The Coming Battle

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Leveling

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China is Here

 

Let's review the main points that I've offered so far in discussing revolution – then and now.

• The revolution we are witnessing at present is not starting; it's nearly over with.

• The revolution – and all revolutions, in fact – represent the perennial conflict between two world views, the revolutionary (also known, in our time, as progressive or liberal) and the conservative (or traditional).

• Revolutions start with ideas, but are turned into action by activists who gain control over large numbers of people with either real or imagined grievances.

• The United States has been a revolutionary society from the beginning, and our history is marked by a series of events with revolutionary characteristics, which nonetheless fall short of total revolution in the familiar “bottom up” sense. (We came closest during the Great Depression, and the New Deal was established to, among other things, defuse the situation and co-opt some of the leadership and the energy.)

• An essential feature of our present revolution has been the “long march through the institutions”, which is virtually complete at this point.

• Our present revolution is a revolution from above, which is the exception. What defines it is that the ideas, resources, and energy for the revolution come directly from the ruling elite.

• The prototype for revolution from above is Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution in China, and the prototype for Antifa and militant BLM is the Red Guard.

• Revolution from above has to be designed and managed so that the instigators at the top remain untouched.

• There is evidence that these instigators include high-tech, commerce, and communications moguls as well as globalists. Political parties and the media are involved, but they are servants and not originators. They serve the same function as ministries of propaganda served in communist countries.

• Donald Trump did not cause the revolution, but he provided motivation and a rationale. The corona virus and the economic shutdown provided additional energizing force.

• The urban riots reflect a decision on the part of the ruling elite that the time has come for the gains of the (long-term) revolution to be consolidated.

Once things have reached this point, there is no turning back. The revolution has to be carried to its logical end. And to carry a revolution to its logical end it's not enough to engage the urban proletariat and turn it into a fighting force, and it's not enough to intimidate the rural peasantry into submission. You have to win over the uniformed armed services as well. And this is, right now, a wild card. The Bolsheviks capitalized on widespread discontent in the Russian army and navy, and won enough converts to form an army of their own, which proceeded to fight the “white” (czarist) forces for a number of years after the revolution, in what is called the Russian Civil War. Eventually the white forces were either defeated, or disbanded due to lack of resources or low morale, or engaged in squabbles among themselves that severely compromised their ability to sustain a war. (In China, Mao had an advantage in that he was already a military leader of long standing who commanded loyalty among the troops, from the top generals on down.)

So for our current crop of ruling elites to succeed in their revolutionary/Utopian schemes, it would seem that they would, sooner or later, need support from the armed forces – or at least not outright opposition. But our armed forces are all sworn to (1) submit to civilian authority, and (2) recognize the president as commander in chief, and to follow his orders accordingly (but not without some grumbling, as we are seeing from time to time). So the dynamic is as follows: If the president and his administration is aligned with the ruling elite and the revolution (seems unlikely in Trump's case, but it would certainly be true in Biden's case), the military can simply be given orders to aid in the implementation of whatever social and economic changes are required (and “posse comitatus” be damned). Then the burden would be on them to either obey or (for the first time in nearly 250 years) mutiny. (In the Russian case, the military wound up being split between loyalists and revolutionary forces, so elements of the czarist army wound up fighting each other.) Plan B – if the revolution expects opposition from the president -- would be for the ruling elite to somehow convince the military to join its side and oppose the president – also a tall order. So to preserve some semblance of law and order, and to put lipstick on the revolutionary pig, the cabal would be advised to work through the current chain of command with the president at the top – which means that the president would have to be in on the scheme. Bottom line – soften up the battlefield (urban riots, corona, economic stress) and then make absolutely sure that Joe Biden (or whoever he's fronting for) wins in November. In other words, no more of this complacency and overconfidence like in 2016; this has to be a full-court press with all the bases covered, and with every possible means brought into play (hence the push for mail-in ballots, no voter I.D., voting rights for felons and illegal aliens, etc.).

One might ask, if the Democrats are so intent on winning this election, why are they running a corpse for president? But that's precisely the point. They'll set up a cardboard cutout of Joe Biden in the Oval Office, hire voiceover talent to deliver a 30-second speech once a day, and the ruling elite and their minions will be free to continue the revolution from above without having to encounter any potential speed bumps in the White House. (There's some debate as to whether Kamala Harris will be a player or just a stand-in. She obviously expects to be a player. Watch this space.)

Remember, this is a top-down affair. Don't expect any mobs to attack, loot, and torch the U.S. Capitol or any of what I call the “whited sepulchres” along the Washington Mall that house all of the bloated government agencies, i.e. the heart of the bureaucracy and the Deep State. Oh, there might be a few Molotov cocktails tossed about, and a bit of graffiti just for “optics”, but the infrastructure of the state will be preserved, even if there is a total reworking of government organizations and a permanent suspension of the Bill of Rights. I imagine the more radical changes will occur, as they always do in these cases, in the rural areas – the heartland. If Russia and China are any indicators, it will be rural and small-town people who will suffer most; let's not forget that they are irredeemable “deplorables” who are responsible for Trump being in office, and they deserve to be severely punished for making such an unwise choice. But while they may be targets of revolutionary rage, they may also defend themselves more effectively than any other sector of society. If there's a counter-revolution, this is where it would start (the way the counter-revolution in France, albeit unsuccessful, started in the Vendee, a rural area).

--------------------------------------------------------

Well, it looks like we've cleared the decks at last. The People's Republic of America is right around the corner. Except.

Except that there is another player in all of this which I haven't mentioned recently, but I did provide some clues in previous posts, including:

SUNDAY, MAY 26, 2019

Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Part I: The Middle Kingdom, Democracy, Globalism, and Islam

The Chinese have, in fact, established, and are vigorously pursuing, an economic empire, which has crossed our doorstep and is firmly ensconced in our own economy.

SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 2020

Conspiracies on Parade

Some sample conspiracies involving China and the corona virus (with varying degrees of probability):

• It originated in China, but it was no accident. It was an intentional biological attack on the U.S. in retaliation for economic sanctions, our position on Taiwan, our position on currency manipulation, etc. As such, it was intended to be a “shot off our bow”, i.e. get out of our face or else (it could be worse).

• Variation 1: It was a probe – a test case – to see how effective biological warfare would be, what our response would be, etc. Corona was never intended to be the ultimate weapon, in other words; that's still under development.

• Variation 2: The intention was not only near-term but long-term. By bringing the U.S. to its knees economically, China would be assuring its ascent to the position of leading economic power on the planet – and, soon to follow, leading military power.

• Variation 3: The focus was on causing major damage to our military, which has turned out (no surprise, if you know anything about history) to be particularly vulnerable to viral infections and epidemics. If you can sap the strength of the U.S. military, and get it to stand down, it's much easier for China to continue its high jinks in the South China Sea unimpeded. (If the military was the prime target, then the civilian population counts only as “collateral damage” – something that aggressors are always willing to accept.)

• Footnote: China has decided that a direct military confrontation with the U.S. would be costly, and they might not even win. So they had to come up with something completely different (if not totally unexpected – after all, we've been studying the biological warfare issue since before World War II).

• It was a deal worked out between China – birth-control experts extraordinaire – and the ZPG cartel, to reduce populations worldwide because free and unrestricted abortion has failed to do the job (as has war).

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2020

Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Part II: China Rising, the Death of Democracy, the New Nationalism, Corona, and Catholic Wisdom

• Empires are becoming more primarily economic in character, and China is showing great skill in this area.

• China has upped the ante not only in direct economic terms, but in having unleashed (accidentally or otherwise) a world-wide pandemic that, among other things, has mesmerized our leadership into, basically, shutting down what had been a booming economy (and China's main competitor economically). In other words, they (China) have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. But a note of caution here – as I said to someone the other day, China has tremendous investments in the U.S. and holds the lion's share of our national debt, so all of that goes into the dumpster if our economy fails to recover from this attack. Either they've pushed this thing too far, or they're willing, for whatever reason, to take the hit. Time will tell. In any case, it has put China into the global driver's seat for the first time ever, and they must be feeling kind of giddy about that. (So much for being satisfied with being the Middle Kingdom.)

Yep, it's our old nemesis, China. The Yellow Peril is back! (Remember the first Yellow Peril? Neither do I. But it's a fascinating bit of social, political, and even psychological, history.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril

We are all too familiar with the current fears, apprehensions, and unease swirling about the China question. In the post-World War II era, China was a sleeping giant, by and large, excepting its involvement in the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. But it was an economic basket case, and thus not a threat in that department, plus it wasn't really trying to build an empire. But this sleeping giant was poked, prodded, and awakened by no less than Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, and things haven't been the same since. So here are are in 2020 worried about things like theft of intellectual property, currency manipulation, balance of trade, industrial and technological espionage, military aggression in the South China Sea, Chinese monopolies in any number of essential commodities like medicines and rare earths, and increasing Chinese ownership of resources and businesses in the U.S. And – influence over communications media, including social media, print media, and broadcast media. The long arm of Chinese propaganda has now managed to reach into our very homes, and into all of our various portable gadgets, with the full knowledge – nay, help – of our tech giants. And – most importantly of all for the present discussion – they have managed to establish business relationships with our Silicon Valley moguls and titans of industry and commerce that are – let's say – a bit troubling. It seems that a good portion of our ruling elite are busy unabashedly promoting Chinese interests. But why? Again, some will say to follow the money. After all, China is heavily invested in the U.S. and we are heavily invested in China. So it's true up to a point, but I say follow the channels of power – both as things stand as they might appear on a drawing board in Beijing.  (They say that power corrupts -- true, but it also creates delusions of grandeur, and of omnipotence -- and those, in turn, feed into dreams of Utopia, of making the world a much better place if only it would put me in charge.)

Let's say, just as a f'rinstance, that China's appetite for empire building is just getting whetted. They are moving from strength to strength in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and even making inroads in Europe... they have their Belt and Road Initiative.... but they do not yet have the pearl of great price, which is total economic domination of the United States. And that more than implies political domination, and you can be sure that it would be backed up by their massive military forces if it came to that. And with political domination comes social domination – it's inevitable.  (As was cynically pointed out during the war in Vietnam, if you can't win hearts and minds, a gun pointed at the head will do.)

This would put an entirely different tone on what might have been just a cozy, home-grown revolution within our borders. For starters, consider that the parties that are providing the most support and encouragement for outfits like Antifa and BLM are also the ones most closely aligned with China. Consider also that for China to even dream of making the U.S. into a colony, much of what is here now has to be either destroyed or neutralized so they can make their move (by which I mean their overt move – the more subtle and subversive stuff has been going on for a long time). So we have a convergence of interests between our own ruling elite and the Chinese government – and one has to wonder, who's working for whom? Which is to say, are the Chinese aiding and abetting our own revolution in any way they can, but for the benefit of our ruling elite? (I don't credit them with that much altruism.) Or are our ruling elite looking forward to the day when they can fall on their faces before their new Chinese rulers, and become pampered princes (or eunuchs) in the Chinese imperial court? (And frankly, I wouldn't bet a whole lot on the life expectancy of anyone who sank to those depths.) Fact: The Chinese won't get involved in any enterprise where they won't be in charge, or at least predominant. Why should this be any different?

Unlikely? Impossible, you say? Well... in these times it's a bit delusional to label anything “impossible”, since pretty much everything that's going on right now would have been considered impossible mere months, not to mention years, ago. A pandemic “forcing” us to shut down a thriving economy? Raging mobs destroying American cities while mayors and governors benignly and approvingly look on, or even encourage the rioting? That's the stuff of an apocalyptic film, or a bad acid trip – and yet it's happening. And as I've already pointed out, there is nothing spontaneous or random about any of it. Kenosha is just the latest example. Within hours of the (non-fatal) shooting of a black man by white policemen, an army descended on the small city, already armed with Molotov cocktails, bricks, crowbars, frozen water bottles, welding torches, professional-grade fireworks, and so on. Antifa was there complete with their ninja duds and umbrellas. Where did they come from? Were they camped outside of town? Who has the fleet of buses or airplanes or whatever means of transportation it took to get them all there in record time? No, this is a highly organized affair, and it has been from the beginning. Its timing and precision reflect months, if not years, of preparation – just waiting for the right time to strike. (They went into Condition Yellow when Trump was elected, and into Condition Red when corona hit and the economy collapsed.) And we have a pretty good idea who's supporting all of this with funding and logistics, and who's providing propaganda support through the media and with the help of Hollywood and TV personalities, not to mention certain politicians. Everybody is signed on, and – again – they have been signed on for months or years (or certainly since Trump announced his candidacy, which was the equivalent of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand).

So if the friends of China are all in on this, does that mean China is as well? And if so, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to all the collaborators if China ever actually takes over. They might be eliminated by partisans (and there will be partisans, of that you may be sure) or by their bosses if they start getting too independent-minded.

But wait – there are other players in the game as well, aren't there? I've said for a long time that the U.S. has become a kind of colony and source of cannon fodder for the globalists based in Europe. They don't need armies of their own because we are their army, and the top of every financial pyramid is located in Europe, not here. And we have plenty of globalists of our own who are just fine with this – who see it as the wave of the future, and anyone who objects (like Trump) is labeled an “isolationist” and an “America firster”. Terrible! Just like Charles Lindbergh or Father Coughlin! Which means just like Hitler! And so on – you know the drill. In the topsy-turvy world of globalist politics, it's anti-American to be pro-American, and vice versa. Defending our own interests – economic, not to mention political, social, and (heaven forbid!) traditional, is considered hopelessly backward and unbecoming of “world citizens” (which means citizens of nowhere).

But now what happens when the Europe-based globalists, who we're at least used to, collide with China? If they really want to carve up the U.S. like a Thanksgiving turkey, who gets the drumstick? This is a serious question, because the Euro-globalist influence is already a reality, and the Chinese influence is already a reality, but so far they've managed to stay out of one another's hair, i.e. they've divvied up the territory in a more or less peaceful way like two Mafia families dividing a city into “turfs”, But how long can it last? One thing seems obvious, and that's that China is much more aggressive in expanding its empire onto American soil than the Euro-globalists have been in maintaining their dominance. Or at least it appears that way; the Europeans may have something up their sleeve, but if they do they'd better play that card pretty soon or it will be too late.

(Full disclosure – I'd rather be ruled by a bunch of nerdy guys in Brussels than by Xi Jinping. But that's just me. And it's not that I dislike China; I've been there and it's fascinating. But it's also an alien culture, whereas Europe – even as spiritually hollowed-out as it is now – is much more familiar.)

And, by the way, our home territory is not the only venue where China and the Euro-globalists can come into conflict. The globalists have interests in many places around the world where China also has interests – the Middle East being the most obvious case. So we might wind up being a major bone of contention, but not the only one, in the next world war (not that it will necessarily be a primarily military affair – modern wars are fought in economic areas more often than on battlefields).

Now, I know that the picture I'm painting seems to render the U.S. as a victim – helpless, weak, something to be fought over like hyenas fight over a gazelle carcass. But surely that cannot be! I mean, America is America, dammit -- and Europe is just full of cheese nibblers, and China is... well, just China. Except that China is no longer just China; it's taking its place on the world stage at long last, and encountering very little resistance and a considerable degree of cooperation. As for Europe, the populace may appear decadent and jaded at times but there are powers behind those moth-eaten thrones – serious powers that make our Deep State look like a pre-school. So it would be a mistake to underestimate either one of these entities. There are people in this world who can make our supposed “leaders” quake in their boots with a phone call – and said leaders won't be long for this world once the man behind the curtain is revealed. (And he won't be a charlatan like the guy in The Wizard of Oz.)

But surely we can resist any sorts of serious inroads – any egregious violations of our sovereignty, etc. Right? Except that we haven't. Maybe we could, but we haven't. We are, as a society, demoralized. There are concentrations of political and social energy for certain, but these are tending to cancel each other out with increasing frequency (just check the two major party conventions). The notion of a united America girding itself for battle against a common foe seems quaint at this point; we're too busy fighting each other. We have governmental structures that were intended to provide order, but within them we find increasing chaos, not to mention profound corruption. So while we are well-armed in some ways, we are weak and vulnerable in others; we have become a large, strong, and dangerous, but stumbling, giant, increasingly devoid of unified vision or purpose. In today's world, just minding your own business (as if we ever do) is not enough; when you're this big and have this many resources there will be entities vying for their share. We are not Liechtenstein, in other words; the rest of the world can't afford to leave us alone (which is pure karma, since we seem incapable of leaving it alone).

Picture this. An invading force from – wherever, you name it – shows up on radar, or comes ashore, or over the hill. (Remember the 1984 film “Red Dawn”?) Some of us would pick up our guns and prepare for battle. Others would cheer and welcome the invaders with a parade, flower petals, and free drinks. And others would just shrug, like, eh, what's the difference?

Too cynical? I offer for your consideration Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, Portland, Seattle, and now Kenosha (wherever the hell that is). (There are people all over the world trying to find it on a map.) Hairline fractures in our society have turned into fault lines, and those have become mile-deep canyons. I cannot count on my neighbor to come anywhere close to sharing my beliefs about the country, society, government, or anything else. If he or she does, then fine. But I can't count on it. For all I know, they may be on the next plane or bus to the next city that needs burning. They may be all in for national suicide, and if I don't want to join the party, too bad. How things came to this sorry state is a discussion for another day, but it's hard to deny. Either we face up to it, or we crawl down into a windowless, soundproof bunker and share a beer with Uncle Joe.

Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Part II: China Rising, the Death of Democracy, the New Nationalism, Corona, and Catholic Wisdom

A bit less than a year ago, I put up a blog post (Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Part I: The Middle Kingdom, Democracy, Globalism, and Islam) dealing with ideas and their impact on history -- especially on current events, which, after all, are history in the making.  Here's a brief summary with a few comments added:    

• China has, historically, generally minded its own business. The same can't be said for Europe or the U.S.
• The European powers have given up on traditional empires (the ones sustained by military might) but we have not as yet.
• Empires are becoming more primarily economic in character, and China is showing great skill in this area.
• Accusations against Trump for treason may signal the replacement of democracy by what amounts to gang warfare. (Politics has totally replaced principles.)
• Attempts to “spread democracy” inevitably run up against national character.
• Communism has evolved into globalism as the political “theory of everything”. Whereas communism has been shown to morph based on national character, globalism has yet to show any signs of doing this (or of being capable of doing so). (One could say that communism, at least in theory, chose to ignore national character, whereas globalism is actively opposed to it, i.e. to the idea that such a thing even exists and that it's important.)
• America had the (alleged) good fortune to start out as a more or less cultural blank slate, which made it an ideal experimental laboratory for secular humanism, AKA “democracy”. But human nature nonetheless got in the way. (Where flesh-and-blood people are concerned, there are no blank slates. Those only exist for ideologues and Utopian “thinkers”, who invariably become tyrants when they are given any power, because “the people” simply refuse to cooperate.)
• Democracy is already fragile enough (as the Founding Fathers realized). Trying to “spread” it is doomed to failure in the long run (and sometimes in the short run). (A good question for debate is whether democracy is, or approximates, the “natural political state” of mankind. If one looks at history, it's clear that democracy in any real sense is a rare bird – seldom found anywhere, and never found in most places even unto the present day. It's more likely that monarchy (either explicit or implicit) is a more natural state; it's certainly the most common historically.)
• We are, in effect, living in a post-democratic society where power has the upper hand. (What this implies is that “voting” is, more often than not, a cruel hoax. As Joseph Sobran once said, if it were important they wouldn't let you vote on it.) (Elections don't need to be rigged at the point of voting; they are rigged way before that point in terms of who is allowed to campaign for the nomination and who gets nominated. The actual election merely provides an imprimatur by the captive citizenry on something that the ruling elite have already decided.)
• Islam is the grass-roots movement of our time, and is directly opposed to both democracy and globalism. Its weapons include mass migration, fertility, militancy, and faith. (Note that Islam is not opposed to empire, but the empire they seek is strictly theocratic.)
• The sources of energy for militant Islam include economic colonialism (by the West), memories of traditional colonialism (by Europe), and the existence of Israel (which was established by the West in Muslim territory).
• “If there's a new Cold War being fought, it's between two international movements – 'democracy', which means globalism, and Islam. And, by the way, between secularism and religion.”

So, just based on the above points, let's think about what has changed and what hasn't in 11 short months:

• China has upped the ante not only in direct economic terms, but in having unleashed (accidentally or otherwise) a world-wide pandemic that, among other things, has mesmerized our leadership into, basically, shutting down what had been a booming economy (and China's main competitor economically). In other words, they (China) have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. But a note of caution here – as I said to someone the other day, China has tremendous investments in the U.S. and holds the lion's share of our national debt, so all of that goes into the dumpster if our economy fails to recover from this attack. Either they've pushed this thing too far, or they're willing, for whatever reason, to take the hit. Time will tell. In any case, it has put China into the global driver's seat for the first time ever, and they must be feeling kind of giddy about that. (So much for being satisfied with being the Middle Kingdom.)
• We haven't heard the word “treason” much lately out of the Gang of Four, i.e. Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and Nadler – and Impeachment 2.0 has been put on hold, apparently for the duration of the pandemic. But worry not, they're gathering “evidence”, and building up a head of steam, and when the time is right they'll be back for another round. Thus, the “gang war” model is alive and well.
• “Spreading democracy” is on hold right now, even though bombing the Third World back to the Stone Age isn't. These are the throes of a dying empire, and it's sadly typical. Let's just say that the rest of the world won't miss us when we're gone.
• The globalists, on the other hand, have a new lease on life, and this applies whether we're talking about the domestic or foreign (European) variety. They are not letting this crisis go to waste by any means. They are increasing the powers of central government by many quanta. Prohibitions, dictated shutdowns, arrests of those deemed uncooperative, martial law (or its equivalent) are the order of the day. And the economic consequences, interestingly enough, don't seem to even be on radar. We have only to remember that totalitarianism inevitably leaves poverty in its wake, and that is, in fact, part of the program. An impoverished people is a dependent people – dependent on government largess and willing to submit, and grovel, and do just about anything to merely stay alive. I would say that this pandemic ranks right up there with the Great Depression and World War II as a means for the ruling elite to consolidate the gains they've been working so hard to achieve all these years. And this holds true whether the pandemic was their idea or not. If it was, then OK... if not, then it was serendipity. The end result is the same.
• And, to the extent that the globalist agenda includes reducing the U.S. to a vassal state at best – as a source of raw materials and military manpower – this process is also well underway. (One can argue that the European model of their military being our military was formulated when we agreed to jump into World War I. When they found out how easily seduced we were, that became a permanent piece of their long-term planning. So it's not a new idea; it's a bit over 100 years old, in fact.) And, we have turned into a technocracy, i.e. a system where the “experts” – the people with all the models, all the data, and the coveted scientific imprimatur – have the final say on everything. (This is also nothing new; it began with FDR's “Brain Trust” and re-emerged as JFK's “best and brightest”.) But what should not be overlooked in all of this is that those experts are all, without exception, employees of the ruling elite; they are not free, independent, and objective agents, but are at the service of whoever is really in charge, i.e. not politicians, who are more tools than initiators. They do serve a purpose, however, as the “face” of science, objectivity, reason, data, statistics, models, etc., and they provide ammunition for those who contend that “politics” has to make way, and hopefully disappear from the scene. (This is certainly true in that once we have a dictatorship of the elite, politics is no longer needed. There are many people who will celebrate this fact; I wouldn't be totally against it myself, I have to admit. If democracy is an illusion, then politics is unnecessary and so are politicians.)
• Militant Islam continues to make trouble and cause indigestion for the globalists. If the globalists are playing the long game, then Islam is playing an even longer game (possibly exceeded only by China). The question of who the last man standing will be has become more relevant than ever in these times. The globalists have the wealth... we have the military (which is at the service of the globalists)... China has the economic clout that comes from being the most populous country in world history... but Islam has what none of the others has, namely the dream of a caliphate... an empire, but of a theocratic sort, subject only to God. The globalists believe in no higher power than money, we mouth words about faith but on any given day couldn't care less... and China is explicitly and militantly godless. It would be highly ironic if a ragtag but very large group of people whose only distinctive attribute is belief in a higher power managed to subdue not only the U.S. but also the globalists, and – at some time in the future – meet China on equal terms. We don't normally think of the Muslims as experts in the long game, but notice how often they refer back to the Crusades – they even refer to us as “Franks”. That's 1000 years, folks. So, if you want to talk about long memories, they aren't doing too badly.

But hold on. Lest we get too carried away with this model, it bears mentioning that nationalistic impulses are also alive and well in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and certain segments of the U.S. population (highly correlated with support for Donald Trump, no surprise). And by nationalism I don't mean militant nationalism, AKA imperialism or empire building, AKA neoconservatism. This is more akin to good, old-fashioned patriotism – belief in and loyalty to one's family, tribe, ethnic group, race, religion, language, and culture, as well as a tendency to want to mind our own business and escape foreign entanglements. It is a true grass-roots movement for the simple reason that it opposes virtually all forms of cultural warfare on the part of the elite, which means that it opposes the agenda of the vast bulk of what are termed the “media”, as well as “entertainment”, anti-traditional art forms, soulless architecture, musical anarchy, gender chaos, economic exploitation, and any other form of reducing the individual to a number, a unit, or a statistic – the slouch toward dystopia, if you will. In other words, they oppose forced conformity in the name of “diversity” as well as discrimination against any form of true diversity. They oppose being ruled by committees... by bureaucrats... by officials... by people who are, in truth, much less human than they are. They're against “programs” whose main goal is to exterminate all that makes individuals and small groups interesting and worth honoring and preserving. They're also opposed to imposition of deadening uniformity in areas such as culture and education, and prefer, rather, to celebrate all of the many and variegated fruits of human life, and to allow each demographic to celebrate its identity and express pride without being shamed and harassed by social enforcers. And they are, as a result, engaged in an existential struggle with the globalists, international business and finance, all of the various forms of cultural leveling (and cultural genocide), and especially with the propaganda apparatus that seeks to shame and condemn people whose values differ from the approved ones (or, some would say, people who have any values at all – blind conformity, submission, and slavery hardly qualifying to be termed “values”).

And this is a struggle that has a definite David-and-Goliath aspect to it. You have people like George Soros, globalist extraordinaire, whose strategy is to subvert and suppress all expressions of national, regional, and local pride and identity, whenever and in whatever form it may occur, and to support collaborators among our politicians. His is a grass-roots campaign as well (by design), and complements perfectly the top-down political, social, and financial strategies of the more conventional globalists. The result is that the average citizen finds himself in a kind of vice; he is oppressed and dictated to from above, but at the same time cannot trust the very ground on which he stands, because it has been contaminated by unclean, diseased, and deadly elements.

And yet there is still resistance, just as there is resistance to government dictates when it comes to the pandemic. The human spirit remains alive and well, even in the darkest hours. People see, with varying degrees of clarity, that the end of all of this is not only physical, social, and economic slavery, but also the death of the spirit, and they react.

On the home front, do we have any reason to hope? Well, Donald Trump is not the perfect nationalist by any means, and cannot be accused of any sort of doctrinaire conservatism, but he is fairly consistent in his speeches when it comes to taking more pride in being a citizen of the U.S. than in being a “world citizen”, which was Obama's trope. He is resisting the efforts of the globalists to some extent when it comes to things like trade, currency, economics, and intellectual property. But there's not much he can do about the world banking system, which is completely out of the hands of the U.S. government, which has come to play a subsidiary role. And as much as he talks about cutting back on our “contribution” to the globalist war against Islam, he's finding that it's impossible to reduce it to any significant degree without causing a riot among our “allies” (not to mention Congress). And he's also finding it impossible to reduce our military presence even in countries that we consider allies. The U.S. military is their military, in effect – and they wouldn't have it any other way.

Another way of putting it is that the subservience of the U.S. government, including its military, to the globalist ruling elite has become so established, so set in stone, that it's virtually impossible for us to extricate ourselves – to pull ourselves back up and assert our sovereignty. We can dig in our heels in a token way, but that only makes our pitiful position more obvious. This situation, I would say, is hopeless for the time being, and the current pandemic has only served to aggravate matters.

But again, the human spirit is not bound and in fetters, and in this there is at least some small hope. In an ironic kind of way, we can even take comfort in the observation that the Muslim world, which became comatose as the result of World War I, has come surging back onto the world stage in a most dramatic fashion, albeit with the help of considerable oil wealth, but also because they are believers. The part of their brain labeled “faith” has not been surgically removed or deadened by all of the blandishments, tricks, and temptations proffered by the “decadent” West. As such, Islam is the only major player on the world stage that is overtly and militantly opposed to globalism. If they can do it, why can't we? But if the key is faith, then we have a long way to go.

Plus, we have resources at our disposal which are virtually unknown in today's political and economic world, and the one that comes most readily to mind is Catholic social teaching, and the concept with perhaps the most power to oppose current trends is that of subsidiarity. This (to quote Wiki) “an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.” This is not a new concept by any means, and it has been taught by a number of popes and written about quite extensively over the years along with what I would call its sister concept, namely distributism. The relevance of this concept to the current situation should be obvious. The response to the corona virus pandemic has occurred not only at the federal level but at state and local levels as well – in many cases with greater effectiveness than the federal-level response, albeit with the same level of opposition. Governors and mayors are exercising powers no one knew they even had; in fact, they may not have known it either until someone reminded them. (Or, they may simply be assuming powers that were not granted them by the electorate, on an emergency basis.) What's good about all of this is that it has awakened people to the possibilities and options of greater self-rule – of government that is responsive not to an abstract, faceless mass of humanity but to real people on the local and regional level, with all of the needs, wants, and values that are characteristic of those regions and locales. It is actually a return to the situation which was nearly universal in pre-Progressive times, before Washington moved in with its ham-handed diktats and reduced state and local officials to mere bureaucrats and clerks. It is, one might say, a dramatic reversal of the usual rule that crises inevitably enhance the power of the central government while leaving all others impotent. This crisis has exposed literally fatal flaws in federal policy, and created a gap (of credibility and action) which state and local governments are only to happy to move in and occupy, often in direct defiance of the federal government. 

So what we have is two simultaneous trends, which – even assuming the corona crisis will recede at some point – are locked in mortal combat, and will continue to be. And there is nothing at all new about this, except that the current crisis has brought it out in a dramatic fashion, as well as having shone a very bright light on who is involved, who is on what side, and what their motivations are. We have the “usual suspects” – those who describe themselves as “liberal” and “progressive” but who have demonstrated a startling degree of authoritarianism vis-a-vis the federal government, or let's say the federal government sans Trump... and the other side, which has developed a newfound respect for state and local authorities in some cases, and a newfound contempt for them in others, all the while feeling that Trump is on their side while everyone working for him is not. 

How often do we have to break a social/economic/political phenomenon down to the molecular level in order to do any analysis? Things used to be so simple. And yet we see that there are historical precedents for all of these trends – precedents which have been established for generations in many cases, way before the corona virus was a gleam in the eye of some germ warfare developer in Wuhan. Each side understands perfectly well what their respective positions represent, and therefore why they are worth fighting for. On the one side you have the “basket” (Hillary's word) containing, to a greater or lesser degree, all of the following:

• Lockdowns, shutdowns, prohibitions, fines, arrests
• Ramped-up surveillance
• Letting the wrong people out of jail and keeping the wrong people in jail
• Open borders in complete defiance of common sense and any of the traditional rules as to how to handle epidemics
• A police state
• Authoritarianism
• Totalitarianism
• No personal privacy for the individual or for non-victim groups
• Conventional medicine (and suppressing alternatives)
• Globalism
• Economical dictatorship and top-down control (traditionally known as a “command economy”)
• Treating the public like retarded, helpless children
• Class consciousness, expressed especially in despising rural and small-town people (men of the soil in “flyover country”)
• A ruling elite and their minions in the bureaucracy
• Liberals/progressives/Democrats
• Trump haters
• Democratic socialists
• Anti-religion
• Anti-tradition
• Anti-family
• Accusations of “hate” and “fascism”
• Deference to large, international corporations
• Deference to the mainstream media
• Censorship by the mainstream media and social media
• Deference to academia, “science”, and “experts”

Quite a mixed bag, right? But if you take it point by point it seems like the Soviet Union has come back to life with a vengeance. But then there's the other basket – the one Hillary was actually talking about, and which she vowed to oppose with every ounce of her being, and annihilate if possible:

• Individual freedom
• Small business
• Alternative medicine, and alternative points of view regarding the current crisis
• Treating people as adults
• Paleoconservatives and libertarians
• Nationalism
• Churchgoers
• Pro-Trumpers
• Skepticism re: the media, “entertainment”, academia
• Skepticism re: the claims of “science” and “experts” (especially when the story keeps changing on a daily basis)
• A newfound, or increased, interest in localism, especially when it comes to food
• Grass-roots economic activity
• Community spirit and mutual aid “off the grid”, including barter
• Integrity of borders, and actual requirements for immigration and citizenship (and voting, and benefits)
• The rule of law (when the law is not arbitrary and just a way of one gang exerting dominance over another)

That sounds a bit more like America in the 19^th Century. And please note who is left out of this equation, at least for now – the mainstream Republicans, who can't seem to make up their minds which team they're on. And this, of course, is due to their chronic ambivalence regarding Donald Trump, which I won't bother to detail here. They've been dithering about this for nearly five years now, and still haven't come up with anything. 

So, the question is – as the old union organizers' song put it – which side are you on? And I don't blame anybody for being uncertain. We are being challenged in ways unique to our entire history as a nation and society. It's easy to be complacent when times are good – but now we're getting a taste of how things have been for the mass of humanity down through history, and for a considerable portion even in this day (think Third World). And yet people did find a way, and found time to sit under their own vine and fig tree, even if when they went out into the world death lurked around every corner. This may, in fact, be a kind of awakening for all of us (not to be confused with “wokeness”, which is simply the latest form of opiate foisted upon the citizenry). Other crises have offered this benefit as well, although not everyone has taken up the offer. Our search for adventure is always in conflict with our desire for peace and quiet. Right now there is no peace and no quiet – and the hallowed “rule of law” has taken on a much darker tone. But there are opportunities here to find new strengths within ourselves; let's not let them go to waste.