflicted wounds like the Kennedy Center, the ballroom, the reflecting pool, and the arch. There was absolutely no necessity for Trump to pile on with this stuff, but he did, and feedback has been almost entirely negative.

So these are all things that could impact the upcoming elections, but even if they do will it make a significant difference? The Democrats and the Democratic Socialists dream of returning to the glories of the Biden years, with open borders (non-borders actually), no ICE, defunding the police, a benign attitude toward urban violence and anarchy, and whatever else contributes to the gradual (or not-so-gradual) destruction of the America that the MAGA types believe in (and imagine that it still exists, or can at least be revived to some extent). The DSA candidates and sympathizers believe they are the wave of the future; well, maybe they are, but that doesn't say anything about what that future will be like in actual practice (although there are plenty of models available, like the Soviet Union). On the other side, are Trump and his people – the MAGA core – clinging to an illusion? Does the America they want to save even still exist? There's plenty of evidence that it doesn't – that it's composed largely of wishful thinking and nostalgia (with flags and flyovers). It's become all symbol and all myth with no substance, in other words. And both sides claim to want to “save democracy”, which is a shorthand way of saying “the government doing things my way and not those other people's way (because we're the good guys and they're evil)”. Is that really the democratic process in action, or is it more like gang warfare? On any given day, it seems almost exclusively like the latter; everything else is hot air, hypocrisy, and the lust for power.

So... I don't think this election is any more “the most important election of our lifetime” than any other. Every election is called that by everybody these days. For some, it will be no more than a bump in the road; for others, a turning point of some sort. Who are the revolutionaries of our time, and who are the counter-revolutionaries? It's getting to the point where no one can make any sense of it, and maybe it doesn't matter. Ultimately – and I hate to agree with Nietzche on this – it's all about power, and the language that supports power, and the thought processes (including delusions and paranoia) that language represents. And no matter the outcome, some will declare it “the end of America”. Well – it may be the end of their America, but if that America no longer exists, or in fact never has existed, maybe the Age of Ideas is passing away, and a new Age of Realism is dawning. Unlikely? Probably. But isn't some hope better than no hope at all? 

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.

Make Social Media, Not War

There's a grain of truth to the notion that “the Russians” (including NGOs and private citizens as well as the Putin regime) “interfered” or “meddled” in the 2016 election. But there's a mountain of falsehood to the notion that their goal was to put Trump into office. Based on the evidence that Inspector Hound, AKA Robert Mueller, and his team have assembled (or chosen to ignore), it can just as easily be argued that their goal was to put Hillary Clinton into office. But if the real goal – as is becoming more clear with each passing day – was, as has been noted by many, to demoralize the American public and shatter their illusions as to the soundness and legitimacy of our electoral system, and of our political system in general, then one has to admit that they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Mission accomplished! And while Russia stands securely as a political monolith with Putin at the top, American politics has been shattered into a million pieces, and Americans have been politicized, fragmented, and set against one another in a way not seen since the run-up to the Civil War. Even the 1960s pale by comparison. And this has been accomplished without a shot being fired.

The main instrument of all of this has been – irony alert! – the so-called social media, which didn't exist in Cold War times, but which have been effectively weaponized by countless parties, and none more effectively than those seeking to create havoc within the American enterprise. After all, didn't we invent the social media? I clearly remember when the Internet was no more than a gleam in the eye of DARPA (no, not Al Gore). It began with ARPANET, which was intended as a tool for the Defense Department, and was dreamed up by the smartest people on the planet at that time. (Well, OK, the smartest people in the U.S. Or the smartest people in the government, whatever.) Back in the 70s when I was working in DoD, DARPA was this mysterious place right across the street, and it was spoken of in hushed tones, like these are the people with huge brains who are way ahead of the technology curve and who are sure to make a difference. And what a difference! Whenever you hop on the Internet to play around with Facebook or Twitter, just remember that you are mere fleas on the backs of giants.

So here we are 40 years later, and it seems like our old enemies have moved in and used our tools against us. And there's no doubt as to what benefits this provides to the new post-Soviet Russia – and to China as well, for that matter. In the current version of The Great Game, the sides have come into sharp focus over the years since the end of the Cold War – or let's call it Cold War I. We have, first and foremost, Russia, which staggered through the drunken haze of the Yeltsin years when the new oligarchy was being created, and emerged – tanned, rested, and ready – to once again assume a dominant role on the world stage. Then we have China, which has done the impossible, namely come up with a hybrid system of political communism plus aggressive economic capitalism. It's almost as if they've taken the main platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties over the decades and merged them; how do you beat something like that?

Another major player in all of this is the EU, which, along with its predecessor organizations – let's give credit where credit is due – has kept the Western European nations from cutting each other's throats for many decades now. Now, one can quibble as to whether the EU is an organization of equals, the way the U.N. is supposed to be; some will say that it's simply the latest manifestation of the German Empire – call it the Fourth Reich. But if so, it can at least count peaceful coexistence among its accomplishments, unlike the previous Reichs. (This may simply be a sign that, at long last, economics has emerged triumphant as the main motivator and model for Europe, as opposed to the nationalism of old.)

Then we have what are called “non-state actors” – globalists on the one hand (not unrelated to the EU, but with a much larger vision and a more comprehensive strategy) and “terrorists” on the other. It turns out that Islam was not taught a lesson as a result of World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire; and sure enough, the radical Islamists have a renewed caliphate as their long-term objective.

Then we have Israel, which is the sine qua non of American foreign policy, having been unceremoniously dumped in our lap by Britain. And their continued existence is not unrelated to terrorism, since it constitutes a thorn in the sides of Muslims everywhere. And after all, don't all of our politicians regularly recite, like some kind of litany, that there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel? So why shouldn't anyone with a grudge against Israel also have a grudge against the U.S. (and against lesser “crusaders” or “Franks” like France and England)?

But wait – doesn't this add up to at least seven distinct entities? Isn't that kind of messy? After all, the Cold War had the merit of being, basically, two-sided, with China pretty much sitting it out, the globalists quietly drawing up their program in Brussels, the Islamists hitting the books in madrasas, and Israel making do (up until 1967) without the West Bank. And the Cold War was fought relatively quietly like the chess game that it was, with overt conflicts confined to proxy wars (Vietnam being an exception since it was "proxy" for them but first-hand for us).  It was by no means a calm, peaceful era; it just seems that way compared to what's happening now.

If you insist on sticking with the two-sided Cold War model, you can say that Team A is us, the EU, globalists in general, and Israel... and Team B is Russia and China, who have apparently sat down and divvied up the “turf” like gangsters in Old Chicago. But you still have the “terrorists”, who seem to be bugging everybody, but Team A more than Team B. (Maybe it's because Russia and China have time-tested ways of dealing with that sort of thing, whereas we and the EU are still groping around trying to figure out “why they hate us”.) Israel, of course, knows full well why the Islamists hate them, and are completely unapologetic in dealing with them in any way that seems appropriate – much to the occasional dismay of the U.S. (not so much the EU, which is famously non-judgmental about these things).

But there is one thing that everyone but us has in common – an overriding shared interest, if you will – namely to cut the U.S. down to size. (And actually, a large portion of our political class wants the same thing.) So Russia makes inroads in the Ukraine... and China buys up the lion's share of our national debt... and the EU continues to take advantage of our largess dating from the post-WWII era. And the terrorists manage to stir up trouble faster than we can dispatch troops or bombers to deal with them. (It is they who have, in effect, provided us with an excuse for waging perpetual war and keeping our economy on a war footing. And they don't seem to mind. In fact, they like it, because it vindicates their rationale for waging war against the West.)

The rest of the world is, in effect, treating us like some senile, doddering billionaire in a Hollywood movie – basically clueless and hemorrhaging wealth, but dangerous nonetheless. It's a war of attrition, if you will – and China, patient as always, is waiting for the day when it will be advantageous to call in their chits. Great bites have been taken out of the Soviet Empire of old – but they're being cagey, so far, when it comes to reclaiming them (the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine being the only exceptions – call them trial runs if you like).

So, bottom line, everyone is waiting for Uncle Stupid to break his hip and be moved into the dementia ward – but in the meantime they're doing everything they can to hasten the day, and that includes – ta-da! – using our very own social media to sow doubts among the citizenry.

It's been said that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed was that “the termites quit holding hands”. But we have our own termites in the form of political movements, some dating back more than a century. The American Experiment ran aground ages ago; some will argue that it ended with the Civil War. But there was a tremendous amount of energy that persisted, and that ultimately took the form of the American Empire. But that too has run aground, and some will give the war in Vietnam credit for that. And yet the energy persists – and the most remarkable thing is that the American economy can continue to support, and the American people continue to put up with, the continuing high level of folly and catastrophic loss of national wealth attributable to our foreign policy. Any other empire would have collapsed, been carved into pieces, and been put up on the auction block long since – and yet here we are. (Anyone who spends any time thinking about “sustainability” has to look upon this phenomenon with awe; it defies all the laws of economics and politics and yet there it is.)

So yes, to the extent that the Russians (and who knows who else) mounted an “attack” using the social media (and other media as well), it was designed to disrupt, and to cause consternation and dismay, but it was indifferent as to the results of the 2016 election, because that didn't matter. Trump may turn our home-grown “Resistance” types into gibbering psychotics... and he may step on a few toes in the EU... and he may huff and puff at Russia and China, but in the long run it's the same dreary story. Russia and China can put up with the huffing and puffing, and the EU can put up with a few bruised toes, but the terrorists are undeterred... and the globalists seem to get their own way no matter who's in charge. Can anyone seriously claim that Hillary would have done anything significantly different? Oh sure, if you're talking about domestic policy, but to the powers that be – those who play The Great Game -- America's domestic woes are noise level. What counts is not who does what to whom, or to what degree, but the level of fragmentation and – most importantly – the loss of national identity and political will (factors intimately tied to the immigration controversy). Identity politics, on the other hand, will be with us no matter who's in the White House, and it's only going to get worse. (Please recall Obama's, ahem, success at promoting racial healing.) Identity politics is a fragmenting, alienating, divisive phenomenon, which means that our enemies are all for it, and will encourage it as much as possible.

So we have, in a sense, a paradox – we are eating ourselves alive, which seems to be a domestic political matter... but it's being aided and abetted by powers and entities beyond our borders. And even at that, think of how many times over the years we've mounted our own “interference” campaigns against other countries, regimes, and leaders. There are karmic factors in play here. And why are we always the ones who talk about “regime change”? It's because we like the idea and because we're good at it (or, at least, used to be). Other nations and leaders who talk about “regime change” in the U.S., as they are doing non-stop these days, are missing the point. If there's a Deep State that is bent on sabotaging Trump, or anyone else who might occupy the White House, it's hidden in the bowels of the EU, the Kremlin, and the Forbidden City. Our own Deep State is simply, knowingly or not, doing their bidding.

The idea is to get the U.S. out of the way once and for all. Then the rest of the world can go back to doing what it does best, namely trying to kill each other.

"Next Year in Jerusalem"

Thus, a key element of the traditional Passover and Yom Kippur prayers, expressing optimistic hope that “next year” the Jews would once again have access to the Holy City (as opposed to simply the western outskirts – and even that wasn't taken for granted until the State of Israel was established in 1948). And in fact, “next year” never came, until the 1967 war resulted in Israeli occupation of what is called the West Bank, but which includes the old city of Jerusalem, with all that is left of the ancient temple, plus the Temple Mount, which remains Islamic property while under Israeli authority. It's an area that was supposed to be part of Israel from the start, but which fell (back) into Arab hands during the war that immediately followed the establishment of the State of Israel.

The symbolic significance of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel cannot be overstated; by comparison Tel Aviv is a newcomer on the world map. And yet, for any number of diplomatic reasons, we have chosen to have our embassy there rather than in Jerusalem – which is strange in a way, since we seem to dance to Israel's tune in every other respect; why not this one? I guess it was a way of saying, to the world, that we were still our own man, and had the right to put our embassy wherever we pleased. Well... as to being “our own man” when it comes to Israel, that has been shown to be a myth on any number of occasions. When it comes to our policy in the Middle East, they call the shots... and that fact tends to reverberate through our other foreign policy decisions, our diplomatic relations, and, most of all, our military budget and where our “defense” dollars go, which, in turn, means where American taxpayer money goes. 

But now that phrase has a new meaning – for us. And yet the Trump move – assuming it's not sidetracked by the numberless hordes who live for nothing but to frustrate and defeat Trump, and drive him from office in disgrace (and hopefully in leg irons) – is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what has been the case pretty much since the establishment of the State of Israel back in 1948. But of course, in diplomacy what is “the case” seldom if ever matters; what's more important is what everyone pretends is the case. And in this case, we have usually found it prudent to not openly declare that we were “all in” for Israel – that we had at least a passing interest in Palestinian rights, and in the integrity of neighboring states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt). But whenever push came to shove, it turned out that there was “no daylight” between us and Israel when it came to our foreign policy – which is another way of saying that Israel dictates our foreign policy. (We certainly don't dictate theirs! And someone has to be in charge.) But it would be undiplomatic (not to mention slightly humiliating) to put it in those terms, so we prefer to euphemize.

Basically, it's all about symbolism. And it's all about what everyone knows, but no one wants to talk about – namely that Israel is, for all intents and purposes, the 51^st state in the United States, and that we will spare nothing to see that it survives. Of course, Israel did survive, with more or less stable borders, from 1948 until 1967, but its survival since then seems to depend on its holding on to the West Bank and to Jerusalem (Old City). Basically, whatever Israel declares essential to its survival is what we will support with our own resources. I guess if they decided to colonize some forgotten chunk of central Africa, that would instantly become vital to their survival, and hence something that we would have to add to our long list of things to defend (diplomatically and militarily).  (When you take a good, hard look at what is called "the American Empire", it's interesting how seldom our own flag flies over the various pieces of that empire.  Most often, it's someone else's flag, which leads one to wonder, exactly whose "empire" is it, anyway?)

I look upon this with more than a hint of ambivalence. On the one hand, I'm willing to admit that, yes, this (moving the embassy) would be a much more honest policy than the wishy-washy, wimpy one of old. If we want to defy the entire Arab world, then by gosh let's do it, and quit pretending otherwise. On the other hand, if it further solidifies Israel's death grip on our foreign policy, I have to oppose it, and for any number of reasons. For starters, the modern state of Israel is, basically, a postwar creation by England and the U.S., with France looking on benignly. And the notion that it was “a land without a people for a people without a land” is a myth rivaling anything Wagner could have come up with. There was ethnic cleansing – and plenty of it – involved, and the “refugee camps” which persist to this day (!) are evidence of this. (How long does a place called a “refugee camp” have to exist before it's no longer entitled to that name?) 

And was it about religion? Well, Israel is notoriously secular, and its residents tend to be “unchurched” except for the orthodox.  And was it about... well, I'm not going to get into that debate as to whether the Jews are a “race” or an “ethnic group”. If you're anti-Semitic, you're also a racist; that seems to be the standard logic. And yet the term “Semitic” also refers to the Arabs, so what we're seeing may be more like a family feud. (After all, both the Jews and the Muslims are “people of the book”, as are the Christians.)

In any case, the “legitimacy” of Israel as a state, or country, can be debated, although it never is. Our position is that Israel is perfectly legitimate because... well, just because. Okay? And the Arab position is that Israel is illegitimate (they refer to it as “the Zionist entity”) because.... well, just because. So there is no debate, just two rock-hard positions... and try coming up with a diplomatic solution to this one. The one-state solution, with a kind of apartheid and the Palestinians as second-class citizens, seems to offend our democratic sensitivities, whereas the two-state solution, which requires each side to give up territory it feels it's entitled to, offends their racial/ethnic/religious sensitivities. (Note that both the Jews and the Arabs claim a “right of return” to what we call the Holy Land.)

And throughout this entire history, we (the U.S.) have been dithering, hand-wringing, and agonizing about how to convince people who have no interest in peace into agreeing to a “peaceful solution”. (And I have to admit that this was actually not one of Jimmy Carter's many failures, for the simple reason that it was impossible for him to succeed, just as it has been impossible for any of his successors.)

So one could argue that this intent (not yet an accomplished fact) to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is “meaningless”, since it doesn't change anything of any real importance. But since when have actual, tangible changes been important, compared to symbolism, or what we now call “optics”? The Palestinians have always known that we aren't on their side, when it gets down to brass tacks. They know this! They aren't stupid! They know that in any debate between them and Israel, they are also facing us, and to a lesser extent Western Europe. (At least they have finally gotten used to being a forgotten, shat-upon, and despised minority.) And they also know that they can expect little if any help from Israel's Arab neighbors. Somehow the fact that the Palestinians wound up holding the short end of the stick back in 1948 has won them little or no sympathy from their supposed blood brothers. Once again, witness the continued existence of the “refugee camps” -- neighboring Arab countries could have taken all of these people in decades ago, but they didn't. It was better to leave them in squalor as a living indictment against Israel.

It would be easy to just sit back and say “Well, if there's no solution, there's no problem.” But that would be small comfort to those involved. Everyone born in a certain place feels that they have a right to that place – to stay there and seek their fortune there. (This is also true of the so-called “dreamers”, by the way, which makes that an especially difficult issue.) People who migrated to a certain place, for whatever reason, also feel that they have a right to stay there. (Again, think of the mass migrations – both legal and otherwise – into U.S. territory.)

After a number of major wars, there have been established “claims commissions” chartered to straighten out a wide variety of claims and grievances, including, but not limited to, territory, bank accounts, spoils of war (including works of art), business interests, property, and so on. There is no formal claims commission dealing with Israel and the West Bank, probably because no one in their right mind would want to be on it. But we – not being in our right mind, at least in terms of foreign policy – insist that we are the ones who, at long last, are able to objectively settle these matters... or at least provide wise counsel in that regard. We pretend to be honest brokers, while at the same time every suggestion we make somehow winds up favoring Israel. Once again, the Palestinians are not stupid; they can see through all of this. But then who do they turn to? The European Union? The World Court? Good luck. They could turn to their fellow religionists, who basically surround Israel on three sides (with water on the fourth side) – but once again, and to their shame, the Arab world prefers to have a chronic, multi-generational victim class in Israeli-held territory, because they feel that it somehow gives them leverage in places like the U.N. But even that has been shown to be a vain hope. 

 

Regarding the embassy issue, it was, once again, the U.S. and Israel vs. the world, and so far the U.S. and Israel have won. But the Arabs do not have the patience of, say, the Chinese, who seem to be able to wait pretty much any situation out until things turn in their favor. So the conflict will drag on, no matter where our embassy is.

Unholy Silence

Two quarters that we are hearing next to nothing from since the election are (1) Hillary and (2) Israel. Other than being in the cheering section and one of the prime supporters of Jill Stein's recount crusade, Hillary really has been remarkably silent, as have her minions. The explanation for this... well, it could be a number of things.

“Optics”: She may not want to “distract” from the pristine purity of a complete underdog – Jill Stein – going up against The Power, which is another way of saying she doesn't want to look like a sore loser. But why not? Isn't she finished in politics? Not a bit of it. I suspect the “Hillary in 2020” campaign is already being organized (the way the “Hillary in 2016” campaign was launched the day after the Democratic convention in 2008). So – let Stein look like a sore loser; she's expendable. If she succeeds, it will only benefit Hillary, and Stein will be thrown into the same dustbin as Bernie Sanders.

Hoping that Stein succeeds, and the campaign to bag “faithless electors” succeeds, Hillary might just wind up winning! -- or so she thinks. In which case, there is plenty of planning to do, but it has to be kept super-secret (not unlike HillaryCare) or she risks looking like a fool if Stein fails.

Plus, she doesn't want to be too closely associated with the Green Party, which – much to their shame, if they had any – is what the Democrats should be like rather than what they are like, namely one head of the two-headed monster that serves the Regime.

Bottom line – Hillary has not given up on politics, and she hasn't given up on this election. She and her inner circle are plotters and schemers, and they never sleep. And she and Bill are, lest we forget, still in charge of the Democratic Party, which means they have an army of unthinking slaves, like the flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz. You can be sure they're up to something, the only question is what.

Now we come to Israel, which is even more of a conundrum. Has Bibi phoned Trump to congratulate him, or Hillary to commiserate? Not that I'm aware. And after all, whose side was he on? He came over here in 2012 and campaigned for Romney – an absolutely outrageous act which should have caused great indignation, especially among the Democrats – but no one seemed to notice. The Republicans were glad to have the support, and the Democrats didn't dare criticize, because to criticize Israel or anything its leadership does is to be anti-Semitic, a Nazi, blah blah blah. So the Dems were tongue-tied, and it was a marvel to behold, since it happens so seldom.

But this time around? We know the Russians seemed to be favoring Trump, for some reason – maybe because they see him as a non-ideologue, and Hillary as just more of the same Obama-esque “cold war lite” nonsense. And in our time, anyone the Russians like will more or less automatically be disliked by Israel, except that things have been a bit icy between them and Obama, and Hillary would, as far as they knew, continue Obama's foreign policy with nary a bump. (My theory was that her foreign policy would look more like Bush's, which should have been just groovy with Israel.  But apparently they had their doubts.)

In any case, Israel didn't make a peep during the election, and hasn't made a peep since. I suspect they've adopted a “wait and see” attitude, since Trump is a bit of an unknown in many respects (unlike Hillary, who is all too transparent, which is one reason she lost). They figure once he takes office they can sit down and reason together, which is true – and yet their stony silence is nonetheless intriguing.

Unless they know more about this recount issue than we do; maybe they're hedging their bets. After all, their intel and spying apparatus is the best in the world by far, not to mention the fact that pretty much any Israeli teenager can hack into the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. -- not to mention the Democratic Party, and who said that hacking them was the sole privilege of Russia?

(Note that there was a widely-circulated “conspiracy theory” among anti-Clintonites a while back that many if not all of the voting machines in the U.S. were either owned or programmed by, or both, Israeli companies. I never looked into this because I figure, they don't need to get down in the weeds that way, they have our politicians in their back pocket anyway, so why should they care who wins? But it was an interesting theory if only in that it reflected a common assumption that of course the Israelis wanted Hillary to win. But of course it could have just as readily been the other way around, and that's what Stein & Co. are obsessing about at this point. Not about Israeli involvement, I mean, but about the hackability of the American electoral system – which never seems to bother them when they win, needless to say.)

Anyway – these are, arguably, sidebar issues, but intriguing nonetheless. Hillary in particular is much more dangerous when she's silent and out of sight than when she's out in public. This, as I've theorized before, is the main reason Obama made her secretary of state, just so he could keep an eye on her and cut down on her scheming. And it did seem to work for a while, plus it gave her a chance to completely muck up our foreign policy, which, on some level, might have been quite satisfying to Obama -- “Aren't you glad you didn't nominate and elect her to the presidency?” (I suspect a similar mindset is behind Obama's silence regarding the outcome of the election. The possibility that he can out-scheme her and Bill must be pretty darn irritating to both of them.)

The problem with people who are entirely political in their motivation is, well, that they're entirely political. They have no loyalty. They will desert and abandon friends, supporters, and colleagues at the drop of a hat. There are countless buses just waiting for some Democratic politician to throw some other Democratic politician under them. It's a very primitive, brutal, dog-eat-dog world they live in. The Republicans are far more gentlemanly, which is probably why they typically lose political battles; they just aren't cut out for the way things are done in our time. And I'm sure that was a big part of Trump's appeal – here's a guy who doesn't even pretend to be a gentleman, or refined, or a diplomat. He's more like a Democrat than a Republican in that sense – which may be one reason why he appealed to the lusty, rough-and-ready portion of the electorate – you know, the people with their organs of reproduction still intact, unlike the army of eunuchs that currently comprises the White House staff and the DNC.

Whose Apocalypse Is It Anyway?

An interesting bit of symmetry has come into focus regarding the conflict in the Middle East. I have written before about the power of true belief – call it radicalism, fanaticism, whatever. You can find it on this blog – the post dated Dec. 27, 2014, “Fools, Holy and Otherwise”. The point was that there is something about a cause – and the less “realistic” the better – that attracts people, especially young people, who are looking for something worth fighting for. And when true believers go up against the Establishment – which is characterized by materialism, cynicism, and “realpolitik”, and dominated by old, bald white guys (let's admit it), they tend, other things being equal, to win, simply because their fervor serves as a force multiplier – i.e. their pure energy can overcome those who are primarily seeking political, military, or material gain -- or to at least hold on to their power base.

We can see this down through history – smaller forces defeating (at least for a time, and sometimes permanently) larger forces, and it's always based on an idea... an inspiration. And I'm not claiming that the cause is always just; that's not the point. It's more about the power of ideas, right or wrong... and the relative impotence of tired, worn-out regimes. Many examples come to mind, such as the Jewish rebellion against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire (you can cross-reference this with “Irony” if you like)... the Moslem conquests of the early days... the Crusades... the American Revolution... the Civil War... the Bolsheviks... the Nazis... the Viet Cong... and now ISIS. In all cases, the cause was deemed worthy, and worth fighting for, even unto death, to say nothing of destruction of the old order. “Counting the cost” was not on the agenda, in other words. Even the death of innocents was, in most cases, considered to be part of the price that must be paid (can you say “collateral damage”?). One can even claim that revolution per se – regardless of the time and place – is characterized, at least at the outset, by this mind set. It is, in other words, a part of history, and conflicts that don't possess this trait (World War I comes to mind) eventually come to be seen as unfortunate, unnecessary, and truly wasteful.

People of our time commenting on history will often say something like, “Thank goodness we aren't fighting religious wars any longer.” But I say that religious wars are the only ones worth fighting! Or, substitute “wars of ideas” and you pretty much have it covered. And is there any doubt that what we are fighting right now in the Middle East is a religious war? And don't bother to say that ISIS doesn't represent “real” Islam; their beliefs are as real to them as the beliefs of any other revolutionists or crusaders were to them.

A recent AP news story described ISIS as having “apocalyptic appeal”. The concept of apocalypse is all about the ultimate destiny of the world, and of mankind. It's about a process – but that process has a goal, which is setting the world right, either in anticipation of the final judgment (the religious version) or of achieving heaven on earth – a Utopia to last a thousand years (recall, if you will, the Nazis' vision of the “Thousand Year Reich”). For a goal like that, is any sacrifice too great? It never seems to be. And this, among many other factors, is why we find ourselves baffled when it comes to fighting ISIS – and why remnants of the Roman Empire were so helpless in the face of Islam... and why the British were so stunned by the American Revolution... and so on.

And yet we have, on “our” side, something of the sort as well – a real, home-grown hotbed of fanaticism that is as dedicated to its cause as the Islamists are to theirs. They're called Christian Zionists – and they overlap to a significant extent with the Neocons, and, I daresay, with the Tea Party... and also serve to energize the campaigns of nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates. Their theme, as we are, hopefully, all aware of by now, is that Israel is the key to “salvation history” and must be supported, and protected, at all costs – even unto the destruction of our own economy and our political isolation on the world stage.

This phenomenon has been extensively documented in a number of books, and I suggest, for starters, one entitled “Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism” by Victoria Clark. From a summary of the book (on Amazon):

Guided by a literal reading of the prophetic sections of the Bible, Christian Zionists are convinced that the world is hurtling toward a final Battle of Armageddon. They believe that war in the Middle East is God’s will for the region. In this timely book, Victoria Clark first explores the 400-year history of this powerful political ideology, laying to rest the idea that Christian Zionism is a passing craze or the province of a lunatic fringe. Then Clark surveys the contemporary Christian Zionist scene in Israel and in the United States, where the influence of the religious fundamentalists has never been greater.

Clark engages with Christian Zionism directly, interviewing leaders, attending events, and traveling with Christian Zionists in the Holy Land. She also investigates the Christian Zionist presence in Israel. She finds that the view through the Christian Zionist lens is dangerously simple: (the) War on Terror is a mythic battle between good and evil, and Syria and Iran represent the powers of darkness. Such views are far from rare—an estimated fifteen to twenty million Americans share them. Almost one in three Americans believes Israel was given to the Jews by God as a prelude to the Battle of Armageddon and Jesus’ Second Coming. Clark concludes with an assessment of Christian Zionists’ impact on American foreign policy in the Middle East and on America’s relationships with European allies since the attacks of 9/11.

Now – the question we should be asking is this: If all of this is true (and I don't doubt that it is), are we to accept it as a perfectly natural historical development – inevitable, if you will, given that we as a nation identify our own founding as based on ideas of, if not explicitly religious, then at the very least a Utopian sort? Or to put it another way, did our founding as a secular society highly informed by Protestant or “Enlightenment” ideas inevitably lead us to this pass? The book provides convincing evidence that this is the case. The irony, of course, is that even though this nation was founded on, basically, humanistic and materialistic principles, theology caught up with it – starting with the second through the fourth of the “Great Awakenings”. (The First Great Awakening predated the Revolution, but certainly laid the conceptual groundwork for those to follow.)

And so, if this is all perfectly natural, and inevitable, does that make it OK? Are we to, ultimately, throw ourselves on Israel's funeral pyre, assuming that all of this comes to naught? Or perhaps it won't; perhaps there will, ultimately, be a victory that all can revel in and that will make all of our sacrifices seem worthwhile. We seem to be standing on a cusp of history – a time of great testing – where a conflict of ideas will determine the future for many generations – nay, centuries or even millennia – to come. If we are satisfied with this, and willing to pay any price, then by all means let us “let loose the dogs of war”. We already have an enemy that is not only willing, but strangely able, as evidenced by recent events. It may, in fact, be too late to back down – as it has been so many times before. All I'm suggesting is that we become, and remain, conscious of all that is entailed here; it is truly a “big f------ deal”, in the immortal words of Joe Biden. If we think of it as being anything less, and are not prepared for all of the possible consequences, then we are sadly mistaken. We have achieved that state of “fearful symmetry” -- the difference being that the other side is fully aware of it, whereas we persist in pretending otherwise.

We Are Not Worthy

Yesterday, March 3, 2015 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the President of the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Prime Minister of the State of Israel. The United States was at peace with that nation and....

OK, OK, enough with the FDR imitation already. And I'm not sure that 3/3/15 will live in infamy; there are so many other dates clamoring for that distinction in our times. But it was certainly a milestone of sorts. It did not represent a sea change in our relationship with Israel; what it did represent, however, was Israel's – or at least its prime minister's – overt and unambiguous declaration that they are in charge of our foreign policy, no matter what any silly-ass president or his pathetic acolytes in Congress might think. Netanyahu not only called Obama out, but he told it like it is, and demanded that Congress fall into line and agree with him – which they did, by the way, in a show of obsequiousness that set a new high (or low). Not that there's anything new about this either, since that was accomplished decades ago, but on this occasion the prime minister openly acknowledged the facts of the matter and pretty much dared anybody to object.

And of course there will be a reconciliation, and an “all is forgiven” golden glow will descend on the whole affair, and history will be rewritten to show “no daylight” between us and Israel. So in that sense it doesn't matter... but the fact will remain. Bibi has bearded the lion (so to speak) in his den, and there will be no backing off from that – no spin, no “clarification”. The prime minister chose his words with exquisite care; there was nothing offhand or spontaneous about them. He made his position plain, he made it plain that it was Israel's position, and he made it plain that he didn't much care what Obama or his stooges think, because, quite frankly, they don't count. (The truth is, even Congress doesn't count – but the exercise was valuable as an affirmation of Israel's power base. The standing ovations tell you all you need to know about that.)

Well, Obama is a lame duck – a lot lamer than he was on Monday! -- but so what? He's been insulted by Netanyahu before, and undoubtedly will be again. And he doesn't dare return blow for blow; he is as helpless as a Supreme Court justice sitting like a bump on a log while the president gives a State of the Union address brimming with insults directed at the Court (which is why some of the justices have decided to boycott said annual exercise until further notice). Maybe now he knows how it feels.

So nothing will change. We will continue to pour resources into the Middle East in endless wars, unto and beyond bankruptcy. We will continue to incur the wrath of the Islamic world, and the derision of most of the rest. We will continue to “stand with Israel” in splendid isolation. And yet... one can't help but think that a milestone has been passed. Gone are the days of subtlety and subversion; from here on it's in-your-face, mano a mano. But at the same time, it's refreshing; everything is right out in the open, and we can now decide if this is what we want, or if we would prefer something else (not that what “we” decide will make much difference). The main point is that from here on out no one can claim ignorance, and no one can feign shock the next time Israel abuses its infinite privileges with the U.S., its leadership, its military, and it's citizens.

It would be tempting to dwell just on the more amusing and ironic aspects of all of this; they certainly made my day. (Feinstein and Pelosi both having hissy fits? Please.) But those aren't the sorts of things that usually echo down through history. What does do this is major world events and political forces – and yet we all too rarely get to see them in plain sight; these events are as rare as total eclipses. For this alone we should thank the prime minister; he has shown us... well, not necessarily the truth about Iran and its perceived threats, but the truth about our relationship with our “eternal ally”. That, and at least one truth about our political leadership – that they are infantile, and as mindless as a gang of yobs at a soccer game.

Eyeless in Gaza

One of my early memories when it comes to “the news” -- radio news in this case – is that of listening to stories about “fighting in the Gaza Strip”. This would have been at least as far back as when I was in junior high school in the late 1950s. I had only a vague idea of where the Gaza Strip was, and knew very little of the historical background, but it was obvious that that place was nothing but trouble... and here we are, fifty-odd years later, and very little has changed.

Recently, a correspondent of mine called my attention to an excellent interview with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi – a former executive director of the American Jewish Congress and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, no less, who expressed grave doubts as to the morality of Israel's actions in this latest confrontation. A transcript can be found at: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us

and

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/31/us_jewish_leader_henry_siegman_to

Please go to that site and read the interview if you have the time; it is very worthwhile and enlightening. Then, as to my own comments and observations:

To begin with, when one is confronted with an impossible situation -- diplomatically in this case -- one has to go back and dig a bit to figure out how it got that way.  In the case of Israel, it was all based on Zionism, i.e. the notion that the Jews had a "right" to Palestine that superseded all other rights, not only of other claimants but of the people who already lived there.  This was, in turn, bolstered by the myth of "a land without a people" -- and how could this possibly have been true?  Any idiot could have seen through that scam.  And yet they made it stick.  And, as far as they're concerned Palestine was, in fact, a land without a people -- i.e. without any people who really counted.  (This was especially true in light of World War I, which put an end to the Ottoman Empire and made Arabs into second-class world citizens, which they continue to be to this day, at least as far as the U.S. and Europe are concerned. And by extension, Islam is a second-class (at best) religion, which explains a lot of our attitude and propaganda vis-a-vis the Middle East. We claim that we are only fighting “radical Islam” and “terror”, but our military is subjected to an endless stream of “orientation” propaganda that, basically, identifies Islam in general as the enemy.)

Now, this is not to say that the Jews didn't suffer greatly prior to and during World War II.  But the notion that this gave them the right to just move in (anywhere on earth) and take over, and set up a country, does not automatically follow -- although this was certainly the reasoning at the time and continues to be.  (We forget that, historically, Palestine was not the only location proposed by the Zionists for a Jewish homeland, even though it has much more historical salience.)  But on the other hand, what were they supposed to do?  Go back to Europe?  That would have been awkward at best -- although some did.  Move to the U.S.?  Again, many did, but that was apparently not good enough -- especially given all the supposed racist, fascist, anti-Semitic tendencies floating around this country, which American Jews are always quick to point out even though it's minimal, in my opinion. (Poor Joe Biden is just the latest poster child for “latent antisemitism”, but he gets exactly zero sympathy from me because he is an equal-opportunity offender.)

So yes, it was high time for a Jewish homeland, and if you suggest that they owe it all to Hitler, you'll get great indignation, but in some sense it's true.  Would Zionism have ever won if it hadn't been for the Holocaust?  That's an imponderable of history.  But one thing is certain, it would certainly have never won if it hadn't been for the support of England and France -- and, less directly, the U.S.  England was, I suppose, glad to get Palestine off its hands, because it was nothing but trouble (owing, to a great extent, to the efforts of Jewish terrorists).  So they could get a number of tickets punched at the same time by simply turning it over to the Jews, with the cooperation of the U.N. and us, etc.  And again, the people who already lived there didn't count -- and it also didn't count that the new country would be surrounded by hostile Arab/Islamic states.  Now, anyone who expected Israel to be self-sustaining under those conditions was smoking something mighty powerful, and it wasn't a peace pipe.   

So Blunder #1, for the U.S. at least, was not only allowing this to happen, but encouraging it -- and, by implication at least, signing on for eternal life support of Israel no matter what.  So right away, after a decision of that magnitude, the law of cognitive dissonance requires that we never question Israel's strategies, tactics, or motives -- to say nothing of its right to exist.  That is off the table, period!  We've invested too much, in other words -- which is one reason why we keep exerting and straining ourselves to "help" them come up with diplomatic solutions to their Palestinian problem -- even though we know that no one over there wants peace.  What they want is to get rid of the other guys.  So we don't even have the option of walking away and retaining some of our self-respect -- not that bolstering John Kerry's self-respect is very high on my "to do" list anyway.

In other words, everything follows from that one bad choice back in the late 40s -- and yet most people will tell you that we didn't have a choice, that a Jewish homeland was going to happen no matter what, because of the Holocaust, which we didn't do enough to prevent (the "guilt card" being played at that point), plus all American Jews were in favor, etc. etc.  Well... logically, once we made that initial choice, it's perfectly true that everything that followed made perfect sense -- right up to and including resurgent radical Islam (AKA "terror") and its war on us, and our war with it.  Because Israel became, overnight, a very large thorn in the side of the Arab/Islamic world (literally, if you look at a map), and they could never "get used to" its existence, and they could never forgive us for aiding and abetting it.  So over time, various segments of the Islamic/Arab world became radicalized to varying extents, the most extreme version to date being ISIS, or whatever they're called at the moment.  (Remember when the most radical terrorist on earth was Arafat?  Those were the days!)  And things went into a cyclic mode, where the Arabs would do something, and Israel would react, and the Arabs would react to that, and so on ad infinitum -- the Gaza situation just being the latest in a long line.  And when it comes to "proportionality" -- well, what does it mean when each side really wants the other wiped off the face of the earth?  In that case, even total war would be "proportional", as it was for Hitler vis-a-vis the Jews.  He didn't just want the bankers, professors, and businessmen out of the way -- he wanted Anne Frank too.  That's total war, fans.  So according to that ancient -- Old Testament, if you will -- attitude, Israel should simply line up a bunch of bulldozers at the border of Gaza and start rumbling toward the sea until there is nothing left.  Well?  Isn't that what everyone really wants?  And the thing is, they could probably get away with it -- at least as far as the U.S. government is concerned, except for one small thing, and that's the small remnant of Jewish morality (Old Testament again -- but a different part) that has served to stay their hand to some extent. The irony is that after all that has happened, they are still concerned about their “image” -- in the U.S., Europe, and the world in general, but maybe most importantly to themselves. Contrast this with the moral stand represented by Rabbi Siegman -- by which I mean a real moral stand, faith-based, not the mythical "moral high ground" occupied by secular Jews (including the Israeli leadership) based on the Holocaust and antisemitism down through the ages.

The basic choice in question is this:  Which is more important, Jewish morality or Jewish tribalism (as represented by Zionism and Israel)?  Now, some might say, but aren't they the same thing? -- and there are certainly countless attempts to "spin" Israel's actions in order to make them appear moral, i.e. not just the actions of a country with enemies trying to survive the only way it knows how.  And yet morality, it seems to me, ought to transcend questions of race, ethnicity, nation -- even of religion itself, if we want to talk about Natural Law.  In other words, "is it not written" that some things are evil, or bad, in all times and in all places, and no matter who does them?  Obviously, this is a minority point of view in these times or moral relativism (which really means amorality), and in most places, but it's one that people of faith tend to agree on.  The supreme irony, of course, is that morality from on high -- i.e. from God -- is something that the Old Testament Jews "discovered", and passed on (perhaps not entirely willingly) to Christians, who passed it on (quite unwillingly) to Moslems.  So the "people of the book" all agree on this -- or at least they did at one time.

Ironically, the current troubles in the Middle East involve believers (the Islamists) waging war on nonbelievers (most Israelis and most of us).  But even this can serve to explain a few things.  For example, why was ISIS able to so easily, and rapidly, take over large swathes of Iraq and Syria?  Because they stole all that American equipment?  But the Iraqi forces had that equipment first.  OK, then -- because they robbed banks?  Right.  They were full of Iraqi money.  No, it's quite simple -- they were fighting for an idea.  A wrong one, or an extreme one, arguably -- but people fighting for an idea will always be more effective, other things being equal (or even if not), than people who are just doing it for money, or because they were forced, or for fun, or to show off, or whatever.  Ideas are a "force multiplier", as the saying goes -- and the more radical the ideas, the more likely they are to succeed in this way.  Recall Mohammed's conquest of the Middle East and North Africa?  How about the Crusaders?  How about the Spanish Conquistadors?  All fighting enormous odds.  How about the American colonialists vs. England?  The Bolsheviks?  The Nazis?  And yes, how about the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong vs. us?  How about the Afghans vs. the Soviets?  These are all cases where the winners should not have won -- should not have even come close to winning -- if manpower and resources were all that mattered.  On the other hand, why do armed forces that should know what they're doing, and should be able to accomplish something, tend to vanish in the face of an enemy attack?  (Think the Iraqi army of the present day.)  They're fighting for all the wrong reasons -- or for no reason at all. They are “summertime soldiers” who cut and run when the going gets tough. They run, hide, and blend in with the populace, while the ISIS types stand up on the highest available hill and wave their black flags.

So if Rabbi Siegman represents traditional, Old Testament-style Jewish morality, he is clearly in the minority not only vis-a-vis Israel but also vis-a-vis American Jews, who have been seduced into tribalism as well as materialism and, if not outright immorality then at least amorality.  And, I hasten to add, there are Jewish voices of dissent on this issue, one of the more prominent being the Neturei Karta organization.  But they are drowned out by not only mainstream Jewish organizations, but by Israel's facilitators in the media, politics, government, etc.  It is encouraging, though, that there are chinks in the armor, and that more and more people both here and overseas -- including Jews -- are starting to question not only Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, but asking even tougher questions.  For example, is the State of Israel one gigantic mistake?  Was it doomed from the start to be an amoral, bullying presence in that part of the world?  Or to put it another way, could Israel survive if it strictly adhered to the same Jewish moral concepts that American rabbis, teachers, and writers are so fond of citing?  And if the answer is no, what then?  Do we get a civil war of words among Jews (assuming we don't have one already)? And what will the consequences be in the long run?  

And, if Israel represents the "best and brightest" of Judaism, but if it turns out to be an amoral establishment, then what does this say about Judaism?  Is Israel's failure Judaism's failure?  To the extent that Jews "cling" to Israel as their last, best hope in the world, this would seem to be an unavoidable consequence.  And yet, asking the world's Jews to distance themselves from Israel based on moral considerations?  Especially when we (the U.S.) won't?  That just seems wilder than any pipe dream.

Rabbi Siegman reflects this dilemma when he says, "When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we're watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis -- and should be a profound crisis in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success." 

But it's not just about Israel and the "moral high ground" -- or any ground at all.  It's also about the U.S.  If our original support for an Israeli state was a blunder (in both practical and moral terms), haven't things just gotten worse in the meantime?  And hasn't what I call "the Israel bill" -- the amount of American wealth that has been squandered on Israel and on the results of that "eternal alliance", including 9/11 and the "war on terror" -- eaten a hole in our economy (amounting to many trillions of dollars) that can never be filled?  Haven't we, in other words, not only placed ourselves on the same questionable moral level as Israel, but also insured our own economic doom because of this relationship?  And some people will say, well, that's what we get for having gotten involved in the first place -- except the people who got us involved are long gone, and we're the ones suffering the consequences.  Others will say, "but it was worth it" -- and into this category I place the Evangelicals.  And sure, if preserving the State of Israel as the key to history is your top (or only) priority, and you're willing to see this country go down the tubes as a result, then OK -- but you should at be honest about it, "man up", and move to Israel, it seems to me. And I don't mean just go over there for a couple of weeks and cruise around on air-conditioned tour buses; I mean take up arms and fight, the way American communists did in the Spanish Civil War.  

Still others will say it's karma -- or something like karma.  It's not just about a single blunder back in the late 1940s, but about an entire history of bad ideas, or good ideas with bad consequences, or just human nature taking over and neutralizing all of our fondly-held ideals.  This is also possible.  At any rate, it has become the case, on many levels, that "as Israel goes, so goes the U.S.", for good or ill.  Our "eternal alliance", while it makes for great speeches, is a two-edged sword, and we are finding ourselves on the cutting side more often than not.

So, in this sense, while Israel is responsible for its actions in Gaza, so are we, because they could not do what they do without our support.  And we can't just dismiss or excuse it with some lame statement like "well, it's only temporary", or "things over there aren't the way they are over here". The Israelis talk about “existential threats” -- why don't we?  Doesn't our own self-preservation count for anything? Our politicians are forever claiming that there is "no daylight" between us and Israel, in any respect -- so OK, that basically means that Israel and the U.S. are, for all intents and purposes, the same country... which means that anything they do, we have also done, and vice versa.  This fact has not escaped the attention of the rising number of skeptics and protesters world-wide (including, as I said, plenty of Jews).  Will their efforts bear any fruit?  It would be great if they did, but you'll excuse me if I have my doubts. It is just possible that, rather than being in a position of making history, we are in the position of being trapped by it. And it's not as if what might come after – after the deluge, as it were – is any better. Russia and China are keeping an eagle eye on the proceedings from their front-row seats, waiting for opportunities to take advantage of the situation; they have their agendas the same as we do. A fundamentalist Islamic Middle East and North Africa – and its extensions into South and Southeast Asia and even Europe – is not likely to be a good neighbor. We and the European colonial powers thought we had long since “tamed” Islam, but now it appears that we just drove the radical elements underground for a while – or, worse, did things that aided and abetted said radical elements, or even, in some cases, created them. And these are people with a world view that we can barely comprehend – absolutist and uncompromising. And yet, the same could be said of some elements on our side. Suddenly it seems that the “reasonable people” are in the minority, caught between two armies of fanatics. Perhaps the “rule of law” and “triumph of reason” were only brief episodes in an otherwise grim and violent historical saga.