He's Bold

I have to say this much about Obama – he's no wimp. He is running the most “in your face” presidency since, I would say, that of Lyndon Johnson – meaning that he doesn't care a whit what people think, he's going to do what he wants to do, and do it his way, and the hell with Congress, and the courts, and anyone among “the people” who doesn't agree with him. He has, in fact, turned himself into a fine dictator – and even though we know this is all appearance, and not reality, he is doing a good job of making it look real. And he never forgets to demonize, on cue, his opponents – right up to and including the Supreme Court as they sit haplessly listening to his State of the Union addresses. His political behavior is, in my opinion, much more surgically precise and less gaffe-prone than that of, for example, Bill Clinton, who was so far removed from the norm that he truly did not understand (and doesn't to this day) what motivates normal people – what their hopes, dreams, values, and priorities are and what those things signify. Obama, in other words, is a consummate politician, but is at least of the same species as the rest of us, whereas Clinton might as well have been an alien beamed down from a UFO.

But that is part of what I'm getting at here. Obama has enlisted, as one of the point persons for his re-election campaign, none other than... Bill Clinton! Has he forgotten that one of the main reasons he was able to defeat Hillary for the nomination in 2008 was that she was walking around, like Pig-Pen in the old “Peanuts” strips, in a murky cloud of Clinton sleaze? What I suspect is that he has not completely forgotten that, but that he knows that Bill Clinton retains rock-star status among certain segments of our society, and that if he tells them to vote for Obama they will, and with a song in their hearts. And really, is hiring Bill Clinton for your campaign going to turn anyone off who might otherwise have voted for you? Not likely. So what might appear to be a foolish choice turns out to be, in fact, quite astute.

Then we have Obama's open declaration of war on the Catholic Church, which is one of the predictable side effects of his health-care “reform”. Risky? Suicidal? Not at all. It will, number one, endear him even more (if such a thing is possible) to liberals and certain “persecuted minorities”... it might win him votes among independents who cling to that fetish called “the wall of separation between church and state”... it could very well win him votes among the Protestants, for whom the Catholic presence in this society has always been an occasion of loathing and unease... and so on. The main risk he takes in this regard is that he might lose some of the habitually Democrat-voting Catholic white ethnics – you know, those people who promised their Polish-American steelworker father on his deathbed that they would never, under any circumstances, vote Republican. Some of them might, in fact, wander off the reservation... but compared to the advantages, 'tis a small thing, truly. And after all, since the long-term goal of ObamaCare is to make government the only health insurer and the only health provider, the sooner we can get those pesky Catholics, with their schools, hospitals, and social services, out of the way, the better.

Plus, there's another angle here. Good politicians are characterized by, above all, an exquisite sense of timing. Now, the “pedophile priest” scandals have been going on for years, but at present, in Philadelphia, there's a very real possibility of a church official going to jail not for being a “pedophile”, but for failing to hot-line suspected “pedophiles” to the police. So what better time to mount an attack on the Catholic Church – since, in most people's opinion (according to the mainstream media) it has lost all moral authority and therefore the right to make any pronouncements whatsoever when it comes to the moral consequences of health-care laws and regulations. Besides, “most Catholics use contraception”, etc., as outfits like the Pew Research Center are reminding us on a daily basis on NPR. 

What else is Obama doing right? He's keeping us involved in as many overseas debacles as possible, and adding new ones every day – which keeps the armaments makers happy, the neocons happy, and the Evangelicals at least placated (“He may have liberal social policies, but at least he's waging war against Islam.”). He continues to kowtow, bow and scrape, and say “Yassuh, boss” to Israel, which (again) keeps the neocons and the Evangelicals happy, not to mention the mainstream media. He mouths words about “big business” and Wall Street, but remains their loyal servant. He mouths words about preserving the middle class, but continues to attack it on all fronts.

Does this mean he's a hypocrite? No – what it means is that he's a politician. Hypocrites at least acknowledge the existence – and, by implication, the validity – of moral and ethical principles. It's just that their behavior doesn't quite measure up to their expressed values. (And, for that matter, whose does?) Obama, on the other hand, has a moral and ethical principle-free administration, following close on the model provided by Bill Clinton. It all boils down to politics, and most of the time it doesn't even have to be boiled down; the political agendas are right out in the open. But this is another facet of his “in your face” approach – he, basically, dares anyone to stand up and protest against political business as usual... and, so far, the Republicans have been singularly unable to mount such an attack, probably because they are just as guilty in their own way. He is not beating them at their own game; he's beating them at a game that the Democrats have always been masters at, while the Republicans looked on with envy. So the moral “dumbing down” of government continues apace, and no one has the stature to protest. In this sense, the Republicans are experiencing poetic justice. They really are hypocrites, unlike the Democrats, who seldom even claim to have any moral or ethical principles – and they have compromised so often, and so thoroughly, that they have no arguments left. Romney can say all he wants about “politics” being the sole motive behind the actions of anyone in the Obama administration – but all one has to do is look back at Bush II, or Bush I, to realize that the Republicans are in no position to judge. I imagine that, should Romney win in November (not gonna happen), and be inaugurated in January (ditto), the waters of hypocrisy, corruption, and sleaze would rise quickly and engulf his administration, just as they did that of Bush II. It's unavoidable! An American president, even assuming that he has principles of some sort (the ones missed by the various “vetting” committees along the way), enters office immediately compromised, and immediately a captive of the true powers-that-be. They find out soon enough who's in charge, and it ain't them. The only question at that point is, how do they handle that insight? Do they become delusional, like Bush II? An oval office playboy like Clinton? A practitioner of deep denial like Obama? I guess it all depends on what they bring with them, personality-wise, to the office. What happens when someone with a towering ego encounters the Real Truth? One thing that does not seem to happen is that they recoil in horror, and immediately go public with the knowledge of what they have learned about how things really work. Imagine being inaugurated president, then finding out in your first 24 hours in office that you actually work for George Soros... or for Israel... or for any number of other elite “masters of space and time”. Kind of upsetting, right? Then it comes down to, what am I supposed to actually _do_ for the next four years? Follow orders? And the answer is “yes”, and if you don't like it, here are some family photos of JFK's last minutes on earth to remind you of who's really in charge. 

I pity these fools; I really do. But they have chosen their path and have stuck with it, and so any sorts of consequences they encounter are richly deserved. But even within this depressing scenario, there is a kind of “wiggle room” of sorts. There are more masterful politicians, and less masterful ones. Bill Clinton was (and is) a political genius; that is a significant factor in his demonic power over other people. He has power over human beings precisely because he is not human – at least not in the usual sense. He can stand aloof, and look down upon human weaknesses and foibles, and exploit them as he sees fit. Bush II, on the other hand, was an obvious dolt, so his administration had to be a matter of rule by committee, rather than by a single personality. Obama, however, has brought the personality cult back to the presidency – and, I say, in a more competent way than Bill Clinton. OK, let me clarify that. Clinton had, and has, his hard-core adoring groupies – people (especially women) who would be literally willing to die for him (and not a few have). But they are a relatively minor (not to mention pathetic) demographic. What Clinton had, in the main, was a coterie of hangers-on, who decided that he was the star they had to hitch their wagon to – and many did, and many found out too late what that entailed. Clinton was the crack cocaine of politics – the biggest rush ever, but it'll kill you eventually. Whereas Obama has a solid base, as I've discussed previously. Yes, it's emotional, it's adoring, it treats him like a god, but it's not self-abnegating the way Clinton's was; it's more bottom line-oriented. “What's in it for me?” And, “Where's my piece of the pie?” Whereas in Clinton's case it was more like “I am not worthy!” And “Use me, abuse me, treat me mean.” It is, in other words, pragmatism as opposed to neurotic emotional needs. Clinton was (and is) an object of worship, whereas Obama is a combination of Santa Claus and Robin Hood – and if he doesn't come up with the goods, the masses might eventually turn against him (although they show no signs of any such tendency at this point). Obama is celebrated primarily for what he can provide in the material sense, whereas in Clinton's case it was all about feelings (inferiority complexes in the case of his groupies, and a wish to identify with – and, if possible, actually be – something infinitely superior).

So what it really adds up to is the triumph of politics, as practiced by the best of the best – not only Obama but all of his supporters and facilitators – his political infrastructure, if you will. Like any president, he's not running a one-man show here; he's just the guy at the top of the totem pole. But he does have charisma, as well as an atypical form of “blackness”, and that's all to the good. He has managed to go 3 ½ years without having his chops busted by fools – although Eric Holder comes close (and we'll see how close if Holder gets fired prior to the election). He continues to use, with profit, the excuse that “it all started with Bush” -- which is, all by itself, a remarkable bit of politicking. He maintains his image as “a man of the people” even as he and his wife regularly lord it over the lowly and unworthy. He's an unabashed advocate of abortion “rights” -- a position which has clearly cost him no votes, even if it has gained him none. His attacks on the middle class and on small business have gone unanswered, except by “tea partiers”, and they have been declared beyond the pale by the mainstream media. The middle class is, truly, disarmed, and that's because they were never armed. There has never been a felt need, by the middle class, to defend itself or its status – unlike the ruling elite, that always knows when to raise the drawbridge and release the alligators into the moat... or the proles, who always know exactly when to pour into the streets with Molotov cocktails at the ready. The middle class is defenseless, in other words, because it never saw any need to defend itself. (One might even say that this complacency defines the middle class – and is its downfall.) Even the New Deal, which was all about “the common man”, did not attack the middle class directly; that had to wait until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, which attacked middle class values, mores, and life style... but still held off in the economic arena until now. Even Bill Clinton – a culture warrior if there ever was one – did not mount the full frontal attack on the middle class that Obama has (although he did preside over plenty of harassing actions, like tax hikes). Obama has made it clear, through his policies, that the middle class's days are numbered – even as he mouths words in its favor. If you destroy small business, you've taken a good chunk out of the middle class right there. Then if you consistently act against their traditions, values, morals... well, eventually there's not a whole lot left. And we can thank the “tea partiers” for at least waking up to this state of affairs before it's totally consummated – but consummated it will be, because it's gone too far to be stopped at this point. The time to have pushed back against all of this would have been... well, really, the 1930s. But failing that, the 1960s... and failing that... well, you get the idea. The longer liberalism, collectivism, and totalitarianism are allowed free rein, the harder it is to reverse the trend. At some point, one's only hope (if one can call it that) is a complete collapse of the system... and, hopefully (as a result), a moral cleansing. But even that is not assured. After all, the Soviet system collapsed of its own weight, but can we really say that what came after – today's Russia, AKA Putinistan – is better? Perhaps it is better in practical terms, but in principle? I have yet to see any evidence of this. 

And, one might say – especially if one were an “activist” -- well, if people aren't willing to defend themselves, and their lifestyle, then they deserve whatever happens. This is assuming that politics always has to be adversarial – always a battle, or even a war, among contending factions. It also assumes that politics is a zero-sum game – that for one person to win, someone else has to lose. Apparently the traditional American “spirit of cooperation” was nothing but a delusion. My question is – if we're talking about basic human rights – whatever happened to the idea of a man being able to sit under his vine and fig tree in the cool of the evening, and not have to spend every waking moment defending his rights – especially against his own government? Why do we all, now, have to become accountants and tax lawyers just to keep from being beggared (or a similar word) by the government? Wasn't the entire idea of this country, and its founding documents, to relieve the burden of living under arbitrary rule and random violence? Isn't one of the “Four Freedoms” the freedom from fear (of government – although that clearly wasn't what FDR had in mind). Wasn't peace supposed to be the new baseline and the foundation of our prosperity? But somewhere along the line certain people discovered that war paid more handsomely than peace – that totalitarianism yielded greater profits than liberty – that a mountain of laws and regulations provided consolations, and opportunities to accrue and exert power, that more simple pursuits could not. Hence, we got the government that... well, that we deserved, based on our lack of vigilance? Perhaps. But if we now have the government we deserve, then we also have the politicians we deserve – so most of the complaining about Obama and/or Romney should be done at home in front of a mirror.

Mittzilla vs. Robamadan

Watch out! Here they come – stomping and tromping, smashing and bashing... trampling Tokyo underfoot... breathing fire and noxious gases far and wide. Yes, it's those terrible twins of tyranny, Mittzilla and Robamadan – monstrous and grotesque creatures hatched in the atomic kitchen. And they're coming to your house! To stay! At least until Election Day.

So... thanks to Texas (Ron Paul's adopted home state, even though he was raised and nurtured right here in the Pittsburgh area), we now know for certain who will lose the election this fall. Oh sure, the media will be full of scare stories between now and then – Obama hanging on by a thread etc. -- but I've said before that, despite what the polls say, Obama's base is firm. At its heart are non-income tax payers, who now constitute a good half of the populace, and therefore of voters. Another way of looking at it is that the natural Democratic constituency consists of people who are on the take, who believe they're on the take (even if they aren't), or who would like to be on the take. In this era of infantile, thumb-sucking passivity and dependence on government largess, this has to include well over half the citizenry. Yes, the days of the iconic rugged individual, the self-made man, the hard-working American with potential for heroism... those days are long gone. We have become, by and large, a nation of junkies, and the pusher is the government. And if you think that's bad... well, just consider that it's still thought to be our job to bail out, economically and militarily, a good part of Europe, a good part of the Near East, and pretty much any other place on earth that “needs” our help. On demand! The miracle, in my opinion, is not that times are tough but that they aren't even tougher. If you visualize the American taxpayer in the place of Atlas, bearing the burden of at least half the world on his shoulders (quivering from fatigue), you have to wonder where all this “excess” wealth comes from. How can we afford, even for an instant, to be on the hook for half the world's economic and military problems? And yet it appears that we are – which tells me that that half of the world must be in even worse shape than we are. Or – they are smarter than we are, and are just using us the way one would use a brawny but brainless servant. (I tend to go by the latter assumption for purposes of ordinary analysis.)

So much for Obama's hard-core base. But to that you have to add the mainstream media, the unions, academia, the entertainment industry, trial lawyers, at least half of Wall Street, folk singers, mimes, virtually all government workers on all levels, NPR, PBS, the arts community, “legacy” Democratic voters (mostly white ethnics), minorities of all stripes... is there anyone I've left out? Plus – the Democrats have an added advantage that most people (but not me!) are too polite to bring up during election season – namely that they know how to steal votes. They have vast experience in this matter (think 1960, for starters), they have the infrastructure, the will, the opportunity, and the total lack of morals (not that the Republicans are all that stellar in this regard). I mean... why do you think Eric Holder, the Clown Prince of this administration, is running around complaining about various states' voter ID laws and anti-voter fraud campaigns? Is he really afraid that truly qualified voters will be barred from voting – by pot-bellied sheriffs with police dogs straining at the leash? Is it really a civil rights issue? Hell no – he's afraid that it will put a crimp in the business-as-usual of voter fraud, which the Democrats have depended on from time immemorial to give themselves an edge. In a close race – and let's face it, a lot of them have been close lately – that might be all it takes to put your man over the top.

And then we come to the Republicans, and it's been pointed out quite frequently of late that the Republican base, namely white middle-class heterosexual Protestant men, is a vanishing breed – and it is. This is the group that, rightly or wrongly, has been carrying the torch for “traditional American values” all this time. They and the mainstream parted company sometime in the 1960s, as I recall – and ne'er the twain shall meet again. Now, this group, sometimes known as WASPs or AWM (Angry White Men), and of which Mitt Romney might as well be the poster child, is feeling... a bit left out, you might say. They have seen the entire culture shift away from them, never to return... and yet they claim to exemplify core American “values” -- the same ones the Founding Fathers honored, and promoted in the founding documents. All true! And as flawed as those values (and documents) might have been, they have shown considerable durability – more than, e.g., the delusions of communism or the absurdities of the few remaining monarchies.

But here's the dirty little secret of American politics: White heterosexual Protestant men are still in charge -- but only the elite top layer.  The average AWM is angrier than ever, as witness the Tea Party movement.  They feel a real diminution of power and cultural influence -- but the elite doesn't.  The only difference is that they've had to go underground, in a sense. They exert influence through politics, business, banking, secret societies, international cartels... I mean, who makes up the bulk of “those organizations” the conspiracy theorists are always talking about? White heterosexual Protestant men, of course! Always have, always will. But their power cannot be paraded about in public as in times past – it has to be exerted in more subtle, hidden ways. But exerted it is, and will be – and make no mistake, the main difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney actually looks the part, and Obama doesn't. But no matter who wins in November, that person will be, or remain, a loyal servant of the real ruling power of this country.

So then, does it make any difference to the ruling elite who wins? Not at all. They could not care less. Oh sure, there is a bit of window dressing required to maintain the “street creds” of someone like Obama – but we see how well that has worked out so far. He is surrounded by adoring acolytes and fans wherever he goes, either within our borders or overseas. The precise formula for controlling the proletariat has to be tweaked now and then – but it all comes out the same in the end. One could ask, who are the real victims of the current economic era – I mean in the long run? Clearly, the middle class and the small businessman. And they are openly maligned and persecuted by Democrats and liberals. But are they any better off when a Republican is in the White House? Not really. What changes is the rhetoric, and the iconography, but the long-term trends continue apace. The middle class is doomed... small business is doomed... independent farmers are doomed... and no one who gets anywhere near the levers of power (or the appearance thereof) is inclined to do anything about it other than talk. (“Go back to your cabins, folks, there's nothing to worry about” -- from an officer on the Titanic.)

But if it doesn't matter to the ruling elite who wins, it certainly seems to matter to the parties and the individuals involved. Well, of course – everyone has his or her rice bowl. The elite allows politicians to play their little games, because they know that no matter the outcome, those politicians will only become more dependent on them (the elite) for support, protection, and a kind of superficial validation. If the point of American politics is to fool the American people, then the goal of the Regime is to fool politicians into thinking that (1) they're important; (2) they're doing important things; and (3) the country and its citizens need them. So... what sort of person would fall for such a naked deception? Now you have a clue as to why politicians are the way they are, and what makes them tick. They are the ultimate egoists and narcissists, with delusions of grandeur and illusions of power; the result is that they are the most malleable and most easily exploited people on earth. No one with any sense would actually put people like this in charge of anything important... and we can at least be grateful to the Regime that it, indeed, refuses to do so. Congress is an impotent Tower of Babel, the courts are hotbeds of moral chaos, and the executive branch is bloated with high-paid serfs. No one, as I've said, who depends on the American voter for their position can be said to have any real power. We say, in cases like that of John Edwards, “lo how the mighty have fallen”, but, in fact, they were never mighty – not really. They had the perks, the self-delusions, the aura of power, but when we see how easily it's stripped away we realize the truth – that these people are all made out of cardboard. They are make-believe people in power suits and expensive hairdos. The difference between John Edwards, whose name is mud, and Barack Obama, who is still considered, by many, to be The Chosen One? Hardly any. The thinnest of wafer-thin political structures is holding Obama up, and at one word from the Regime he could be like that guy in “Ben-Hur” who winds up getting dragged around the Coliseum behind a chariot. That's how tenuous these people's positions are – but I do not feel sorry for them; no, not at all! They have traded in all that is good and honorable for a mess of pottage... for a delusion... for the roar of the crowd, and they will have only themselves to blame when that roar turns into hissing, booing, and catcalls.

So as I've said, the pols are allowed to play their petty games for their own gratification and for the entertainment of the voters... and to give the media something to do during that endless 24-hour news cycle. And the pols know, on some level, that they are being used and exploited, but they don't care. They would rather give up their honor and win an election than be real men (or women). And the elite know this, and exploit it for all it's worth. I mean – lots of luck having someone who is a member of the ruling elite, and who has real power – someone like Henry Kissinger, say – run for office. Forget it! So instead they run surrogates... “faces”... people like Edwards, or Obama, or now Romney. It makes the voters happy (kind of), it makes the media happy, and it staves off revolution for another election cycle. Mission accomplished! The fact that all the pols, with precious few exceptions, are working for the same master seldom occurs to anyone – although it must be said that it occurs to more people now than it used to. But when you see that “differences” in domestic policy between the two major parties are no more than trivial tweezing at the margins... and differences in foreign policy are... well, they don't exist, actually... you have to wonder. We used to have great fun mocking the “one-party system” in Iron Curtain countries, where everyone would raise their hand on cue for whatever idea the dictator-in-charge had that day... but when you see Congress at work, is it all that much different? Wouldn't it be more efficient, in fact – more honest – if they just admitted, once and for all, that ours too is a one-party system, and started conducting business in the manner of the Supreme Soviet? We could eliminate election campaigns, too – think of what an enhancement to the quality of life that would bring! And – no more quibbling about “campaign financing”. And who knows, we might even be able to avoid ridiculous debates about things like what should be officially declared the “national mammal”.

Painting it Black

A while back, I went to an exhibition of photographs by a well-known black photographer – a Pittsburgh resident who captured countless images of black (African-American, Negro, etc. - your choice) life in the city for a number of decades. Now... the literature accompanying this exhibition, predictably, described the black community of those times with words like “vibrant”, “dynamic”, “lively”, and so on – you've heard the same words used to describe Harlem in the old days, as well as any number of other urban black communities throughout the U.S.

Now, to begin with, when's the last time you heard, or read, any of these words used to describe inner-city black communities of today? Now it's more like “blighted”, “dysfunctional”, “drug-ridden”, “single-parent (i.e., without a father) households”, “crime-ridden”, “unsafe”... with a barely-concealed additional adjective: “hopeless”. And the question that always comes to mind – mine, at least – is “what happened”? And this is particularly salient given all of the alleged “advances” that have occurred in the meantime, starting with the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) – not to mention countless programs promoting affirmative action, equal opportunity, preferences, set-asides, minority-owned businesses, Head Start (1964), ad infinitum. (And do I need to add that the high water mark of the “urban riots” occurred after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act? The Watts riots of 1965 are usually considered to have been the first in this series, although they were preceded by Rochester and Philadelphia, both in 1964.)

So again I ask, “what happened?” Or better yet, what didn't happen? One would think that, once “equality” had been codified in federal law, people would have been satisfied to sit back and reap the benefits in a calm and orderly manner... and some did. But that doesn't explain the riots, or the apparent degradation of black communities and black culture since.

The explanations – if one can call them that – come from many quarters, and are typically divided into two main categories, which I'll call “racism” and “failure”. The “racism” theory (cherished by liberals, Democrats, the “black leadership”, NPR, PBS, the public schools, academia, etc.) focuses on what is called residual racism, or institutional racism, which is said to have persisted long after legal equality was achieved – right up to the present day, in fact. The theme is that, no matter what the law says, whites have done everything in their power to keep black people down – that there has, in fact, been a reaction not unlike what happened after the Civil War in the South. Yesterday's Klansman is today's bigoted cop and biased judge... subtle racism in hiring... discrimination in law enforcement... and so on. You've heard it all a million times, and I'm not saying it's all imaginary.

The “failure” theory (found mostly in Republican and/or conservative circles), on the other hand, contends that it's the black community itself – collectively or as individuals – that has failed to take advantage of legal equality, and for any number of reasons – passivity, the habit of being (and feeling) oppressed, a sense of entitlement, politics, hostility, refusal to “integrate”, laziness, sheer cussedness... again, you've heard it all a million times. And again, there may be more than a grain of truth to this idea.

What I think – trying to take the middle road here – is that the answer is “some of each”... but also much more. Consider, for a moment, not what measures like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act actually contained, but what they implied. The implication was that this would solve everything – that with equality before the law would follow, in short order, a change in attitude... even though those attitudes had been formed since the start of slavery in the New World and had persisted far beyond the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments. Black people reacted to being enslaved; no surprise! But they also reacted to the fact that, after emancipation, many other things that should have changed didn't... and this form of reaction continues to this day, despite all the “advances” of the 1960s and beyond. This is on the political side.

On the psychological side, the measures of the civil rights era and beyond seemed to imply that with equality should come not only changes in attitude and equal opportunity, but equality of outcome as well. I guess this could come under the heading of the “failure” theory, except it's much more subtle. From the perspective of many blacks, white “privilege” has always – no matter what form it takes – been at a cost to blacks. In other words, whatever advantages or gains whites have are ill-gotten, in the sense that there must (according to the narrative) be some instance of oppression and exploitation of blacks behind them – even if we're talking about, e.g., a small businessman in New England whose ancestors never owned any slaves and who hardly ever dealt with, let alone mistreated, a black person. It's not unlike the theory that all wealth is based on a crime; any advantage whites have must, by definition, be based, in some mysterious way, on oppression and exploitation of blacks – since (according to the liberal meme) life is a zero-sum game, at least economically. One man's gain is always another man's loss – therefore white gains must equal black losses; it's as simple as that. So what is the remedy for this? Not only equal opportunity from here on out, but what are called “reparations” up to, and perhaps beyond (call it “punitive damages”) the point at which blacks and whites have the same amount of prestige, social status, household income, money in the bank (or the stock market)... the same houses, the same cars... you tell me at what point this notion of “equality” would end, or be satisfied. Listening to what is referred to as the “black leadership”, I would say the answer is “never”. This is a wound that, apparently, will never heal (to which some would say, “then why bother trying?”).

Well, then – isn't it enough to just tell black people to “get over it”? I mean, after all, slavery ended nearly 150 years ago – way before anyone's living memory. Why can't these people just get organized, and suck it up, and move on? When will the “healing” begin? Et cetera. Yeah, well... it's easy to say, I suppose. Try it on some Jews whose family members died in concentration camps. But what is the alternative? Who profits from all of this continued bitterness and resentment – and I guess the answer is politicians and the “black leadership” -- not to mention the vast industry (including massive government agencies and programs) devoted to “fixing” whatever is wrong (or seems to be wrong) with the black community. So part of it, I guess, is simply the tendency of people of identify with, and function as, a group – one with historical traumas and present resentments – rather than as individuals. There is, supposedly, strength in numbers – but one wonders, in this case, if there is not also weakness in numbers. When the group has a victim mentality, who among them is brave enough to stand up and speak against it?

There is another angle to all this as well – getting back to that photographic exhibition. Black communities in that era were certainly not without their “issues”, but they did, in fact, consist mostly of intact families, had a respectable rate of employment (except, I suppose, during the Depression, when people of all races, creeds, and colors were out of work), and did not have overwhelming crime and drug problems. They were cohesive – a self-contained, sustainable culture – and were not forever at knife-points (literally or figuratively) with the larger, mostly white, community. And yes, they were separate – and yes, segregation was a fact of life, on nearly all levels. Blacks and whites lived separately, by and large, with some overlap at the borders... and they certainly “mixed” when it came to the economy and the workplace. But in an essential and profound way, blacks and whites lived in different worlds – and the blacks not only made the best of it, they figured out a way to thrive, at least culturally. This is what the photos revealed – a separate world, tantamount to apartheid, but a world nonetheless thriving, respectable, and eminently livable. You could be born, grow up, live, and die in that world and maintain your dignity and self-respect. It was, in fact, more cohesive than many white communities – which was a good survival mechanism, at the very least.

But then a funny thing happened. All of a sudden we had “integration”... “block-busting”... forced busing... and all the rest of it. Blacks and whites were being forced – by the government, through such “enlightened” programs as “urban renewal” -- down each other's throats. Did this make blacks happier, enough to balance out making whites miserable? Not that I can see. What I think happened instead was that blacks went from being first-class citizens in their own world to being second-class citizens in the larger world. The “block busting” worked both ways – white ethnics were driven out of the urban areas where they had lived for generations, but black neighborhoods were also bulldozed to make room for highways, public buildings, and “the projects”. The shack with an outhouse was traded in for the “garden apartment” -- but what was the result? Did a new day dawn? What I see is mostly alienation, resentment, and crime – crime amounting to sabotage. Was this really what the great black leaders of old, like Frederick Douglass, had in mind? Or Martin Luther King Jr., even? I can't believe it. Please note that the urban riots of the 1960s did not consist of blacks pouring out of the “ghettos” and setting fire to the white suburban neighborhoods (although this was a common, if unspoken, fear at the time). No – what was put to the torch was their own neighborhoods. Suddenly it was them against – well, the whole world, really. They joined, in a self-destructive way, in the cultural genocide. They had been robbed of one birthright – a cohesive, thriving culture and community – and handed some sort of political mutation... a form of open-air prison. And who can blame them? I'm not sure the rioters had this in the front of their minds as they stormed, ransacked, and looted – but I'm talking about causes here, not conscious thought. (And in fact, some of the more thoughtful black leaders did have some insight as to what was going on, and continue to to this day – but they were a minority within a minority.)

The biggest mistake, perhaps, that the “integrators” made was to expect that blacks would even want to be “fully integrated” into the white community – with all the psychological, sociological, and cultural displacements that implies. It was a superficial and naïve view, and could only be held by people who were, themselves, culturally bereft – as liberals in academics and government typically are. There are black people who are willing to cross that divide, and more power to them – but, in my experience, most blacks are not. Even a deprived and diluted state of “blackness” is preferable to becoming a stranger in a strange land. And I say this with absolutely no prejudice as to which is “preferable” -- my years in the Washington, DC area served as an ample lesson on that point, as have visits to the South. It's a particularly low form of patronization to simply assume that the heart's desire of blacks is to be as “white” as possible.

So the exhibition, while a celebration in one way, was actually more a reflection on what has been lost – but how many stopped to ask why, or how? There is an illusion of progress even among oppressed minorities, to the extent that they assume that things are “improving” no matter the evidence. Somehow, as time goes on, things must get better – which means that the things of the past, as treasured as they are in retrospect, must have been less valuable than the “rights” of the present, no matter how hollow those might turn out to be.

But I still haven't brought up the darkest side of this whole business. Not only did blacks become trapped in a world they never made, but that world proceeded to “manage” them through such, ahem, benign programs as welfare – which contributed mightily to the break-up of black families; and the whole spectrum of affirmative action/preferences/set-asides, etc. -- which caused many whites to seethe with resentment. Then we have incarceration (wildly disproportionate and based largely on minor drug offenses); “games and circuses” (e.g. basketball – not bad per se, but...); “channeled rage” (rap, hip-hop, etc.); and abortion – which some brave black leaders have “outed” as a form of genocide. And – not to get too paranoid here, but – how many believe that the deluge of drugs into black communities was, and is, simply an accident of economics and social history? No – I call it a form of management, the way the true black radicals of the 1960s were, almost to a man (or woman), eventually neutralized by means of drugs and/or incarceration (or outright summary execution by “law enforcement”). If the legislation of the 1960s opened a Pandora's box, well then, by gosh, the white community and its minions were going to deal with the result any way they knew how – and invent new ways besides. So yes, blacks are “free”, but they are kept in a cultural and psychological (even more than an economic) prison – almost entirely invented, programmed, and managed by, guess who, whites.

So despite all of the supposed privileges, benefits, and entitlements heaped upon the black community over the past 50-odd years, I say that blacks remain second-class citizens, precisely because of those “privileges” -- because those all, without exception, are based on the unspoken assumption that blacks are helpless, or at least incompetent, misguided, and foolish – and they not only need help, but will continue to need help in perpetuity. They are, in other words, handicapped – and the pity is that much of the black leadership seems to agree. The braver ones point this out, and realize that true equality – a truly level playing field – is the only way to true emancipation. But this is a politically unpopular position, to say the least – and the irony is that it's mainly the few remaining “radicals” -- like Louis Farrakhan – who take this position. What does Farrakhan want? “Separate but equal”? A return to forced, legal segregation? I think what he wants is “separate”, and quit worrying about “equal” -- let the community grow, and thrive, and take care of itself in its own way and on its own terms. Let it be its own entity, without reference to the white community or even to the “larger culture”. And this is nothing new or even especially radical – as witness any number of thriving, vibrant white ethnic communities that existed in Pittsburgh and in most other cities in the “old days”. What was wrong with that? Well – the social “planners” and theorists and levelers saw plenty wrong with it.  Cohesive communities represent a bulwark against totalitarianism, collectivism, and tyranny – and that's why they have to be done away with, by hook or crook... by way of (alleged) good intentions and, bottom-line, by force. So in that sense black communities share a grievance – perhaps the greatest one of all – with white communities. On one side you have racial, ethnic, and religious cohesion, and on the other side the state, by which I mean the government, which cares not for the old ways and old values, but only wants people to be turned into “good citizens”, which means willing servants of the regime. The beneficiaries of “block busting” wound up with a worse deal, in a way, than the victims; at least the latter were able to migrate out to the suburbs, whereas the “beneficiaries” wound up living in a newly-formed ghetto, where they form that most pathetic and servile of all entities, a “reliable voting block”. Where is the freedom in that?

Look at those photos, folks, and consider what has been lost – and then consider how it might be regained.

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

Those five mutants who were picked up for terrorist activities (intended, not actually carried out) turned out to be tight with the Occupy Cleveland group... and said group is, predictably, all in a flutter as to how to distance themselves from the alleged terrorists. Well, OK – given that the whole thing was a sting operation, which means that the “terrorists” would not have had a plan at all if they hadn't been helped along by the government... it remains that there was a plan, and they were willing participants. In fact, it reminds me of nothing so much as the anarchists of old – you know, those guys who were always pictured with long coats and bushy black beards, carrying a round black bomb with the fuse lit. That was raw material for the “Red Scare” of old (post-World War I)... and now it turns out that, with a bit of help from the makeup and costume departments, it can serve as raw materials for the current obsession with terrorism. Our home-grown terrorists, in fact, don't look all that different from white supremacists – not a coincidence, I'm sure.

But here's what I find striking. The Occupy types are shocked – shocked! -- that any of their associates would be implicated in any way in such a dastardly plot. And when you look at the Occupy movement on the surface, it seems reasonable – after all, who doesn't object, to some degree, to the many predations of Wall Street, big business, and crony capitalism? I even suspect that far more than 99% of the populace considers themselves part of “the 99%” -- i.e. the taken-for-granted, exploited, and put-upon. We do have a love affair with victim politics in this country, and even people who live high off the hog occasionally indulge in victimization claims. And it is certainly true that any number of Democrats/liberals mouth 99%-er words from their palatial mansions. But just being a 99%-er, or claiming to be one, doesn't automatically brand one an anarchist or a terrorist... right?

The important thing to remember about the Occupy crowd is not what they are against, but what they are for. The anarchists of old turned, overnight, into Bolsheviks and totalitarians. They wound up severely oppressing “the people” whom they had pretended to represent. And they were no more interested in true freedom and individual liberty than had been the czars and kings of earlier times. I will say that behind the face of nearly every self-styled “anarchist” lies the brain and heart of a totalitarian dictator. They only want to smash the state in order to install a new, even more oppressive, one in its place – with them in charge. Seek no further than the “coat-and-tie liberals” of the 1960s who have now matured into -- for all intents and purposes -- fascists.

Now... it is true that there is a significant anarchistic wing of the libertarian movement, and I suspect that they are the real McCoy... i.e., true anarchists in principle and not hypocrites with a hidden agenda. I'm not saying that their position is realistic or sustainable, mind – although they certainly deserve a lot more “air time” than they have gotten up to now. But at least they're consistent, and not driven by political relativism... which is why, I suspect, there are few if any among the Occupy crowd. Because that rag-tag group, if I'm not mistaken, consists not of true anarchists, and certainly not of true advocates of distributism – but of thinly-disguised communists, collectivists, and totalitarians. In fact, the thin disguise falls away entirely at times, as we have seen over the past few months... especially when one of them expresses a desire for the government to move in and solve all the problems the Occupy people are protesting against. Right – refusing to acknowledge that it was, by and large, the government that was responsible for the problems in the first place. So the solution for government interference in the economy is, apparently, bigger government. How can that possibly be considered anarchism? It's only anarchism to the extent that someone wants to destroy the current system – but they don't want to do that either; not really. All they want is that the current system changes priorities, and makes a shift in the people who receive privileges... and becomes more totalitarian. So, for example, the government is supposed to pay off everyone's college loans, presumably by taking money away from Wall Street. But the government and Wall Street are symbiotic; they're practically synonymous. And if the government pays off every existing college loan, how about the ones that are taken out next fall, or next week, or tomorrow? Shouldn't the government pay for those as well – which really means, shouldn't the government just send everyone to college for free? This would certainly require a bit of economic reshuffling... but I can guarantee government would only get larger, and I doubt “Wall Street” would get any smaller. Only the middle class would, as usual, wind up with a bigger bill.

So are the “Ohio Five” real, true-blue anarchists? They may think they are and act like they are, but unless they are extremely atypical of the Occupy crowd, they are anything but. The main difference would seem to be their tactics, which are, let's admit, a bit on the extreme side. How would blowing up a bridge in Ohio accomplish anything other than creating a highway version of TSA? How about a body scan every time you want to drive on the Interstate? I can hardly wait.

Another nuance in all this is as follows. The Occupy Cleveland movement says, in its indignation, that the movement is nonviolent. Well, fine – but we have all seen what happens when “non-violent” movements gain the upper hand. First comes revolt, then revolution, and then a settling of scores and an attempt to remake society that invariably involves enormous amounts of violence and coercion. Give any “non-violent” person some real political power and see how long he remains non-violent.  (See, for instance, the "non-violent" Quakers' role in "urban renewal", i.e. the forcible ethnic cleansing of urban areas.)  Even the ones who stand above the fray seem to have plenty of “lumpen proletarians” available to do their dirty work. (And how many “non-violent” political types, once in Congress, have signed on to every war, “police action”, invasion, and occupation that came their way – not to mention to the Patriot Act and other police-state measures?)

So this development at least makes it a bit more clear what the agenda of – I suspect – more than a handful of “Occupiers” is. And it's not as if the points they are making in public are wrong; it's more about the motive behind them. Many of them, I suspect, not only hate “big business” but all business... and they not only hate disproportionate distribution of wealth, but all wealth... and private property as well. Many of them have been quite explicit on this matter. But the irony remains that, while they hate the things that government has provided to the privileged few, they expect that same government to come in and clean house, and to right all wrongs, and to enact a great leveling – not only of rights and opportunity, but of outcomes on all levels. I hesitate even to call it hypocrisy – invincible ignorance might be more appropriate.

War and the Middle Class

I forget exactly how it came up in a recent discussion, but the theme, which offered all kinds of rich possibilities for insight, was the relationship between war and the middle class. But – you might say – isn't war something nations do? Isn't it, therefore, a collective, and therefore class-free, phenomenon? Right – tell it to the people who still believe that it was, by and large, the working class that provided the cannon fodder for the Vietnam war, since it was (1) larger in number, (2) more economically needy, and (3) had fewer defenses against the draft. I had no firm arguments against this at the time, and I've discovered none since.

The point is not that war is a conflict between the middle class of Country A and the middle class of Country B. And it's not simply that war is, by and large, something the ruling class comes up with and gets the lower classes to actually fight, with the political and financial support of the middle class. That is a good summing-up, but still misses many of the nuances.

What I find intriguing is the causal relationship between war and the entire class structure. Let's try and model the situation for a moment – remembering that models always tend to oversimplify. Take a country, nation, or society that has enjoyed peace for a considerable period of time – and, presumably, also a lack of other stressors like plague, famine, drought, natural disaster, etc. If this society is reasonably free – i.e. non-totalitarian and not overly socialistic – it will tend to have given rise to a middle class, i.e. a class of prosperous peasants (not a contradiction! “Peasant” simply refers to someone who farms, or works on the land. A peasant can be a millionaire.), skilled tradesmen, merchants, professionals of various sorts, middle managers, etc. And why is this? It's because a peaceful society tends to allow people, even on the lower economic levels, to produce more than they need for their own personal consumption. (Contrast this, for example, with the massive displacements of populations caused by war in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where people cannot even provide for their own survival needs since they have been separated from the land.) Plus, resources are kept at home and not squandered on war – said resources including young, able-bodied individuals. So people enter the marketplace and trade their surplus for someone else's surplus – or for goods and services they would not otherwise been able to afford... ones that are, one might say, invented in order to take advantage of increased wealth and surpluses. Hence we get the rise of a new class of goods and service providers, AKA the middle class. And, the ruling classes find that they want more than to sit in their fortresses overseeing a slave army – so they too wind up using the goods and services provided by this new class. Plus, economic freedom naturally leads to, or at least implies, downward distribution of political power (AKA subsidiarity), with the result that various ranks and levels of local, regional, and provincial government arise, along with an accompanying legal system, and these too are, by and large, made up of middle class individuals.

So this very roughly sketched-out and simplified model is what one might call the “peacetime model”. But what happens in times of war? Right away the ruling class – the warmakers (if not warfighters) – realizes that it needs more resources. So it taps the lower classes for manpower, which right away cuts down on the number of people who might be enjoying some measure of upward mobility through their labor... and it taps the middle classes for money, which makes everyone a bit poorer (and makes people at the lower levels of the middle class back into lower-class individuals). So there is an overall economic chilling effect, AKA (for propaganda purposes) “sacrifice” or “austerity” (but you'll notice the ruling class never seems to have to make any sacrifices of this sort). And if a war, or a series of wars, goes on long enough, we will see an erosion of the middle class – a decrease in its numbers as well as in its relative standard of living – which is likely to be permanent. For example, if you carefully study middle-class life styles prior to World War I – their homes, their clothing, their servants (!), etc. -- you will find a world that, basically, vanished with nary a trace, largely as a result of the “sacrifices” and economic displacements necessitated by the war. This was a true middle class – high enough on the scale to afford servants (who were from a true working class) but still no closer to the upper class than their descendants are today. (Small but telling example – my maternal grandfather's house, built right around the time of World War I, had a back staircase for the help. He was a small-town banker, and the house was no “McMansion”, but there was this staircase – which, by the time I came along, had long since been converted into storage space. They were, and remained, middle class – but what that meant had changed drastically. The entire economic structure of society had shifted, and the war had a lot to do with it, in my opinion.)

Now, you might say, “But! But! What about the fact that war creates millions of jobs... and what about the 'postwar prosperity boom', etc.?” Well – those millions of jobs are, number one, created at the expense of other goods and services (can you say “rationing”?). Number two, they extract a cost in the form of higher taxes and borrowing, AKA the national debt. And what does war, in turn, contribute in the way of goods and services? Nothing, really – unless you happen to deal in scrap metal. So I'm going to say that, despite appearances, war is always a net economic liability. True, it does have an energizing effect, and can get some people into the habit of working again... and it can serve as a kind of social mechanism to shame slackers and free-loaders. And, it can also stimulate people to either retrain or move to where the jobs are – more, even, than the Depression did. War is, after all, like any other government program, a jobs program. But if you want to contrast 1950s prosperity with the 1930s economic doldrums, you're going to have to come up with something besides World War II to convince me. I think the 1950s were prosperous despite the war, or – at best – as an unintended consequence. And after all, prosperity did not follow immediately on the heels of the war... and let's not forget that no sooner did we get back on our feet than the government got us involved in a new war, namely the one in Korea. So whenever you think that war contributes to prosperity, you have to ask, how much more prosperous would we have been if there had not been a war?

So I'm going to say that, in the long run, war is a detractor and a hindrance when it comes to a nation's economy – not to mention its politics, individual liberties, morale, self-image, and so on. And this is aside from the energizing effects of war, as mentioned above, opposed to the soporific effects of peace. Some people will always be lulled into semi-consciousness by peace and prosperity, and be shown the only real meaning in their lives by war. But I don't think we should let these types dominate our thinking. And I don't think we should be deceived by the rapidity with which some nations rebuild from the ruins of war. You can put up all the skyscrapers, superhighways, and malls you like, but it won't reduce the patient load in veterans' hospitals one iota... and neither will it repair the scars left on the “national psyche”. Wars create neurosis – in both people and in nations. We are still, in a sense, in the post-Vietnam era psychologically, in this country; the new novelties of wars elsewhere have not served to erase that trauma. And the novelties of future wars will not serve to erase the traumas of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., which are already quite apparent. In that sense, “rebuilding” is an illusion, and a form of denial. It's a way of papering over a deeper reality – one which will only die when the last combatant dies, but not even then, as witness the lingering bitterness about the Civil War, 150 years later. Why is most history about war? Because war leaves a more permanent mark on a society, and on its people, than any other type of event – although plagues can come close, as was the case with the Black Death.

But now we come to the ironic part. If peace and freedom give rise to, and reinforce, the middle class, and if war serves to suppress the middle class economically... then you would think the middle class would be, by and large, anti-war and pro-peace. But the true case is just the opposite! Who was out there on the street protesting the war in Vietnam? The children of the middle class, yes – but not their parents. And those children have, since then, developed a strange new respect for war, as long as it's being led by a president of the correct political party. The other protesters were the more conscious and/or radical components of the lower/working class and minorities. They knew that the war was a scam, that it was all about business, and that they were being exploited, misused, and abused. “No Viet Cong ever called me a nigger.” Crude, but it cut to the heart of the matter. The ruling class at the time was in it for – well, for money, as always... and also to expand the American empire, and for the sake of raw power. Oh, I suppose there was some sincere anti-communism in the mix, but I imagine the people for whom that was Job One were being duped and exploited by cynics.

But where were the “true believers” -- the real, live anti-communists – when it came to the war in Vietnam? The middle class, of course. They were the ones who voted for war over and over again – who never once expelled a politician from elective office for being too much of a warmonger – and who even sent their own sons off to fight, if it was really necessary. So we had the lower class – victimized by way of the draft as well as by the erosion of (and by) social programs – doing the heavy lifting for the ruling class, with the full political and economic (via taxation) support of the middle class. But did this mean that war was not damaging to the middle class – to its prosperity and, ultimately, to its liberties? Not at all. All the middle class got for their support of the war was higher taxes and a government increased in size many times over – the very things the “Tea Party” is demonstrating about in our time.

But that was Vietnam, right? Old news, right? After a brief period of self-flagellation, AKA the Carter administration, we got back down to the business of building the economy back up again, under Reagan, Bush I, and even Clinton. The middle class breathed the fresh air of... well, not freedom exactly, but at least superficial prosperity -- “superficial” because of the gathering storm of the housing bubble, savings and loan failures, the national debt, increased commitments overseas, the gradual turning of our political and economic sovereignty over to the Europeans, etc. And yet all seemed well... and it seemed that the Age of the Middle Class had returned – especially given that so many radical movements had been co-opted and neutralized by the government. “Black power”, La Raza, and radical feminism were like so many annoying but harmless gnats, or fading memories, in the sunshine days of the 1980s... and even the non-stop soap opera that was the Clinton administration was little more than harmless amusement (unless you were a Branch Davidian or a resident of Belgrade, etc.). Besides, by the early 1990s, the enemy we had known for so long – namely the Soviet Union – had dried up and blown away. That should have been good news, but instead it left a gap – an “enemy gap”. You see, an ideational society thrives not only on its own self-image as the best of all possible societies, but it also requires a dark side – a concept that “they hate us because of our freedoms” -- or because of our McMansions, or cable TV, or fast foods, or whatever. Materialistic, humanistic ideas can only thrive when contrasted with their supposed opposites – and not only contrasted, but entered into regular conflicts with people of other convictions. The Cold War was, first and foremost, a war of ideas – at least for (again) the middle class. (The lower classes weren't convinced that the Soviets didn't have a point – and the ruling class didn't care.) So an enemy gap gives rise to an idea gap – a period of uncertainty and doubt... and surely we can't have that. This is why the attacks of 9-11 were like unto manna from heaven – not that they were seen that way at the time, but they served to re-inspire the American middle class and give them a new cause, and a new crusade – a war on Islam! Finally a chance to get even for the Medieval Crusaders being unceremoniously booted out of the Near East! Am I saying that this was a conscious agenda (the way it might have been for the other side)? No – but the ancient meme was there, implanted in public school history classes for generations: Moslems are bad and evil people, and Islam is a bad religion. Communism – a pseudo-religion – had been conquered (more or less) through just waiting for it to self-destruct. Islam might be an even tougher nut to crack. But we can do it, because we've got good old American know-how, and a capability for self-sacrifice that would put the most ascetic monk to shame.

And thus was born the Next Great Cause of the American middle class – and the process, as always, was overseen, controlled, and manipulated by the cynical members of the Regime. They had the votes, the political support, and few would complain about taxes as long as they were going to fight “rag-heads” and not to support welfare queens. And who knows, the middle class might even cough up some military volunteers. But if not, no problem, we always have the proletariat, whose economic desperation readily pushes them into uniform.

But I say again – and the events since 9-11 offer overwhelming proof – war is bad for the middle class (and “other living things”, if you like). What were the Tea Party protesters protesting? Whether they knew it or not, they were protesting the political and economic impact of perpetual war. If you had asked any one of them if they were pro-war or not, you would have gotten a dollop of the same old Neocon pap – but the connection is there, whether they realize it or not. In the long run – if you exchange every old war with a new one, in perpetuity – what you're going to wind up with is the gradual extinction of the middle class... and this is aside from domestic policy and taxation. You will wind up with a warring state on the ancient or Medieval model – with a ruling elite and an army of slaves, with very little in between. You will wind up with, in a sense, a military model of society, which is what the ancient world seems to have specialized in. And yet this model is being aided and abetted by none other than the people who have the most to lose.

So the bottom line – for the time being, at least – is that each succeeding war causes the middle class to lose ground... and they are lucky if they manage to make it up before the next war comes along – a war which they, undoubtedly, will do everything they can to support. But this is based on a model in which war and peace are cyclic. What we have now, since World War II and especially since 9-11, is a perpetual war model, where no sooner do we conclude (more or less) hostilities in one country than we initiate them somewhere else. And it is this model which virtually assures the destruction of the middle class – and this process is already underway, as can be readily seen. The Tea Partiers are right about that much. What they are mistaken about is how things came to this pass, and the extent to which it's their own fault.

“Why despair, if everything is in God's hands?”

Thus, a recent gentle criticism of a major theme of my blog posts, which seems to be that it's, basically, too late – that the salvation of this country – its economy, its culture – will come only with the complete collapse of the current system. Or – if you agree with my theory that American sovereignty is already a thing of the past, and we are now slaves of an international banking and business cartel – it will come only with the complete collapse of that cartel, which seems a pipe dream, since it is clearly becoming more powerful every day (as witness recent events in Europe regarding national debt bailouts). It seems to me that the most likely near- and mid-term future for America, and for Americans, is that we're fated to be unwitting slaves of “higher powers” -- powers for whom our own home-grown “leaders” are no more than glorified servants. I believe that the evidence for this is overwhelming, and that more accumulates with each passing day. Americans are no longer masters of their fate – and their leaders aren't either. They serve at the pleasure of the Regime, or the cartel, or the cabal – whatever you want to call it – and as long as they serve faithfully, they retain their pathetically superficial “perks” and signs of power. Once their effectiveness goes into decline, however, they are tossed aside like so much used toilet paper. This is their fate, and I must say that it's richly deserved, since their actions amount to no less than treason.

So it's true – my commentaries seem to counsel despair, in that I believe things have progressed (if that is the word) far beyond any hope of cure within the system. And when cures within the system become impossible, one normally turns to, or waits for, cures without the system – apocalyptic ones like war, famine, and pestilence, or political/military ones like revolution or conquest by a foreign power. (Note that we have already been “conquered” by a foreign power, economically speaking – namely China.) After all, it was Russian military failures in the early stages of World War I that, arguably, rang a death knell on the czarist empire... and Germany's defeat in World War I set the stage for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. It would seem that, most of the time, revolution, as opposed to evolution, winds up making things worse than they were before... or maybe it's just that the advantage is handed to different people – i.e., the ones who wind up writing the approved history books. Clearly, someone is always better off as the result of a revolution or other catastrophe than they were before – but those “someones” tend to be vicious, plotting schemers, not ordinary folk. Anyone, for example, who thinks the Russian peasant wound up better off after the Bolshevik revolution than he was before has got some reading to do. But the rule stands – namely that someone always profits, someone always benefits. And this is true in the present case as well. Goldman Sachs executives are happier than pigs in stuff right now – as are armaments makers and anyone else who is profiting from the current round of insanity and criminality.

So the “conventional wisdom” (as opposed to the reality) about revolutions are that they are usually good things... and the conventional wisdom about wars, famines, pestilences, etc., are that, while unpleasant at the time, they can have (paradoxically, at least) positive results. (Where is the “zero population growth” fanatic who is not secretly pleased every time he hears about a famine, or civil war, or plague, in Africa?) And I suppose that, without the world-wide revolutions that began in France and extended (over 150-odd years) all the way to China, we would not have had the opportunity to see what socialism, communism, collectivism, and totalitarianism amounted to in terms of net benefit to mankind. As it is, ideas that should have wound up on the ash heap decades ago are still alive and well, thanks mostly to human fallibility and concupiscence. Each new generation, it seems, has to learn anew that the pipe dreams of secular humanism are no more than that – and that they are destructive of the human spirit as well as of mind and body. When young people complain about the grayness, dullness, and conventionality of ordinary life and ordinary people, what they are complaining about is, by and large, the effects of socialism. They are living in a society in which most people, on a deep level, are paralyzed with fear. (Ironically, they may think that socialism is the answer to these complaints!) We hear a lot about “dumbing down”, “leveling”, and the (misnamed) “lowest common denominator”; these are all symptoms of socialism and collectivism. More than symptoms, actually – they are active, conscious pieces of the agenda. The idea is to create a gulf, on all dimensions, between the controllers and the controlled – and no one is a better exemplar of this than Our President, who, with his modest and unconventional background, has ascended to the heights (with the help of the Regime) and now delights in lording it over the peasantry. One could say that he has forgotten his “roots”, but I suspect that, in fact, he has no real roots. He was born on the road, one might say – in transit. So he fits into any situation, but is at home in none. Maybe that makes him an ideal leader for our time, I don't know. But it is certain that he is as far from ordinary people and their concerns and values as the east is from the west.

So while I may counsel what seems to be despair – in the short- and mid-term – I'm perfectly willing to say “all is well” in the ultimate sense. I believe in divine justice, but I also believe that God is long-suffering... too long, in the opinion of those who want to see fire rain down from Heaven on the unjust before the night is over. Religion typically counsels patience, and waiting on God's pleasure; politics counsels impatience and impulsiveness. And when you combine the two, well... then you get the Evangelicals, who want nothing more than to accelerate the timetable for the “end times” by getting us to fall on our sword for Israel. They spend every waking hour nagging God to get on with it, and then proceed to ignore most of what the New Testament teaches.

And it may work, in a twisted kind of way. If our exertions on behalf of Israel wind up destroying our military (well underway) and our economy (very well underway) and our morale and self-respect (very well underway), we will eventually collapse, and then it will be Israel against the entire Arab/Islamic world... and even if they do fire off all of their nukes, I think it will be a suicide gesture on their part. So maybe the prophesies about the end times will, in fact, be aided and abetted by our foolish actions, who knows? Crazier things have happened down through history. (Think of all the examples in the Bible where something bad led to something good. This almost seems to be a kind of rule of history.)

So, in the light of all this, I say again – why bother? Well, it's not just because we deserve a better world than the one our leaders are providing us. There is such a thing as salvific suffering, and I think we're about to get many more opportunities to experience that than we have in a long time. But there is also the human mind and the human spirit, both of which thrive on truth, and grow sickly and die with a constant diet of lies, deceptions, and con games. Even to march to the gallows knowing the truth would be preferable to sitting on silk cushions in a state of delusion, it seems to me. The besetting sin of Americans in our time is not that they are fat and lazy – although there is plenty of that. It's that they are morally negligent and intellectually slothful; in other words, they simply refuse to use their brains for anything other than base activities and ephemeral amusements. The, um, “literature” available at grocery store check-out lines should be enough to convince you of this. And I don't expect people to be, or want to be, “intellectuals” -- heaven forbid! All I ask is the occasional thought based on reality rather than fancy... the occasional use of logic... the occasional sobering meditation on the Four Last Things (or if that sounds too abstract, then how about the dangers of empire?). People in the past were no smarter than we are, in terms of innate intellectual ability – but they had better intellectual habits, and better life habits. They had a level of independence and integrity that is almost inconceivable in our time – and yet we continue to benefit from their thoughts and actions. We benefit, but since we know not where those benefits come from we have no immunity against the people who are determined to take them away. And sure enough, the erosion of liberties in our time is nearly complete; in other words, we are living in what amounts to a totalitarian society, even though the way it is manifested is, for most people most of the time, “low-impact”. The government could do more to us, but usually doesn't; I don't consider this a compliment. “Soft” socialism – or, more properly, fascism – is still socialism. Soft tyranny is still tyranny. There is nothing in principle preventing the government, on any level, from turning up the heat; the fact that they don't is a testimony to a kind of pragmatism and nothing more.

So the truth really will set us free – intellectually and spiritually if not physically or economically... and that is what the saying means anyway. We must still “render unto Caesar” every April 15 (and most days in between), and we are still subject to countless restrictions on our actions. But “mind control” is still... well, let's say it remains on a voluntary basis. If a person wants to become an unthinking, unblinking, brain-dead clone of the Regime and the mainstream media, opportunities abound. But no one is forced into that situation against their will. And while I detest mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, it is still gratifying to, on occasion, encounter kindred souls – the way partisans would encounter each other in the dark of night in a World War II movie. To be truly a lone thinker – a prophet without honor, and even without a listener (or reader!) must be a trying thing. And yet, even then, it would be better to stand on the shore and shout at the waves than to remain silent.

And if the truth has intrinsic value, regardless of “results” -- and if that value is amplified in a gathering of like minds – is that the only reason for speaking out? It might be if we were sticking to a strictly materialistic model, but what if we adhere to a moral model as well? What if our politics is predicated, as much as possible, on moral principles and not only on ethical concepts (as noble as they can be)? And furthermore, what if our moral principles include not only concepts as to what ought to be done – let's say in the name of charity – but of what ought to be done in the name of faith? And what if we believe that our very salvation may be at stake depending on decisions we make in what appears to be a totally material, secular political realm? There is, then, value – infinite value, perhaps – in trying to conform our political actions (including words) to moral principles. And what if we believe that it might also be possible to save, or at least be an occasion of grace for, others based on our words and actions? What if their salvation is at stake as well as our own?

Now I know that this sounds a bit grandiose... but think for a moment. What if, for example, we could convert enough people to the Just War teachings of the Catholic Church? It would result in a complete reformulation of our foreign policy... and, most likely, doom the Republican Party (and who can say that's a bad thing?). And how about abortion – an issue where souls are at stake (not the souls of the victims but the souls of the perpetrators and their facilitators)? This would seem to be a most urgent piece of business... and simple charity would dictate that the truth be told, and repeated as often as need be. These are very straightforward issues requiring no egghead, intellectual, wonkish ruminations or advanced degrees. They are things, in short, that nearly everyone can understand – and there are plenty more similar issues. In fact, I would venture to say that all the really important political and economic issues can be made understandable to the average person, despite what the “experts” would have us believe. And it goes without saying that mistaken beliefs, and grievous errors, are not confined to the masses, but are almost a specialty of the intellectual elite.

So yes, there are plenty of good reasons to speak up, and not to remain silent, cowed, and fearful. There can be hope behind apparent despair. Pure cynicism and misanthropy are one thing – but has anyone ever accused any of the saints of those failings? I don't think so. The wildest, wild-eyed preacher on the street corner may ultimately have the good of mankind at heart, even if everything he says sounds like a Jeremiad. Is he more “negative” than the guy who sits at a cafe table all day sipping espresso and not offering a coherent opinion on anything? I think that despair – true despair – is the ultimate negativity. But simply living during a time of decline and fall of an empire is an accident of personal history – and pointing it out may well be a duty.

Excerpt of the Month

When I become Death, Death is the seed from which I grow...

Who really gave that order?

ANSWER: Control. The ugly American, the instrument of control.

QUESTION: If Control's control is absolute, why does Control need to control?

ANSWER: Control needs time.

QUESTION: Is Control controlled by its need to control?

ANSWER: Yes.

(Q) Why does Control need humans, as you call them?

(A) Weight, weight, time - a landing field. Death needs time like a junkie needs junk.

(Q) And what does Death need time for?

(A) The answer is so simple. Death needs time for what it kills to grow in...

... you stupid, vulgar, greedy, ugly American death sucker.

We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They're representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self.

The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident – inept, frightened pilots at controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.

--- From “Ah Pook Is Here” by William S. Burroughs

Stupor Tuesday

Tuesday was the day set aside for the apotheosis of Mitt Romney – and, sure enough, the prophesied event seems to have occurred, although you wouldn't know it from the continued flailings of Santorum and Gingrich, who are starting to resemble those movie monsters that continue to growl and fight even after losing multiple limbs. Ron Paul, of course, is in it for the sake of ideas, and being the only man of principle in the race, he's not about to dry up and blow away out of consideration for politics. His strategy of hanging in there with the otherwise execrable Republicans has, in my opinion, been the correct one, since this way his ideas reach many times more people than they would have otherwise – more than if he'd started out running in the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, for instance. Of course, many people are still expecting him to “cut and run” -- and the Democrats are praying (or whatever they do in place of prayer) that he does... but I don't think that's very likely. The “third parties” have their deals, their mini-empires, their rice bowls... and they are already well along in their own nomination process. Besides, Paul can continue to hang in there after the convention and after the election, and be a welcome thorn in the side of nearly all other Republicans... which, as Martha Stewart would say, is “a good thing”. If any consciences need pricking at this point in our history, it's those of the Republicans. (The Democrats, not having been blessed with consciences, simply need to be sent back to the pre-school cry room where they belong.)

But what made Super – or, as I call it, Stupor – Tuesday special to me was the remarkable conjunction of four front-page articles in the local paper... and if I were ever called upon to give a state-of-the-union address, I would not hesitate to use these as my text:

(1) “Voters back away from Santorum” -- the point being that Republicans have finally bowed to pragmatism over ideology, and have decided that Romney is the only candidate who has any chance of beating Obama in November. Well... I guess it's theoretically possible, I mean... it's theoretically possible that Hillary Clinton will some day become a nun... but what are the chances? As I've said before, the Republicans seem to be in perpetual denial about one key fact – namely that a good half of the voters pay no taxes. Zero, zip, nada. (Referring to income taxes now.) Their entire interaction with the federal government is in the nature of their receiving money that _other_ people have paid in taxes – and since Obama epitomizes this concept of redistributing wealth, and promises even more of the same, what possible reason could there be for tax receivers to vote for anyone else? And on top of that, Obama also has the unions in his pocket... academia... the press... the entertainment industry... trial lawyers... aggrieved minorities of all sorts... in short, pretty much everyone except for white, male, non-Hispanic, Christian, heterosexual taxpayers. Talk about a vanishing demographic! I mean... well, the irony is that this group still runs the country, as they always have, and constitutes the largest single component of the Regime... which is why votes, and elections, don't matter (assuming they ever did). The people with power will stay in power, no matter how tiny a minority they become, even unto invisibility. And that's why they can tolerate Obama – because no matter how much he manages to muck things up in the world of ordinary people, he can't touch them. And, he is easily bought, like almost all politicians. Bought – threatened – blackmailed... it's all the same in the end. Men become president with visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads, only to realize, in short order, that they are nothing but glorified servants. But by then it's too late... so they spend the next 4, or 8, years parading around looking “presidential”, all the time knowing that they are abject and pathetic frauds. But hey, the pay is good, and who doesn't love all that applause? Who doesn't like being able to lay siege to Congress once a year in the State of the Union address, with the poor Supreme Court justices forced to sit there in the front row, silent and stoic as cigar-store Indians? Yeah, it's great work, as long as one is realistic as to one's options (which are few, and trivial).

(2) “Israel asserts right to attack Iran” -- yeah, so what else is new? They've been asserting the right to attack anyone and everyone ever since their country was established. (For that matter, so have we. So I guess we're not all that different.) The subhead was “Jewish state must remain 'master of its fate', Netanyahu tells Obama”. OK, fine – nothing wrong with that. What I resent is that Israel is also the master of _our_ fate – diplomatically, militarily, and ultimately economically, because of the dire impact of the wars they have forced us to fight on their behalf. But the best part of this article was the accompanying photo – a classic! Obama is shown out of focus, and Netanyahu very much in focus, and staring at Obama the way a stern judge would stare at a juvenile delinquent. What one doesn't see is the tight rope attached to Obama's... um... certain delicate organs... with Netanyahu tugging on the other end, just to remind him who's boss. One false move, one stray word suggesting non-support, and Bibi would fall on Obama's throat like a starving timber wolf. Fortunately, our president is well-trained and, after 3+ years in office, knows exactly who is in charge and what his duties are towards them. So all is well. It's a beautiful thing, in a way – like being in prison, or Marine boot camp. No decisions to make, just obey orders. The lines of command are crystal clear; they do not waver with the winds of politics. And in an ironic way, it relieves the American people of all responsibility for our foreign policy – until we recall that we are the ones who voted all of these clowns into office. Then it becomes clear that it all began, as most things do, around the dining-room table. Our politicians are little more than super-sized versions of the demons that each of us holds within us. And they won't change until we do.

(3) “McCain calls for U.S. to strike Syria” -- as if we're underemployed with only Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and a few score other places on our hands. Again, there is a kind of austere beauty in the simplicity of such as Sen. McCain; the answer to any problem is to bomb it out of existence. ( I suppose the answer to childhood obesity would be to bomb McDonald's.) And I suppose it would be idle to ask if Assad's forces had killed more innocents than our drones in Afghanistan. And it all makes me wonder – what if McCain had been elected back in 2008? There's a good chance we would have gotten into World War III with Russia over Georgia, and all be dead now. But this guy is not only still at large, but is still in the Senate, and is allowed to express his opinions pretty much at will. I find this to be a worrisome reflection on the discernment (or lack thereof) of the American voter.

(3a) And not to be outdone, here's Mitch McConnell, who looks like a small-town grocer, urging military force against Iran. And this was done as part of a speech to – guess who! -- AIPAC. No one ever wants to just come out and admit that there is complete unanimity on any issue with implications for Israel – and yet that single fact drives not only our foreign policy, but is the primary factor impinging on our economy, our military, and our domestic security. But since there's universal agreement, I guess that means there's nothing worth talking about.

(4) “Holder defends targeting Americans in terror hunt”. Oh yeah, he's back – the clown prince of the Obama administration. Now, let's work through this idea for a moment. We can “target and kill American citizens overseas in the war on terror”. OK... but what's “terror”? We already know the answer to that question – it's whatever the government says it is. We know, for instance, that a fifth-grader who brings a BB gun to school is officially designated as a “terrorist” -- or at least found to be committing “terroristic acts”. So would it be OK for CIA mercenaries to move in and kill him? Oh, wait – Holder said “overseas”, didn't he? Right – but how long is it going to be before the same logic is applied on the domestic front? And how long before the “right to target...” trickles down to state police, county sheriffs, city police departments, the dogcatcher, etc.? When you define “terrorism” or “terrorist activity” in as broad and general a way as it's been defined by the government, then virtually any activity can be so described, and virtually any citizen can therefore be designated a “terrorist”. Which means that virtually anyone can be killed for terrorist-type activity, either already carried out, or in the process of being carried out, or in the planning stage, or no further along than the local bar when someone has had a few too many. We tend to forget that the government is like a very large dog – try giving it one small doggie treat when you're holding a 100-lb. bag of treats in your other hand. It can't be done. Before you know it, the bag is ripped open, the contents devoured, and you're lucky if you still have all 10 fingers. This has happened with every other government program and “initiative” in our history; what makes us think it won't happen in this case as well?

(5) Bonus article! From page 2: “Legalizing drugs not possible, Biden says” -- this was at a gathering in Mexico City. Here's the real gem: “Biden said that even if drug legalization might have benefits, such as reducing prison populations [not to mention adverse impact on blacks], it would engender health problems [more than the “War on Drugs” does?], expand drug usage [this is not the experience of Portugal, for example] and even create bureaucracies for drug distribution.” Don'tcha just love that last point – as if the “War on Drugs” did not already constitute a massive bureaucracy, not to mention a perennial threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well... I don't know if the Latin American leaders have the cojones for this, but what if they all got together and simply legalized all the drugs we spend so much time obsessing about, and so much money (and lives) trying to fend off? That would, I think, apply pressure where pressure is due – on our #1 Puritanical obsession, which borders on psychosis at times.

So OK – is this not ample fodder for a speech of any length? Could it not be part of a “teaching moment”? Someone needs to get up in front of the American public and – with reference to things like empire-building, subservience to Israel, the War on Terror, and the War on Drugs – scream, “get over it!!” None of these things is necessary... they are all massively destructive, not only to our freedoms and to the economy, but also to our overall quality of life... they are making us no friends but countless enemies... and they make us look like fools on the world stage. Fools, yes – but dangerous ones, because we still carry plenty of big sticks, even as we flail around blindly. We are, perhaps, at the most dangerous stage, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, when it comes to a declining empire – we are, in many ways, trapped by our own delusions, deceived by our own power (or former power), and feeling cornered diplomatically, economically, and militarily. There is no sense in which we are better, or better off, than we were, say, at the end of World War II when we could enjoy victory on all fronts and on many levels. Flawed as we were, we could still claim to be an exemplar and a friend to man. But then the deterioration started – Vietnam, our own cultural revolution, our totally misguided reaction to whatever it was that happened on 9-11... and so on. And yes, it is painful, because we were (at least my generation was) brought up to expect more. We did not yet realize that there is an iron law of history, and of cycles of growth, consolidation, and decay... and that the United States was on the brink of entering a long decay phase. Each new revelation raises the same questions – how did things get to this point? Why wasn't the process stopped, or delayed, or redirected? Why us? Why now? There is no feeling quite so frustrating as that of being trapped in history – of being on a timeline that future generations will look back on and shake their heads, the way we shake our heads about Rome, or the Ottoman Empire, or the British Empire, etc. But it seems as unavoidable as any natural cycle – and this may be the key. Maybe it is just another natural cycle, even though it appears to be something above and beyond nature. Perhaps the United States is, more than anything else, just one very large, old, sick, lumbering organism that has finally staggered to the edge of the tar pits and is wondering whether or not to just wade in and make a blissful end to it all.

The Gong Show

A couple of weeks ago I attended a performance by Shen Yun Performing Arts -- “the world's premier classical Chinese dance company”. It was very well done – costumes, sets, a live orchestra (with both Chinese and “Western” instruments)... a very clever interaction between projected animation and the live performers... and the dances were very well choreographed, both aesthetic and athletic, and the performers looked like they enjoyed their work.

So far so good. Now, the show was produced, or sponsored, by the Greater Philadelphia Falun Dafa Association. If that rings a faint bell, it turns out that Falun Dafa is an alternative name for Falun Gong – the organization that has run into so much trouble in China lately. According to a Wikipedia article, “Falun Gong adherents overseas have responded to the suppression in China through regular demonstrations, parades, and through the creation of media outlets, performing arts companies...” etc. So yes, this is a persecuted group in China, and I don't want to get into all the complications as to why, only to speculate that as a source of spiritual teaching, it is in obvious conflict with communism, which – despite all of China's muscular show of capitalist-style energy – is still the official world view. Or, to put it more broadly, materialism is the official world view – and that includes both communism and capitalism.

So here is this show that, according to the ads, “can no longer be found in China today because many of China's best artistic traditions have been lost in recent decades.” Well... I was in China a year ago and saw plenty of traditional music and dance performances, so I think that's stretching it a bit. Promotion of traditional forms is certainly not the sole privilege of either side in any political conflict, and we've seen plenty of evidence of that over the years. (I always think of this Georgian performer who used to appear at a place in Georgetown (D.C.) back in the 1970s – his audience would be liberally peppered with both White Russians and Soviet Embassy personnel.) Yes, believe it or not, there are things that really do transcend politics – although it's easy to forget that in this day and age.

But to get back to the show – it was mostly music and dance, with some solo singing numbers done recital-style... and those lyrics had a marked mystical touch – nothing obviously political, but very tendentious in a way, as though some particular world view was being actively promoted (which it was). There was a definite eschatological feel to it all. More obvious were dance numbers which featured young Falun Dafa followers vs. the police (wearing symbols that vaguely resembled the Soviet hammer and sickle). And sure enough, the young adherents were eventually rescued through divine intervention – including by a giant blue-haired Buddha.

Another interesting angle was this: There was a cadre of young, attractive women circulating around the theater and in the lobby, carrying recording devices, asking people for their impressions of the show. Nothing wrong with that, right? But how often have you been interviewed while sitting in a theater seat during intermission? The whole thing, to me at least, started to border on the cultish; I felt like I'd stumbled onto the Chinese equivalent of a Scientology get-together. And I'm not accusing them of engaging in brainwashing – but the presentations were heavy-handed at times, and, I think, qualified as propaganda. (The Chinese authorities would certainly think so.)

What I find intriguing, in a way, is that this show is traveling all over the country unimpeded, while at the same time we're engaged in this chess game with China, with “human rights issues”, foreign policy, trade, and monetary issues on one side and our “sovereign debt” on the other. To cut to the chase – they haven't yet, as far as I know, demanded that this organization or its activities be suppressed over here. (Ridiculous, you say? Look at what happens to people and organizations that oppose Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.)

And it is a good show. And I do recommend that anyone who enjoys Chinese culture attend. Just be aware that this is also a political organization, and that they have an agenda – which may be perfectly commendable, but it's an agenda nonetheless, which goes far beyond mere entertainment.