Pistol Pete at the not-OK Corral

Regarding the unsuccessful (so far) impeachment of Secretary Hegseth, I'm going to reiterate part of a previous post (Yes Kings! April 24) -- the one dealing with war powers. But first -- consider that war powers are reserved for, and limited to, the president. No one in the cabinet, or anywhere else in the administration, has the right to initiate or continue hostilities -- not that they don't occasionally assume that right, but unless it's on direct orders from the president they are acting in an unconstitutional (and possibly illegal) manner. In Hegseth's case, I'm pretty certain that anything he did in this area was the response to a direct order from Trump. So logically, the people in Congress who want to impeach Hegseth should be impeaching Trump -- so why aren't they? Perhaps they figured that Hegseth was an easier mark. Perhaps they figured that if impeached, Hegseth would become a burden on the administration and wind up being fired. But even that would hardly change things when it comes to the exercise of war powers. Trump would just put someone else in his place and carry on.

Or -- maybe it's just symbolic... just theater... just a shot off Trump's bow. And that would make a kind of sense. But at this point, Trump has no reason, as far as I can tell, not to keep Hegseth in place, and every reason to defend him as needed, since he (Hegseth) was, presumably, only following orders (hmmm... where have we heard that before?).

So here's the excerpt re: war powers:

When it comes to war – armed conflict between the US and other countries – the president, as commander in chief, seems to have dictatorial powers.

Ah, but wait! – you might say. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Right? Very true. So... when's the last time Congress actually declared war? The answer is... 1942. So... what were all of those other wars we've fought since then? Well... some were what were euphemistically called “police actions”, some were based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions, some on “Joint Resolutions” or just “Resolutions”. This is the triumph of euphemism. If our troops are dying, and our resources are being squandered, it's a war, no matter what you call it.

But wait! Doesn't Congress have “the power of the purse”? Well... technically yes. But, #1, they can always be intimidated into releasing more funding for pretty much any war the president decides to engage in, especially if a negative vote would put their re-election chances in danger. And if not that, then we have what are called fungible resources. The president can divert funds from pretty much any government program into another, including the military. And besides, our national economy has been on a wartime footing since World War II. There was never a “peace dividend” – that's a myth. We have been prepared for war for over 80 years now. The troops have been in place, the weapons and ammunition were always on hand (and updated on a regular basis), the logistics were ready... all that was required was the green light from the White House. (The last war that took us any amount of time to “gear up” for was World War II. Lesson learned! Always be ready, because a war might start tomorrow.) (This is what the Pentagon calls “readiness”.)

(End of excerpt)

So, bottom line -- there really isn't one right now. But it's clear that the Democrats -- and the DSA wing, which is the one that has actual blood in their veins -- is warming up for the main event, which is countless impeachments, hearings, lawsuits, and so on, starting in earnest in January. The notion, of course, is to render Trump a lame duck (except for war!) for his remaining two years in office, and then to march to overwhelming victory in November of 2028. But hey, a lot can happen in two months, and even more in four years. So it's a bit early for victory parades. But the most concentrated energy is clearly on the DSA side, and they can't wait to get the old guard (Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, the Clintons, et al) out of the way. Because, you see, they have a vision -- an answer to what's wrong with America! (And socialism really does work when it's done right!) But wait, didn't Trump have a vision and an answer, and isn't that what MAGA was all about? No wonder if the American public is feeling a bit whiplashed at this point.

The problem is -- as I've said many times -- we are, and always have been, a nation of ideas -- of concepts and ideals, of visions -- as opposed to eternal verities like race, ethnicity, religion, language, and the perennial struggle for power, property, gold, and suchlike (AKA human nature) -- things that have characterized pretty much every society down through history, up to the present day. Most societies -- states, nations, empires -- have been satisfied with those ordinary and all-too-human values and priorities. But not us! Our history is characterized, more than anything else, by what is called, in calmer times, a marketplace of ideas, but which is, at present, a _war_ of ideas. But this is our heritage, and we have to live with it, for good or ill. No one's going to stand up and say "Let's forget about ideas, and just live like normal people." Nope. Ain't gonna happen. So basically, doing away with ideas is an idea no one likes. And if we even seem to be suicidal at times -- in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, the national debt, and so on, it's all part of the 250-year-long pendulum swing that is America.

The Epstein Curse

 

It appears that the Epstein affair could turn out to be one of the biggest political scandals of our time, or even in the entire history of the Republic. Time will tell, but I put it way ahead of Watergate, for example. Now, I call it a “political” scandal not because it is entirely political – people from many walks of life (all at the top of whatever walk it is) have been caught in the web – but it is political because (1) so many of the names on the list are politicians or are heavily involved in politics, and (2) it has generated not only a war of words (and legislation) between the parties, but has also (3) created a major fault line running right through the MAGA movement – one that is unlikely to be fixed by any action of the administration, and which may have a major impact on the mid-term elections and beyond. In other words, it's too late to do the right thing; all that remains is to keep from doing too many wrong things. The administration claims that it can't win when it comes to dealing with the opposition, and this is true. The challenge is to cut losses, and who is wise enough to know what that would entail?

As for that list – which keeps getting larger each day – what is striking is that it pretty much represents a “who's who” of the ruling elite, regardless of political affiliation. So while it's heavily weighted on the political side, other demographics are amply represented – entertainment, the media, sports, business, banking, even royalty (in Price Andrew's case – he being the only one besides Ghislaine Maxwell who has suffered any serious consequences, which is interesting in itself).

Questions abound, and they are unlikely to be answered by any further release of information by the courts or the Justice Department (especially if heavily redacted, which is likely). Things like: (1) What was Epstein's game, anyway? What was his mission? What was he really trying to do, and why? (2) Where did all of his money come from? (Don't say “consulting” – that's a cover story if there ever was one.) (3) If he was as unsavory a character as he seems to have been, why did all these A-list people choose to associate with him, like so many groupies? Why the plane rides to and from his island? Why the parties at his many mansions? And, what did he have on so many of these people? (Whatever it was, it keeps them quiet to this day.)

And of course, the question that kicked the whole thing off – how did he die, and why? (Unless he didn't die but is living on some isolated island along with Hitler, JFK, and Jimmy Hoffa.) In this sense, the whole affair is red meat for conspiracy theorists. If he was engaged in blackmail and/or extortion, for example, how many people would have benefited from his demise? I'm guessing a few hundred. So are they all going to be ushered into a police lineup? Doesn't seem likely, but it would be amusing, you must admit.

If Epstein was a mysterious figure when he was at the top of his game, the mystery has only deepened since his death. And for that matter, if he was that powerful and had that many powerful friends/cronies/associates/clients, why did he get arrested in the first place? People at that level can “fix” just about anything. And how did he wind up in jail? No self-respecting blackmailer or extortionist is going to let that happen. Clearly, his empire imploded for some reason, but then the question is why? Did it get out of his control? Were there too many leaks (including, perhaps, deathbed confessions)? Did he outlive his usefulness? (Surely you don't believe that he was a one-man show like Hugh Hefner!)

Then you have the dithering, awkward, ambivalent, backtracking approach of the Justice Department to the whole thing. One day they want to get to the bottom of it all, the next day they're not so sure. The rationales make no sense... and the Democrats, predictably, jumped all over it, hoping that – at long last! – they've found the silver bullet that will bring down Trump, his administration, MAGA, the Republican Party, and... but hold on, now it turns out that The List also includes any number of Democrats, liberals, and their friends in the media and elsewhere, so they have their own reasons for wanting the whole thing to go away, but apparently hurting Trump is more important, so they're on the side of full release and “transparency”, at least so far.

But then you have the courts, and whose side are they on? (Because the courts are always on one side or the other, let's not kid ourselves.) So they're embroiled in the politics of the thing as well. Who gets more hurt if certain information is released? It's a gigantic cost/benefit problem. The courts – or so it seems – are generally on the side of the Democrats and liberals in general. So how do they work it so that any release of information inflicts maximum damage on Trump and minimum damage on the Democrats?

(Sidebar: The notion of justice being “blind” is a perennial case of naive optimism. While justice as a concept or principle may be “blind” in the abstract, it is anything but when it encounters human nature, which very readily tends toward corruption. And unfortunately the legal system is populated with, by and large, human beings – although one might fantasize that AI could replace them some day, thus enhancing the blindness factor – except that blandness might then replace blindness. So what we wind up with is what the media refer to as “Obama judges”, “Bush judges”, “Clinton judges”, “Biden judges”, “Trump judges”, and so on – right up to and including the Supreme Court. How one achieves balance, fairness, and true justice under these conditions is beyond me.)

But to return to the legislative branch – we have a sharp divide, with what appears to be “release it all, and let the chips fall where they may” (AKA the Democrats have more to fear – but also because some legislators actually feel that the victims deserve justice), and the more cautious voices, who fear (and rightly so) that more information is going to raise even more questions. It's all about whose ox is getting gored, as the old saying goes.

Like any good conspiracy, when you dig too deep you eventually run into what has been called a “wall of silence” – where nobody knows anything, or if they do they aren't telling, for reasons only they know. The evidence that this has already occurred, at least to some extent, is the Justice Department's awkward handling of the matter from the start. It's as if they were, at first, barking up the wrong tree (which means the right tree), so had to switch to the right tree (which means the wrong tree, i.e. the dead end). So they will, at this point, claim due diligence, and blame the courts for scuttling the operation, while countless people up and down the fruited plain will heave a great sigh of relief. No heads will roll, no one will be ruined or “cancelled”, the whole thing will be cast into the memory hole until, probably a generation from now as happened with JFK, it will be claimed that “now it can be told” (once all of the guilty parties are dead). Twas ever thus. But still, it's amusing to see all of the scuffling and avoidance of the real issues.

The Epstein mystery is a mile deep. It's not just about a few jaded or naive or star-struck rich and powerful people seeking pleasures (forbidden or otherwise) along with others of their own kind. It is that, but it's much more. Were they all set up, and if so for what? How were they used, and by whom? And to what end? And did it work? Apparently it did, up to a point, but then Epstein fell out of favor. But why? Did he fail, or did someone decide to terminate (so to speak) that particular program? And if so, why? There will always be more questions than answers, because every answer generates more questions.

The more immediate question for the Republicans, and for the MAGA base, is how to repair the major fault line that this affair has created, and to do it in time to keep the midterm elections from being a disaster – and even more so the next presidential election. How ironic would it be if the Republicans, and the MAGA base, who were riding high after the election a year ago, would find themselves out in the cold thanks to a dead guy who was “the host with the most” for so many years. He's the gift that keeps on giving, but not in the way anyone welcomes.

A final thought – I guess it was about time for another earth-shaking conspiracy, since the JFK assassination has gotten to be pretty much old news by now (and the establishment is of one voice in that the matter was long since settled, so let's move on). JFK's assassination at least united the country – somewhat, and for a while – but the Epstein affair has done just the opposite.

Why are the Democrats Supporting Nikki Haley and not Trump?

Question du jour – why are the Democrats (which includes the mainstream media) supporting Nikki Haley? I mean, they expect to win in November, right?  So why do they care who the Republican nominee is? Some of it can be attributed to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), which will always be with us... and of course they don't want Trump to have the “honor” of being nominated (for the 3^rd time) by the Republicans, even though they fear and despise the “MAGA terrorists”, i.e. Trump supporters within the Republican party (and those not in the party as well).

It's clear that they aren't playing the long game here. They're getting their jollies by piling on Trump and whoever consents to be his running mate (“I pity the fool...”), but think about this. If Haley winds up being the nominee – and the Dems are doing everything in their power to make certain that Trump can't be nominated – and then loses, the Republican party will survive (if only in the usual minority status). That is, the mainstream Republicans – the “acceptable opposition”, the ones who are always happy to “cross the aisle” and be second-class citizens to the Dems – will take over once and for all, with Trump and the MAGA crowd finally sent into exile and relegated to the ash heap of history.

That would be a perfectly acceptable outcome for the Democrats. Having the Republicans as a perpetual and obseqious minority – which they have been for much of the time in recent years – would feel like business as usual, and the so-called two-party system would survive, at least in theory.

But the Democrats don't want a two-party system – not really. In their heart of hearts, they want a one-party system on the Soviet model, i.e. no opposition at all, not even the acceptable kind. Nothing but unanimous votes in Congress (and eventually one TV network, one radio network, one newspaper (OK, the Soviets had 2)... not to mention, no elections!). So what is the best way to make this happen, or at least to get a head start? It would be to throw Haley under the bus and allow the Republicans to nominate Trump, and then see to it that he loses, at which point the Republicans (meaning all of them, even including the RINOs) could be declared dead and buried along with their MAGA minority.

Now, you might say that Trump and the Republicans lost in 2020, but recovered – and this in spite of the fact that he was the sitting president at the time, and it's rare for a sitting president to be defeated for a second term. But the Democrats and their allies in the media and elsewhere will, by November, have had 4 more years to not only continue to brand Trump as Hitler Incarnate, but also to brand his followers as terrorists and put many of them in jail (and him as well, perhaps) – this process being well under way right now, and proceeding at warp speed. “Our very democracy is at stake!” – cry the mainstream media with one voice.

So the contrasts are much more stark now than in 2020 or 2016 – and this is mainly because the Democrats and the media have declared this to be the case. So the strategy of supporting Haley makes sense in the short run, but in the long run the Dems would be better off if Trump ran again and lost, because from then on the Republicans would be required to hang their heads in shame (for “putting us through this again”) and be paraded around wearing dunce caps by the Red Guard, and be reduced to a bunch of vaporous ghosts (think of 100 Mitch McConnells) wandering aimlessly around Washington while the Democrats establish a people's republic.

(PS – the Dems show no signs of wanting to push Biden aside (or Harris either), despite rumors to that effect. A president who is content to follow orders and read, even if haltingly, from scripts, and a vice president who is satisfied with a portfolio of sinecures, is exactly what they want; it has worked for three years, and it will work for one plus four more.)

(And BTW, Nikki Haley is playing her own game here. She's staying in the race, at least in part (in my opinion) because she expects the Dems/media/courts to take Trump out well before the election, at which point she'll be the last, um, person standing. That's the short game. The medium game would be for her to save a lot of time and money by dropping out now – or at least appearing to – and then wait for Trump to be neutralized, at which point she can come back on stage and save the day like Mighty Mouse.)

It's going to be very interesting to see how these various games intersect over the next few months. In fact, the mainstream (non-MAGA) Republicans may even decide to nominate Trump (assuming he hasn't been disqualified) for the same reason that the Dems would favor this – to insure his defeat, and thus the resounding defeat of the MAGA wing, thus leaving the mainstream unchallenged in their slouch toward obscurity. I'm not sure if they're capable of this kind of subtlety – they are called “the stupid party”, after all – but it would certainly win them friends on the other side – or let's say enemies disguised as friends.

What's Romney's Game?

Mitt Romney is an empty suit in some respects, but he's not stupid. When he says that “...the polls show that among the names being floated as potential contenders in 2024, if you put President Trump in there among Republicans, he wins in a landslide”, people sit up and take notice – especially when you consider that Romney was one of the more visible and active never-Trumpers all during the Trump administration (and, for that matter, in the run-up to the 2016 election). He did all he could to thwart Trump's programs and initiatives, and to encourage (or shame) other Republicans into doing likewise. In the Pantheon of RINO never-Trumpers he would be placed just below John McCain. Surely Trump running again in 2024 can't be on Romney's wish list – so why even bring it up if it encourages Trump supporters, who remain extremely loyal?

There's a strategy involved here, and I think it involves cutting to the chase and thereby scaring the crap out of not only the Democrats but also of the Republican mainstream. If anyone out there really thinks that Trump might possibly, conceivably, in their worst nightmare, run again, they will immediately start to build walls and fortifications, and make plans to pull every trick in the book to nip the idea in the bud – and this applies to both parties.

There are problems, however, with Romney's statement. For starters, it's based on a number of premises:

1. That there will even be a presidential election in 2024. Lest we forget, certain members of the left wing of the Democratic Party, along with left-wingers in general, have suggested that we do away with presidential elections altogether. Some will add “and the office of president”, but others will agree to keeping the office but selecting its occupant by committee – made up, of course, of members of the ruling elite, i.e. the top layer of the left-wing pecking order and its facilitators in high tech and among the globalists. (Certain, ahem, overseas entities might be involved as well, for that matter.) Admittedly, one might ask how is this significantly different from what we have now, where there are only two parties in contention (some would say just one, the “uniparty”, and that the rivalry is about as authentic as what goes on in professional wrestling) and where the candidates are selected by the ruling elite and presented to the hapless public for its approval. The difference is that it would actually be more honest in that it would eliminate the pretense of elections representing “the will of the people”. (And by the way, selection by the ruling elite is true of both parties, despite the occasional populist noises made by subgroups. Trump's problem was that he wasn't on the A list; in fact he wasn't on any list at all, and that was his major offense – the hair and the orangeness were just added to provide visuals for the media.)

2. That the Republican Party will still be functioning in 2024. Right now it is defeated, browbeaten, and being ground into fine powder by Democrat majorities in Congress. The party that thought it was used to standing by helplessly while the engines of government ground on didn't know what helplessness really was until now. When Trump spoke at CPAC he vowed not to start a third party – much to the relief of the Republican mainstream! – but any notion that the conservative (pro-Trump or at least not anti-Trump) minority within the Republican Party is going to somehow take over and become dominant between now and 2024 is wishful thinking at best.

3. That Trump's base will still be intact in 2024. This seems like a safe bet, but it's important to remember that the Trump base and the Republican base are not the same thing. There is a correlation there, certainly, but I don't think the hard-core Trump supporter feels any loyalty to the Republican Party; in fact, I suspect that they see the Republican mainstream as part of the problem if not the actual enemy. If they had their way they'd throw the establishment Republicans to the dogs and start fresh (and the establishment knows this, which is why they're wasting no time distancing themselves from the “deplorables”).

4. That – even assuming that elections are held in 2024, and that the Republican Party hasn't yet been declared most sincerely dead – the primary system will still be in place. Remember the good old days of brokered conventions and smoke-filled rooms? They could come back (without the smoke, I suppose). If you get rid of the primaries, then you get rid of the means by which what little is left of the voice of the people can be expressed. All that is left is wheeling and dealing. So let's say that Trump runs and comes out ahead in the primaries – big trouble for the Republican mainstream which will do anything to keep 2016 and the following four years from ever happening again. One solution is to simply ignore the primaries and hold the convention as if they didn't exist. Another solution is to simply not hold primaries. Problem solved! And don't think the Republican hierarchy hasn't been thinking along these lines ever since 2016.

5. That loyal Trump supporters will still be willing and able to vote for him in primaries and in the general election. Even as we speak, people who vote Republican – or at least have done so in the last two elections – are being declared enemies of the state, and are being added to the watch lists of law enforcement and intelligence agencies based on the notion that they are potential “domestic terrorists”, or actual domestic terrorists by definition. The supposed factual basis for this is as follows: (1) Capitol riots on Jan 6: Trump supporters and no one else. And directed by Trump himself, i.e. no advance planning, to say nothing of spontaneity. (2) Capitol riots were an insurrection and a case of domestic terrorism. (3) And they were also an expression of white supremacy and racism. (4) Therefore, all Trump supporters are insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, white supremacists, and racists. (5) Therefore, anyone who voted for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 is all the above. (6) Therefore, the biggest threat to our national security (and the Biden administration has as much as said this) is Trump supporters and anyone who ever voted for Trump or who would again – which, at last estimate, numbers around 74+ million people, or nearly 1/3 of the adult population of the country. Where will those people be in three years? Will they be able to vote as they like without fear of reprisal, or will a new and improved method of voter suppression have done its work?

Now, I say these are premises, and they are unspoken but may be assumed based on Mitt Romney's statement. Unless he's playing a game here, with the goal of actually rendering some or all of these premises null and void – i.e. of speeding up the process that is already underway of morphing the U.S. from a democracy to a pseudo-democracy to a “people's republic”. And of course, because he is who he is, he will expect to be thanked for this warning by both the Republican mainstream and the Democrats – as if they needed any reminding! We've already seen the Democrats up their game by a quantum leap between 2016 and 2020, and put measures in place (with more on the way -- see H.R. 1) to insure that they will enjoy a perpetual hold on the presidency and Congress. And if, by the same token, the Republicans have been relegated to perpetual irrelevancy, why does Mitt bother? Chances are he hasn't really faced the facts quite yet – and given the overwhelming nature of the facts, chances are he never will.

But there's another angle to all of this. If Trump gives it another try, and the Republicans absolutely refuse to cooperate on any level, who are they going to nominate? Certainly not any true conservative, and absolutely not anyone who supported Trump in the slightest degree during his term in office, or voted for any of his Supreme Court picks, or voted against one or both of his impeachments. No, it will be the usual shopworn loser formula – nominate a moderate... someone who can “reach across the aisle”... someone who is perfectly at home with the Democratic agenda... someone who will be happy to identify as the anti-Trump... and someone who, in case of the inevitable loss, will not be a sore loser but will be gracious in defeat. The envelope, please – Mitt Romney!

So yes, by sounding the alarm regarding Trump's possible return to the political stage, Mitt is hoping to keep that from ever happening by enlisting the cooperation of both the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats. And then, given a dizzying array of “ifs” of various probabilities (which, if multiplied together, produce a joint probability not significantly different from zero), Mitt might just squeeze his way into the White House.

Well, dream on, Mitt – you tried it once and got ground up in the Obama machine, and guess what, the Biden machine is much more powerful and invincible, and adding to its power and reach with each passing day. (I say “Biden machine” but that's just shorthand for “Biden or Harris or whoever else the Democrats nominate in 2024”.) And, you think you represent the Republican mainstream, but I don't think you do, not with your obvious and often-demonstrated RINO vibes. The real Republican mainstream consists of those gray ghosts who wander the halls of the Capitol, kowtowing to the Democrats, apologizing for not being more “compassionate”, being good (and grateful) losers, and on those rare occasions when they win, not knowing what to do next. You can become one of them, which is a certain recipe for obscurity, or you can stick with your RINO/never-Trumper minority within a minority party and be (or remain) a hero of sorts to the Democrats and the media before you are relegated to obscurity anyway. But at least you've planted the seeds of fear (as if any more were needed) in the fevered brains of both parties, and they may come around to thanking you for the favor just before they give you a gold watch (a Chinese knock-off, actually) and a bus ticket out of town.

Obama's Fourth Term

 

Regardless of any last-minute official reports that may or may not come out in the next few hours (and it's doubtful there will be any, given that the Trump administration is sinking faster than the Titanic, with people at all levels bailing out like the proverbial rats deserting a sinking ship), there are some things that are now plain to see, and that will define the Trump presidency and this era to a significant degree.

And of these, perhaps the most striking is the role Barack Obama has played in all of this – starting on or about the day Donald Trump took that fabled escalator ride (down rather than up, and that's enough for a metaphor right there). Whether or not Obama was inspired by Hillary Clinton's custom-made Russia hoax is one question, i.e. would he have initiated a full-scale sabotage operation directed at Trump if it hadn't been for the tall tale of Trump's collusion with Russia? What I suspect is that he was already thinking seriously about the matter, and about strategy, but that the Russia hoax story was like unto a gift from above; it was tossed into his lap, and at that point he decided to go full-bore with the operation. And of course Hillary was out of office at that point, and technically a private citizen, so she could not readily call upon, and mobilize, the forces of the Deep State, and in particular the FBI and the Justice Department, the way Obama could.

But really, how badly did Obama want to render the 2016 election of Donald Trump null and void, and thus propel Hillary into her rightful place as Empress of America, of the Known World, and of the Universe in General? Did he really want her to succeed wherever he had failed? (Did he want her to turn Obamacare back into Hillarycare, for example?) What I suspect is that he knew the Russia hoax was, indeed, a hoax and that it would be exposed as such sooner or later – but that in the meantime it would serve to distract and hobble Trump and his administration, and any and all of his initiatives, both domestic and foreign, for, ideally, his entire term or the bulk thereof – which is, in fact, precisely what it did. And the instant the Russia hoax ran out of steam the impeachment (#1) went into high gear – seamlessly, with nary a bump in the road. In other words, turning Trump into an instant lame duck was more important than any sort of considerations for Hillary's health and well-being, so she was reduced to years of book tours and raving and ranting to anyone who would listen about how she'd been cheated (she being an expert in that area, as we know), while Obama proceeded to pursue more important long-range goals.

There's another nuance to all of this – subtle, I admit – speculative – but “what if?” We've seen how easy it is for an election to be hijacked if people have sufficient determination and the proper infrastructure. So what went wrong in 2016? And yeah, I know, they didn't have mail-in voting then, and maybe the voting machines were less hackable. But still – you'd think with all their resources the Dems could have pulled it off. Unless – and here's Obama playing the long game – he decided to let her get defeated. And why would he do that? Well, he knew who she was running against. Now, if she had won, Donald Trump would have been jettisoned off the political stage once and for all – a real one-hit wonder. Which means that the mainline Republicans would have remained in charge of their party and would have been ready to mount a campaign in 2020 with a “back to normalcy” theme that would have taken advantage of what would likely have been a disastrous four years of Hillary Clinton. And they might have won, and we'd be right back in the Bush era (maybe even with another Bush!). And Obama would have to finally retire from his position of influence in Washington. But! Allow Trump to win and then mount a campaign against him that rivals the Normandy invasion, and you can put the Republican Party in a permanent state of exile, and thus assure the Democrats perpetual rule. And this, course, is precisely what has happened. The good ship Trump is heading for the briny deep, and so is the Republican Party, at least on the national level – whether or not any of its members were on Trump's side. They will all be painted with the same brush. The Trump administration will be the bloody shirt that the Dems will wave in the air every time the Republicans start to show any signs of life; the Republican Party will be about as popular as the Confederacy. Mission accomplished! And if this is how it was played, you would have to admire Obama's political brilliance and insight.

But in any case, do you really think that once Obama helped get this whole Russia collusion process rolling he was going to just walk away and leave it to his minions? Get real. I'll bet he was right on top of this the whole time – overseeing, directing, prioritizing, providing guidance... not unlike the commander of a military operation. He had to make sure it stayed on track and paved the way for not only Trump's fall, but also that of the Republicans – not just in the 2020 election but in perpetuity. (His role came most prominently to the surface during the Democratic primaries, which I'll discuss in a minute. But it's not like he swooped down like a bird of prey that once time, and left things to take their course the rest of the time.)

(At this point you might say, wait a minute, the Mueller investigation was initiated during the Trump administration. Well yes, barely – but the groundwork had already been laid, and the investigation was staffed entirely by what were termed “angry Democrats”, so let's not quibble on that point. It was a Democratic operation from beginning to end.) (I used to think that if Trump ever tried to de-politicize the FBI he'd have to get down to at least the level of the third underassistant toilet paper replacement specialist in the J. Edgar Hoover Building.)

This all has to do with power, of course and as always – with the acquisition thereof and the perpetuation thereof. And Obama did have to leave the White House at a certain point, but that was a minor consideration since it seems very possible that he already, prior to leaving office, had assumed full authority over the Deep State and over its most powerful and influential elements. So, in effect, there would have been no real “transition” between the Obama administration and the Trump administration – the Obama administration hardly giving up a thing but continuing as before, but as a shadow government, and it was actually greater in number by far, in terms of people who were loyal to Obama and willing to follow his directives, than the administration of Donald Trump, where the most he could ever claim were the few appointees at the top of each pyramid. According to this theory, Obama had, all the time Trump was in the White House, his own bureaucracy, his own intelligence apparatus, and his own foreign policy. He certainly had sufficient appointees and friends in all the right departments; we know this from all the characters who came out of the woodwork to testify at the impeachment hearings. (And by the way, if there was no real transition in 2017, there was no need for one this time either, and all of the Democrats' whining about the Trump administration dragging its feet was mere show.)

So what does this all add up to? For starters, consider the possibility that Obama, for the first time in history as an ex-president, didn't give up any real power. In fact, he didn't even leave town! He just moved from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue not even a mile up the hill to a mansion in Kalorama – the new seat of government, in effect, until the Democrats could reclaim what was rightfully theirs. So Trump started out with a White House full of loyalists (but not all, as it turns out) and appointees scattered around D.C. as figureheads of various departments, agencies, and offices, and a handful of supporters in Congress, and his solid base among the citizenry – i.e. those who voted for him – but that was about it. “Draining the Swamp” does not come under the heading of “promises made, promises kept”. It couldn't, and it can't. You might as well try and levitate the Great Pyramid and plunk it down in the middle of Kansas.

So the next four years for Trump were an unending struggle to get the bureaucracy to cooperate – or even to appear to cooperate – or to at least not actively and blatantly resist and refuse to follow orders. And this was on top of unending challenges from Congress and the judiciary. Truly, it's a miracle the slightest thing got done in all that time.

So where do we go from here? Who's going to be in charge as of noon tomorrow? Joe Biden? The very thought is enough to inspire scoffing and derision. Bookmakers have already been taking bets on how long he'll last. Oh, you say that if Old Uncle Joe falters and is “25th'ed” Kamala Harris will take command? Sorry about that, but she's a figurehead too. I mean, think about it for a moment. For starters, who called in all of the Democratic contenders for the presidency at some point in the primaries – i.e. all the ones who had the vaguest hope of coming out on top? We know who, and it might have been a scene right out of Hollywood -- Don Barraco, capo di tuti capi, calling them, one by one, into his dimly-lit office and making them an offer they couldn't refuse. “This ain't your night, kid”, or words to that effect. All, of course, except for Uncle Joe, who, as it turned out, had been anointed all along. If only the rest of them had known, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (not to mention money, like in Mike Bloomberg's case).

But what about Kamala Harris? She never lost a primary because she never entered one. (Smart move.) Was she promised the VP slot by Mr. Big way back then? Who knows? One thing is clear – she was, at a certain point, chosen, and certainly not by Uncle Joe. But why her, out of all the countless possibilities? Number one, and most obviously – her “diversity” qualifications, which are overwhelming. It's hard to find a minority she doesn't belong to. And she is a hard leftist, just a bit less noisy than The Squad. But most importantly, if Obama made her he can break her, so she has to follow orders. If she is directed to bow to, and play along with, The Squad, she will. If she's directed to tell them to stuff it, she will. Because she can be replaced.

What I'm saying is that she's a younger and flashier sock puppet than Uncle Joe, but is a sock puppet nonetheless. The Anointed One may still be in charge. So what we will be witnessing tomorrow may well be, in effect, the start of Barack Obama's fourth term as president, at which point he will be tied with Franklin Roosevelt, but hey – ties were meant to be broken, right? If the Republicans are permanent dead meat on the federal level, what's to prevent Obama from being president for life? But that would be in the tradition of guys like Stalin, Mao, Putin, Kim, Duvalier, Mugabe, and other sterling characters, so he might want to think again. But perhaps, now that democracy has been tried and found wanting, we are about to enter another age of the Strong Man – or, more accurately, return to it, thoroughly chastened, after a brief hiatus.

Normalcy at All Costs !

 

I call it “the Stop the Madness Vote”, and I think it's real. What it means in the case of the recent – and still disputed -- election is that a certain portion of the populace will cast a vote neither pro nor con a given candidate, but merely in the hope that it will help things to return to normal (however defined). After all, the citizenry has, for four-plus years now, been exposed to a level of political and social warfare that, for sheer viciousness and chaos, rivals anything most of them have experienced in a “real” war. Granted, there haven't been that many fatalities or serious injuries directly attributable to the conflict, but the citizenry are fatigued... exhausted... rubbed raw... and have been forced to live in a world where every conceivable thing (and some inconceivable things) have been totally politicized. We've been living in a crucible for over four years now. Economies on all levels save the very top layer have been shattered using the corona virus as an excuse. Innumerable relationships, even within families, have been strained or even broken... and the degree of mutual suspicion, hostility, and alienation among the citizenry has reached a level comparable to that in totalitarian societies. This was not the way we were meant to live in what is supposedly a free and open society; it's more like the atmosphere of the proverbial banana republic, where there is a coup or revolution every few weeks, and the sounds of marching boots and gunfire are always to be heard.

The forces and entities that have created this dystopian/nightmare world for us are many, and represent many motivations and agendas, which can be debated at another time. What I suspect is that the average voter, being an average citizen who simply wants to be allowed to live a simple, ordinary life without having to put up with a constant drumbeat of politics that he has no choice but to listen to... that person may eventually decide to vote not for a given candidate, or against a given candidate, but simply for whomever they think is most likely to return things to normal. They don't even have to agree with their platform or stated positions! In fact, they might find them distasteful. But the motivation to remove politics from everyday life – from something requiring 24/7 attention, and from which there is no escape – and go back to something that is confined to what used to be termed “election season” before the unending campaign era started has to be strong and compelling.

For example, a vote for Trump in November would have required a commitment, or at least a willingness to put up with, four more years of what has been going on for four-plus years already. (I detailed this in a recent post: https://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2020/07/4-more-years-really.html) Now, for a certain type of person this sort of thing is the ideal – pure red meat – crack cocaine. It's the way they want to live, and the way they expect others to live as well. Call them political junkies, swamp creatures, Deep State denizens, whatever – they thrive on battle, warfare, intrigue, and double-dealing, and cannot imagine life being any other way if it is to be satisfying and fulfilling. A good example of this personality type is “The Squad” which occupies the very tip of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But other Democrats are energized in a similar fashion, and even some Republicans – although the latter, being conservative by nature if not always by practice, would rather life was more like that depicted in certain classic TV shows like “Mayberry R.F.D.” The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to prefer an environment more akin to “Animal House” – at least the anarchistic part, which eventually leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. And because we are in an age of revolution, the Democratic world view is naturally the dominant one, and the one that appeals to perhaps not the majority of the populace but to enough of them that they are willing to vote for The Squad and their facilitators (and those who are afraid of getting on their wrong side, like a certain president-elect).

But we're talking about large segments of the voting populace here, and the Stop the Madness Vote would apply to a minority – and yet an important one, the way the “swing” or “independent” vote is always much sought after by both parties. These voters would have consisted mainly of people who might have voted for Trump in 2016, or for a third party candidate, or who had just sat out the election. This time around, they did not sit it out, but they didn't vote for Trump either. They might have voted third party, but more likely they would have voted for Biden (with noses firmly held) just to bring America's very own domestic perpetual war to an end.

But in this they would have been mistaken, since once Biden is ensconced and the powers behind his throne take over, the real war begins – or, more accurately, the war on the middle class and on “American values” that has been gaining momentum for decades finally enters the consolidation stage, in which all who resist are hunted down and neutralized. (This process has already been announced, when it comes to members of the Trump administration and its supporters, by various and sundry Democrats and their facilitators in the media. But you can expect it to extend to broader horizons as well.) This will be a bigger war, and have more dire effects on the citizenry, than anything that has occurred over the previous five years, and will almost make them yearn for the “good old days” when all they had to worry about was Trump's collusion with Russia, Trump's racism/sexism/xenophobia, Trump's grounds for impeachment, Trump's hair and necktie and skin, etc. and the reaction of the opposition or resistance to all of these. We have seen what the opposition is capable of – all the masks have been taken off and discarded, and the agenda is completely out in the open for, perhaps, the first time in our history. And once Trump is out of the way will there be “peace in the valley”? Au contraire! The same people who have been waging all-out war on Trump will turn their sights on the citizenry – especially the middle class – especially anyone suspected of having “conservative” or “reactionary” tendencies. And they have plenty of models to choose from, from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia to Maoism in China. The major – and remarkable – difference is that this time the revolution has the full support of the ruling elite... the money class. So it will be both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum against the middle. (Advice: Figure out some way to get either very rich or extremely poor before it's too late.)

But really, hasn't this always been the dream of totalitarians the world over? Create a two-class society with a ruling elite (i.e., them) and a vast horde of faceless serfs (i.e., the rest of us), with no one in between? This is precisely what's happening in the economy right now. It's no coincidence, and no accident. And the corona pandemic is not to blame; it just served to accelerate the process by providing an excuse for totalitarian diktats. And don't expect the dismal history of various attempts to accomplish this to discourage anyone; this is, after all, a war of ideas, and actual material consequences are of little interest.

So yes, the Stop the Madness Vote may have helped take Trump down and set Biden up – but whatever it is they thought they were doing thereby may turn to crushing disappointment. But don't expect them to stand up and apologize in public; that would not be “normal”.

The Inflection Point

My previous post (The Blight at the End of the Tunnel, Aug. 12) included some thoughts on revolution in general, as well as how the idea of revolution can be applied to the American experience. One could, in fact, contend that -- starting with the American Revolution -- we have been a revolutionary society all along, the process having proceeded at different speeds and with different degrees of intensity, and with a focus on different aspects of life and culture, but never actually pausing for very long. I referred to the 1950s as a period of a predictable turn toward conservatism, and in fact the 1920s were as well – both post-war times, note, and perhaps reflecting an unconscious need on the part of the citizenry to reassert tradition, normalcy, and predictability. (Note that Warren Harding's campaign slogan in 1920 was “Return to Normalcy”.) But at the same time, these two “conservative” episodes carried within them the seeds of what came after – the New Deal in one case and America's own cultural revolution in the other. And I think part of this is simply the fact that Americans are never satisfied; dissatisfaction and restlessness are hard-wired in the American genome. In times of war we long for peace, and in times of peace we long for war – or, at the very least, some sort of uproar. We're like cats who, when there's nothing around to chase, make up things in their head. Apparently our ideational beginnings gave rise to this, because, after all, Utopia is, by definition, a fantasy and is unobtainable, which means that on some level we are perpetually frustrated and are always looking for a new cure – a new enterprise or project that will either work magic and achieve the Utopia of our dreams, or constitute enough of a distraction that we'll forget about Utopia for a while. And eventually this cycle of frustration and shattered dreams can lead to despair, and that, in turn, can lead to suicidal impulses – not so much for individuals as for the culture as a whole. We start to think that perhaps the answer is revolution, not evolution. Perhaps not only “creative destruction” but total destruction is the answer – and we are now seeing this attitude played out on the streets of our cities on a daily basis.

(I might note that we are always faulting the Europeans for being jaded and cynical. This may be true, but it does save them a lot of frustration and grief. Even the French Revolution, which was ideational in the extreme (they even changed the names of the months), soon devolved into an empire with an emperor. But we press on, and the rest of the world shakes its head just as it is doing now. “When are the Americans ever going to get over this 'saving the world' thing? It's so annoying...")

But can a nation really commit suicide? Well, empires certainly can, and the reasons are many. It can be based on pure fatigue or on loss of political will. It can be based on economics, as when an empire becomes more expensive to maintain than whatever monetary returns it provides. Or, maybe the natives (who are always restless) rise up and start killing people with bullet and sword, and throwing bombs and taking people hostage. It can be based on rising objections and protests on the home front, from both humanists and pragmatists. It can even result from a sense of shame – an awakening to the fact that empires invariably require brutality and exploitation (and no small amount of racism, either explicit or implicit), and are thus demoralizing not only for the occupiers but for people with a conscience on the home front.

But nations are not empires. Nations are – at least traditionally – much more coherent than empires. They are held together by traditions and loyalties, not only to the nation but to – once again – the “eternal verities” like race, ethnicity, religion, and family. So for a nation to allow itself to slip into chaos is a remarkable thing, and yet it happens – and in our time (by which I mean the modern era, socio-politically speaking, which began with the American and French Revolutions) it always happens primarily because of revolutionary ideas, not merely from material need. And as I said in the previous post, this country was especially vulnerable to the idea of revolution because it began with one. After all, once you've decided that the “eternal verities” – those things that have held societies together for all of recorded history – are no longer primary but are of secondary importance at best, then it becomes purely a war of ideas, and who is to say which ideas are better than any others? We talk about “democracy”, for example, as if it were some sort of rock-solid, monolithic principle of sociopolitical existence. But it's nothing of the sort. It is fragile, and indeed rare, in human history, and is not in all that good a state of health in our time either. All you have to do is reflect on the number of countries that – inspired (or coerced) by us – declared themselves democracies, formulated a constitution, and then with nary a pause turned back into dictatorships. Dictatorships, mind you, with constitutions that are completely ignored, and that mouth words about “human rights” at the U.N. (and even criticize us on that count) but could not care less at home.

It turns out that democracy, like some rare plant, needs the right soil in which to grow and flourish or it will fail. And that soil has a lot to do with national character, as I've pointed out on other occasions. The anglophone world seems democracy-prone, or at least not instinctively opposed to democracy. The Hispanic world is disposed to get all excited and enthused about democracy, and to stage a revolution or coup every five minutes in its pursuit, but when they get it they become disillusioned and turn to dictatorship instead (although fist fights breaking out in the legislature do make for interesting television). For Asians, democracy is nowhere to be found in their histories or traditions, and yet a few have tried it and succeeded, probably because they are cultures that are fairly uniform and strong on tradition, so democratic government, if it's a thin layer on top of what was already a healthy approach to governing, seems to be working, but it's really the national character that's doing the work. Africa? Well, tribalism has worked there from time immemorial, but when it's transplanted to nation-states (artificially created by the Europeans, not unlike what occurred in the Middle East) it turns monstrous and human catastrophes – up to and including genocide – occur. Then we have Eastern Europe, where democracy is also a new idea after centuries of kings, emperors, and czars, and – once again, based on national character – sometimes it takes, and sometime it doesn't. (Reflect on the fact that even communism, under the iron boot of the Soviet Union, had different characteristics in different Warsaw Pact countries. In Yugoslavia it was relatively relaxed, whereas in East Germany it was like a Fourth Reich.)

So yes, this novel idea that the ancient Greeks came up with (and the modern Greeks can't make work no matter how hard they try) went underground for centuries, then suddenly reared up out of the tomb as a result of the Renaissance and the Reformation, and was transplanted from philosophers' studies in Europe to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. And with this scant pedigree, it was declared an idea for the ages, and the answer to all human woes and longings.

So we know the Founders were already defying human nature. They would have none of this “fallen world” and “original sin” nonsense – man was free to create, and re-create, himself at will. And yes, there was skepticism even among the believers – but it was considered worth a try. A noble venture – and maybe we shouldn't complain if it took nearly 250 years to come a cropper. (Some will say that our dues-paying is overdue. But that may be a moot point at this point. The revolutionary genie is out of the bottle. He's big, bad, and ready to kick butt.)

The problem with history is that it's not like a video tape that you can put on rewind, do some cut-and-paste editing, and try again a different way. We have to live with whatever happens. Whether the American Experiment was a success depends on one's perspective – would things have been worse if we hadn't declared independence from “Old Blighty” and struck out on our own? I don't sense that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are suffering unduly. And they certainly don't have even 10% of the problems and crises that we suffer through all the time – and yes, they too are “nations of immigrants”. (But, and by the way, they never saw fit to pursue the mirage of empire, and that may, as much as anything else, be a reason for our current situation.) (“Canadian Empire”? It's all they can do to hold on to Quebec.)

All I know is that if you ask the average “man on the street” in, say, downtown Seattle, or Portland, or Minneapolis, or Chicago, or New York, they'll tell you that America sucks, and was a mistake from the beginning, and should be done away with. Quite a shocking verdict for what was supposed to be an experiment in building the ideal society.

So let us now turn back to revolution. Democracy has always been a revolutionary idea, and so has socialism, and so has communism – so it's easy to see how these are often confused in the fevered imaginings of “poly sci” professors and their students. If some power to the people is good, than all power to the people must be even better, right? The problem is that the more power is turned over to the people, the more likely it is that said power will be appropriated, organized, consolidated, supervised, and dominated by would-be dictators. Take a cue from language. “People's republics” are always dictatorships. “Republics” may or may not be, depending. A “democratic republic” is sliding in the direction of totalitarianism. A federal republic, on the other hand, is the most structurally resistant to tyranny simply because power is at once distributed among the populace but also concentrated at different levels in elected officials who are, ideally, answerable to the public. So we have a balance between the absolute tyranny of the tyrant and the more subtle tyranny of absolute, or pure, democracy. A perhaps cynical, but still accurate, way of putting this is that the ideal government is one of mutual distrust between the leadership and the citizenry, which necessitates checks and balances between the two, not to mention maximum transparency. (Throw in term limits if you like; I sure would.) So our conservative leadership frequently talks about “mob rule”, and populists talk about the “ruling elite” – and the thing is, they're both right. The difference is that mob rule has a short half-life; it is a political mayfly and is soon replaced by tyranny, whereas the ruling elite has staying power because they gradually take over all the instruments and means by which leaders are selected.

As I said, the concept of revolution, the very idea, is of relatively recent vintage, and I trace it to the American Revolution, which, in turn, inspired the French Revolution, although they had different results, to put it mildly. But what all revolutions have in common is that they aim to destroy the old system, root and branch, and replace it with something better – more humane, more compassionate, more fair, etc. – you know the drill. When it comes to the old system, they – to paraphrase Jesse Jackson – want to end it, not mend it. There are many other common elements, but this is the most important – it's the driver, the energizer, the sine qua non of revolution. But, having said that, it's also the case that revolutions come in two major types – revolution from below, and revolution from above.

It's revolution from below that constitutes the stereotype and which people find inspiring – the oppressed masses spontaneously rising up against the oppressors, storming the Bastille, leading kings and emperors to the gallows, and so on – all excellent movie material. Rag-tag revolutionaries waving red flags, setting up barricades, torching buildings, stealing from the bourgeoisie... hmm. It's starting to sound kind of familiar, isn't it?

But then what is revolution from above? In a sense, all revolutions are revolutions from above, because as I said in the previous post the oppressed masses are not theorists. They are not “idea people”, and they don't have a plan or a program. This is left up to the rabble-rousers and activists, and they, in turn, are the products of the universities and of the rarefied environment of radical political and economic thinking that is most readily found in shabby coffee houses in the bohemian sections of the city (or, more recently, in faculty lounges and seminar rooms). So the vector, the arrow, goes from the academe and intelligentsia directly to the people without being routed through the government as in the case of the New Deal.

But that's not what I'm referring to, and in that case “above” only refers to the educational/intellectual continuum. It's when political leaders themselves foment, aid, and abet revolutions – apparently against their own government and power structures – that the paradox comes out in bold relief. The New Deal was a revolutionary regime, in a sense, and it was shot through with communists, but I don't think its functionaries had total destruction on their minds – after all, where would that have left them? Even if they wanted the United States to become a people's republic, they expected to achieve this by means of evolution rather than revolution, and – most importantly – to keep their jobs. Another way of putting this is that the New Dealers had radical notions, but they were also pragmatic enough to know when to put on the brakes.

So revolution from above is the exception rather than the rule, without a doubt. And it is a much more recent phenomenon – so recent, in fact, that I would almost say it was invented by Chairman Mao. At a certain point, he had tremendous, but not yet total, power... he had long since taken over all of China... and yet he was dissatisfied. And he felt that reactionary elements were creeping in – vestiges of the old order, of tradition, of thinking other than his own – and he decided that to preserve, and further refine, the purity of the revolution, and solidify his power, he had to take steps. So he did what revolutionaries always do, or at least dream of doing: First, define a crisis – a problem that needs fixing – and then recruit, or assign, vast hordes of mostly youthful, but fanatically loyal, followers to stage demonstrations, close down universities, put their professors on trial for “reactionary tendencies”, and generally run amok throughout the country for years, hunting down the last vestiges of the old ways – traditions and symbols, art and literature, anything with a cultural stamp on it – and get rid of them. Thus, the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guard. And yes, on frequent occasions they would check back with the Great Leader for guidance, and hold massive rallies and parades (with the omnipresent accordions), and the rest of the time they had the Little Red Book of his thoughts, which they held in their iron grip the way a tent-revival evangelist holds the Bible.

It's a truly fascinating episode, and worth study because it's being re-enacted before our very eyes by Antifa and the militant wing of Black Lives Matter. And yet there are Chinese senior citizens today who wax nostalgic about that era, the way veterans of the Spanish Civil War wax nostalgic, or someone who was out on the street during the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, or even “Were you at Woodstock?” It was a youth movement, basically – but youth are seldom, if ever, self-guided. (I suspect that even the Children's Crusade of 1212 was overseen and manipulated by cynical adults.) Youth have energy, determination, idealism, and they are driven by emotion... and they are fair game for anyone who wants to exploit them for any reason. In the case of Antifa, we have a bunch of skulls totally empty of everything except cauldrons of frustration and rage. They are the ideal foot soldiers, but you don't want them sitting around the conference table – and forget about any invitations to Davos, Martha's Vineyard, or the Bohemian Grove.

Mao knew that the rising tide of chaos would never reach his level – and this is an important point, and extremely relevant to our current situation. It would reach, and engulf, the universities, and would help clean out the last vestiges of the old ways – the reactionaries – from the bureaucracy. And it would also help Mao solidify his grip on all cultural aspects of the country, particularly the ones that had traditional roots, like opera. Because if you erase culture and tradition, the citizenry become helpless, vulnerable, and dependent, like so many eggs without shells.

But here's the interesting part. Once the youthful masses had done their work – after the last parade, and after the big-character posters had started to weather and fade – the Red Guard was disbanded, and anyone who protested was dispatched by the People's Liberation Army with an efficiency that made liberals world-wide gasp in wonderment (and not a small amount of fear – if it happened to the Red Guard it could happen to them). In other words, the foot soldiers of the Cultural Revolution were not rewarded the way American Revolutionary War soldiers were with land “out west”. They weren't provided sinecures in government like so many of the Soviet bureaucrats (or those of the New Deal). They were simply eliminated, because they had served their purpose. They had, in a sense, imposed a “final solution” on bourgeois elements in society. China was now pure. It had workers and peasants (many of whom made a regular habit of starving to death) and the controlling elite – the two-class system which is the ideal of anyone with totalitarian dreams. Not only was the socioeconomic middle class gone (this had been accomplished years earlier) but middle class thinking and habits were also extinguished along with the traditions that middle-class people tend to “cling” to. Mao came out on top as supreme leader, and happily assumed life-and-death power over 800 million people. He thus became not only the most powerful man in Chinese history, but the most powerful man in world history as well. When Nixon paid him a visit in 1972 he was actually dating up.

If you have the time, I urge you to study the history of the Red Guard (you can start with Wiki – it's OK, I won't tell) and marvel at the parallels between them and Antifa and the militant BLM. And if history repeats itself even slightly, you can expect that, once our home-grown “anarchists” have done their work – i.e. destroying our urban centers so they can be “re-imagined” as centers of a Soviet-style system – they will be dismissed, and if they refuse to be dismissed they will be eliminated. (It's no accident that the Democrats have nominated Kamala Harris – an ass-kicking, merciless law enforcement type – to be vice president. I would fully expect her to be put in charge of such an operation, and for her to be way more efficient than Janet Reno.)

And so we see that Mao, who was an absolute lunatic when it came to economics and central planning, was a political genius of the first water who makes our current crop of leaders and politicians look like babes and sucklings. It's small wonder that his well-fed face is the one that graces so many art gallery walls, coffee-table books, and T-shirts (I haven't see the bubble-gum cards yet, but I'm sure they're out there). There is nothing new in human nature about worshiping power, and it matters not how that power was attained or the amount of suffering required for its attainment. (Note how readily Americans convert villains into heroes – Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Al Capone, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, and so on. There may be a Mount Rushmore made of stone for “socially acceptable” American heroes, but there is also a Mount Rushmore of the mind for the other kind. And new faces are being added with each passing day – not mentioning any names, of course.)

OK. So now it's time to get more specific about the parallels between Mao's Cultural Revolution and our own revolution, or let's say its final stages which are playing out at present. And also between the foot soldiers – the Red Guard for Mao and Antifa/BLM for our ruling elite. The first step is always to either identify a crisis or create one. For Mao it was a lack of ideological purity among the bureaucracy and academics, and a general clinging to tradition on the part of the citizenry in general. For our ruling elite, the first crisis was, of course, the candidacy, nomination, election, and administration of Donald Trump. This crisis didn't have to be invented or, ahem, trumped up – it was a true existential threat to the interests of the ruling elite, if not to their very existence. Among those interests – well, see Galaxy B in the previous post – but prominent among them would be:

• Elimination of national borders

• Unlimited immigration (no longer defined as legal or illegal)

• Gradual takeover of the business sector by large international businesses, and the elimination of small business (ditto small farms, this process already being well along)

• Elimination of the middle class through taxation and inflation

• World government, a world economy, and a world currency

• “Pro-choice” policies, primarily for population control (both domestically – focused on minorities – and overseas – focused on the Third World)

• Radical environmentalism

And among the techniques to further those aims would be:

• Emphasis on “social justice” and collective, multi-generational guilt

• Opposition to gender roles and even to the concept of gender

• Hostility toward individual rights and private property

• Strict government programs and controls to insure equal social and economic outcomes

• Radical redistribution of wealth via taxation and confiscation (not intended to impact the ruling class, no – the redistribution would occur from the middle class to the lower classes, with the ruling elite extracting a “handling fee” along the way)

• Promotion of identity politics

• Use of science as primarily a political tool

Another very telling similarity between Mao's Cultural Revolution and what is going on now, i.e. an earmark of revolution from above, is that cultural symbols are among the last things to fall (literally in the case of statues). Note, among the traditional “memes” of revolutions from below is the pulling down of statues, and it's almost the very first thing that happens. First you get a mob led by a rabble-rouser, and the next thing you know they are pulling down statues of the leader (king, emperor, czar) and of high-ranking military officers, and of historic figures. This is the first shot fired, as it were. But revolutions from below also tend to be relatively precipitous in terms of visible manifestations, and they progress through countries at a fairly rapid rate. In Mao's case, the revolution (the second Chinese revolution, in fact) was a done deal and things had, apparently, settled down into a kind of routine, but as far as Mao was concerned the revolution was not yet over (he called, in fact, for “continuous revolution”), and among the things still needed was the destruction of cultural remnants of the pre-revolutionary period. So down came the remaining temples, tombs, works of art, libraries, and so on. In the present case – and as a sign that the revolution is in its final stages – we are at the point of tearing down statues – not just the obvious ones (Confederate generals) but also statues of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, and religious figures. So what seems like the beginning – and you'd think so if all you ever saw was the nightly news – is actually the beginning of the end.

So if we have the goals and techniques of our current revolutionaries roughed out, who are “they”, anyway? In Mao's case it was easy; it was him, and a few loyal henchmen. For us at this time it's not so simple, but let's give it a shot.

The list would certainly include the moguls of Silicon Valley, communications, and e-commerce... and certain other large corporations (but not the old-fashioned ones like manufacturing), and globalists of all stripes, George Soros being the most prominent but there are plenty of others whose efforts are not as obvious or overt. (And by globalists I don't just mean the home-grown type. Anyone on the planet who qualifies and who has a vested interest in the socioeconomic fate of the U.S. qualifies.)

Now – you may be asking -- what about the “social media”? What about Hollywood? Late-night TV? Politicians? The Democratic party? The mainstream media? Academics? And so on. (You know, the usual suspects.) The truth is that no one of this motley crew actually originates ideas (including academics in our time). They merely parrot what they've been told by people higher up the food chain. They read from scripts and “talking points”. They sound authoritative, but they're all tools. They may think they're clever and original, and “cutting edge”. They may think they're manning the barricades, and leading the march against all that is old, worn, and out of date, but they're no more than high-class whores who can be “canceled” in a heartbeat if they dare wander off the reservation.

The best single bit of evidence for this is that, no matter what the topic is, they will all say the exact same thing about it, and at the same time. You see this on a daily basis. The leader of the pack – typically the New York Times – says something about someone or something, and the rest of the pack repeats it word for word over the next 24 hours as if it's something they came up with as a result of their own hard work and diligence. (Sometimes I think we'd be better off with a single news source, the way the Soviet Union had Pravda. It was more efficient and saved all kinds of time. And in fact, we may be heading in that direction.) (How many channels were there on Soviet TV? One, maybe?)

So, basically, the word goes out each morning – the script, the talking points – and it's dutifully picked up and turned into “news”. But who originates it? Well, in China it was Chairman Mao. In this country it seems to originate with a cabal of, once again, globalists and various titans of non-traditional industry – you know, the same ones who actually own the print media, social media, and pretty much any other source of “information” you can name. In the Soviet Union it was the ministry of propaganda, and they were doing the bidding of party leaders. And, just like our mainstream media, their propaganda was tiresome, repetitive, and mind-numbing... and as far from the truth as any old folk tale of Baba Yaga, but even more frightening.)

To put it another way, actual “news” should be reality-based. It should be about actual events. It may lead into analysis or comment, but the basic facts should be considered sacred. This is a principal that use to be taught in journalism schools but has long since been discarded. Now “reporters” and “journalists” consider themselves “agents of change” like teachers, and so are completely unabashed about promoting absolute fictions as long as it furthers the agenda set by their masters.

What counts, then – important point! – is not how true or false the “story” is, but how many people believe it, i.e. fall for it and use it as the basis for their thinking and even their actions. So pure propaganda isn't enough. Psychology comes into play as well, and identifying people's hopes and dreams – and, most importantly, their fears – is key to success. (And fears, by the way, can be created, and often are in order to serve this purpose. Our mainstream media are, above all, fear machines.) The leading, and most successful, psychologists of our time, therefore, are not those nerdy guys sitting next to the couch with a note pad in hand, but the masters of propaganda who dominate the media. They have more influence on more people than all of the psychologists from Sigmund Freud on ever dreamed of having.  (And incidentally, one of the early masters of media-based propaganda was a man named Eddie Bernays, who was, lo and behold, a nephew of old Sigmund. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

So we have – as in a crime story (which this is) – motive and means. But how about opportunity? For a grand scheme such as this one to work, the timing has to be right. The problem, or crisis, used to kick things off has to be somewhat credible. And this is where the hat trick comes in... the golden opportunity... the triple threat that was just too great a temptation to be resisted. And this was – as is now painfully obvious – (1) Donald Trump, (2) the pandemic, and (3) the breakout of anarchy in our large cities. Trump all by himself was sufficient cause to start a revolution and keep it going, but in truth he didn't start it at all. It was lying in wait until the time was ripe. So Trump provided a cause celebre, and also acted as an accelerant.

But then fate dealt a trump card that even trumped Trump, namely the pandemic. And that was soon followed by the outbreaks of rioting, arson, vandalism, and looting for which the spark was the death of George Floyd. And I have to say, perhaps never before in history has such a total nobody, and his dreadful end, had such a profound impact on an entire nation – an impact which is irrevocable. I mean, every revolution has its heroes – the Nazis had Horst Wessel, for example – but the selection of George Floyd seems about as unlikely as possible – random, in fact. And yet here he is, an icon... a saint... a man whose visage is fit for carving into Mount Rushmore (once the visages that are there now have been pulverized by Antifa the way the Taliban trashed the Buddhas of Bamiyan).

And it was random, make no mistake. It could have been any one of a number of black “victims of police violence” over the years, but the time was right, and it was right because the citizenry had already been worked into a frenzy over Donald Trump. It's easier to light a fire with dry wood than wet wood, in other words – and in this case what we had was the equivalent of years of underbrush resulting from poor land management in the hills of California. The revolution had been rumbling like a volcano ready to erupt for decades, actually – all aided and abetted by those in charge, who were allowing the pressure to build and waiting for the right moment to release it upon the hapless citizenry.

But wait, there's more! – as they say on late-night TV ads. Trump would have been a tough target as long as he was riding high on economic successes, but then the corona virus, or whatever you want to call it, rose up like Godzilla. And the economy was magically wiped out – erased -- in a matter of days. By a virus? No, by the decisions of those who saw opportunity knock as never before – or who were the faithful servants of those who did (and yes, I'm referring to many mayors and governors, who had dreams of power and who saw temporary anarchy as a path toward that power). As far as I know, Donald Trump did not close down one store, or restaurant, or factory, or school, or anything else. He couldn't! That is not a power granted to the president by the Constitution. It was done by mayors and governors, who do have that power, and the alleged reason, of course, was to “prevent the spread of the virus” and thus save lives. Lives, but not livelihoods. So almost overnight, our economy crumbled to dust and all of the gains that Trump had been bragging about vanished, as did his chances of re-election, which was, of course, the whole idea.

And when it came to the rioting (which is still going on) – the same governors and mayors who shut down their respective economies as a knee-jerk reaction to the corona virus are also the ones who look on benignly as their cities burn. Nero himself could have done no better.

Now... you might be skeptical as to the issue of who's behind all of this. And yes, it's hard to make any direct accusations that would hold up in court. But consider:

• The stock market – the plaything of the ruling elite, the unwashed being only allowed in the servants' entrance – did take a hit because of the corona virus. But as of this writing, the DJIA is back up to 94% of its all-time high. Not exactly on life support, in other words.

• The net wealth of the seven richest men in the U.S. increased 46% between March 18 and August 15. Not a bad return on investment in crises! So... above a certain level the ruling elite are untouchable when it comes to the ups and downs of the economy. They profit when times are good, and profit even more when times are bad. (There were people who profited handsomely during the Great Depression as well, which led to some speculation as to how “unanticipated” the Depression was. My own theory is that depressions and recessions are basically looting operations, and what gets looted is middle-class wealth, and the looters are those in charge, not the rabble.)

• Simple question: Who doesn't have to answer to anyone? And the answer is not anyone in the media. And it's no one in Hollywood or on late-night TV, because one wrong move and they can be terminated.

  • Politicians? Forget about it. They live and die by elections, which are frequently, if not always, rigged by those in charge. Politics is like an old-time protection racket – either you play along or you wind up with cement booties (figuratively) (in most cases).

  • Ditto the Democratic Party. They are the biggest collection of tools on the face of the earth. (If, as Joe Sobran pointed out, it was really important they wouldn't let you vote on it, isn't it also true that if it was really important they wouldn't trust any politician with it?) (This, by the way, is one of the main motivations behind the existence of “think tanks” and certain non-profits, NGOs, and PACs.)

So that seems to narrow it down to some extent – but questions remain. This “ruling elite” everyone talks about – aren't they real people? Human beings? Not space aliens? And how do they get to the point in life when they are put in charge of the lives, and fate, of their fellow citizens? What are the membership requirements, in other words? Well, money seems to be pretty much an indispensable requirement – at least in this country, although in Europe you can still have plenty of influence if you're royalty. And, I suppose, a zeal to not only rule over others, but some notion that you being in charge will make the world a better place. This is an oft-overlooked quality of totalitarians. They all think the world will be better off if it comes under their spell and submits to their authority; Lenin had that idea, as did Stalin, Mao, and any number of others (including our own minor-league totalitarians). It's sort of like the idea that people who wake up every morning intending to “do evil” never get very far, but evil people who intend to do good (by their lights) can wind up ruling the world. (I guess we've penetrated to the essence of politics now.)

And, being only human and therefore mortal, members of the ruling elite have to be willing to, at some point, pass the baton to the next generation – and this seems to have happened quite seamlessly in our time. We've gone from the stereotype of pudgy guys in silk hats and gold watch chains to a bunch of dudes with bad haircuts and turtlenecks – and no one says, hey, I want J. P. Morgan back! Everyone just accepts that this is the way things are – that Mark Zuckerberg had to borrow a necktie in order to testify before Congress.

And along with the grandiose and egomaniacal notion of making the world a better place comes an image – a Utopian image – which invariably includes “me” as emperor of the world, and a vast army of slaves... and, strangely, the complete lack of a middle class, because who needs them? And, by the way, the complete lack of religion, because if they have me, who needs God? But this image has to be realized in some way; mere wishing won't make is so. So any policy, program, or strategy – whether implemented by government or directly by the private sector – has to be dedicated to that end. Now, the ruling elite are already in place, as are the lower classes – so what's missing? Oh yeah, the middle class is still hanging around – so if you will closely study the programs and policies of Galaxy B, you'll find that they are all aimed at the annihilation of the middle class, or at least support that agenda to some degree. And in this sense, the current revolution is pretty much a clone of all of its predecessors – in France, Russia, Spain, China, and plenty of lesser nations. One might say that there can never, by definition, be a middle-class revolution; any genuine revolution will be opposed to the middle class and in the interests of the current ruling elite, or a new ruling elite, with the lower classes kept on as slaves, serfs, and servants.

There is still, though, a “cloud of unknowing” about the ruling elite, how it operates, how cohesive it is, how it acquires new members, and so on – and this is, of course, intentional. All we can do is collect clues and hints, and ask the perennial question “Cui bono?”, i.e. “Who benefits?” This is sort of the extrapolation of the more common maxim, “Follow the money” – because, believe it or not, it's not always about money, and is in fact not about money at all at the upper reaches. Do our multi-billionaires really need more money? I mean, how many yachts, houses, mistresses, etc. can they do justice to? No, beyond a certain point it really is about power – about ruling the world. And what we are seeing now is the next step – a very big step – in that direction, namely to take full control of “the superpower” (as the U.S. fancied itself in the post-Soviet era). And not just social, economic, and political control, but enough control that their dreams of an earthly Utopia can be realized.

Still to come:

• What happens next?

• Will there be a counter-revolution (and if so, how will it begin and who will be in the front lines)?

• And much more! Don't miss it!