Meltdown Under the Elms

It started with an article in The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges

This got my attention because the college most prominently featured in the article is Oberlin (in Ohio, a bit west of Cleveland). And I admit, nothing in it surprised me because hypersensitivity was a common ailment in the student body when I attended (1963-1967). But it did seem to represent a new low – or high, depending on which metric one is using. Hypersensitivity is one thing, but morbid hypersensitivity bordering on paranoid psychosis is quite another, it seems to me, especially when it seems to infect a large number of people in the same place at the same time. Then it moves into the realm of mass hysteria. But enough introduction.

So after much meditation, I produced a response, which is as follows.  But please read the New Yorker article first, because as bad as you might think things have gotten, they are much worse.

I can't possibly deal with everything that the article brings up – nor are many of these “issues” even worth dealing with, quite frankly. (Once you give people a license to obsess, they will obsess about anything. The point is to exercise discernment as to which issues are actually worth discussing in a public forum and which ones are better left to the psychiatrist's couch. It's, among other things, evidence of the current trend whereby nothing is any longer personal or private – one's life and thoughts are for public consumption and it's shameful in a way to keep them to oneself.)

I'd rather draw back a bit and deal with the broader issue of hypersensitivity, which is a common element in much of what is discussed. I'd rather do that than get “down in the weeds” with each micro-issue – plus, I have a certain historical perspective that I'd like to put into play. I don't think one can understand the current hypersensitivity craze without looking at the socio-political history of colleges and universities in the U.S.; but since the only one I'm at all familiar with is Oberlin, I'll have to confine my remarks to that one place – although, hopefully, some generalization will not be totally out of order. (In fact, since Oberlin is at the vanguard of most social movements – or at least fancies that it is – using it as an example might be much more fruitful than some other college or university selected at random.)

The phrase “reductio ad absurdum” comes to mind. There is nothing new about college students (in “liberal arts” colleges in particular) being thin-skinned, hypersensitive, and easily offended; they were like that in my day too. Or, at least some of them were, and I was always curious as to the difference between the easily-offended types (think of the ones would boo or hiss every time they heard something they didn't like – which was about once every five minutes) and the rest, who were either thick-skinned, or apathetic, or who had better things to do. The sensitive types were the self-anointed guardians of what we now call political correctness; they claimed the right to boo or hiss at anyone whose opinions did not match their own – and the range of issues for which this was true was quite wide (although, arguably, not as wide as the comparable range today -- “ecology” was a brand-new subject back then, and “global warming” was unheard of, just to give a couple of examples).

So what was the difference? Upbringing? Culture? What they had been taught in high school, or by their parents – or rebellion against either or both of those? Or was it just DNA – a “born that way” personality trait? I never figured it out back then, and still can't. One thing I can say for certain is that it was highly correlated with what was called “activism” -- which was, then as now, firmly based on liberal/progressive doctrine. (I say “activism” as opposed to “revolution”, because, although there were some bonafide Leninists/Stalinists and Maoists on campus, they were too small a minority to make much of a difference. But, there were also very few “coat and tie radicals”; most of the activist types I recall were pretty much in the middle of the spectrum. They were, if you will, right out of central casting -- they had the right hair, wore the right clothes, smoked the right dope, protested and demonstrated the right amount, etc. They were, in that sense, “Goldilocks people” -- they had found a comfortable middle ground and pretty much remained there as long as they were able.)

The main point is that many of them hit campus on the first day of freshman year already primed – so it was easy to imagine that they had been born that way. But there were others who were gradually radicalized over time – like the superficial “preppie” guy I knew who eventually wound up in every picket line and in every demonstration he could find. (I don't recall anyone ever being “de-radicalized”, on the other hand – I guess it's some kind of political/social ratchet effect. Maybe it's based on the academic environment, which shares little with the “real world”.) The ones who fascinated me were the ones who showed up on campus already armed with “Das Kapital” and Molotov cocktails; what were they like in high school? In grade school? It's fascinating, really.

I'm describing that landscape (of the mid-60s) in order to establish a context for discussing what's happening now. As I said, the hair-trigger sensitivities were there, as was the chip-on-shoulder, street demonstration attitude. But here's the difference. Back then, there were real causes; very few of these activists were constantly waxing indignant about nothing. One might argue with their motives, but the things they were talking about were real, and they were external – part of the wider world, by and large. (Causes within the confines of the campus were real too, if bordering on the trivial at times.)

And this is not to say that campus activism of the traditional sort is extinct; I'm sure that there are plenty of people and groups agitating for the same or similar causes (and with, most likely, the same degree of success), but that is not the emphasis; it's not what makes the news. What makes the news now is safe rooms, and teddy bears, and “comfort animals” -- as if a large proportion of college students had mysteriously regressed into infancy. And actually, that is a good question right off the bat – were they always this way? Were they raised this way? Or is it more a matter of opportunity, i.e. if one is allowed to, and reinforced for, acting a certain way, then the chances are that the behavior will persist and increase. In this, I'm almost temped to think of it as a variety of mass hysteria, but I suspect there are too many differences to make this a fruitful comparison. What I do think is that suggestibility has a lot to do with it, as does conformity, the need to “belong”, the need for “visibility” or “affirmation”. There is nothing like moving from an at least somewhat diverse high school setting to a hermetically-sealed hothouse campus environment where there is only one acceptable way to think about any given issue. Think of it as a kind of relatively benign prison camp where the same propaganda is blasted out of loudspeakers starting at 4 AM daily and not stopping until midnight. Actually, part of this oversensitivity may simply be a kind of reaction against this political and informational tyranny – a form of PTSD. (This is based on the theory that things get worse for these people once they transition from high school to college – but I admittedly have no data, just supposition.)

I say that legitimate activism is not extinct – or I certainly hope so, because many of the causes were legitimate, as I said. And yet, one is hard pressed to draw a clear line connecting the “classic” activism of old and the hypersensitivity of today. For one thing, are we even talking about the same people? Or is it an entirely new breed? Say what you like about the activists of old – that they were oftentimes thin-skinned, oversensitive, paranoid, whatever – but they did show a bit of durability as well. They would get out there day after day, writing, printing, distributing, demonstrating, protesting... they were not afraid of the world, in other words. (The world was, on the other hand, remarkably afraid of them, which is no longer the case for the current generation.) I don't see the slightest trace of this robustness and stamina among the pajama-clad, teddy bear-clinging crowd; just the opposite. And yet I can't help but at least try to connect a few dots.

The activists of old were, as I said, invariably of the liberal/socialist bent, and all subscribed to the notion of collectivism to some degree – by which I mean not only collectivism in the economic and political sense but in the social psychological sense. The truth, in other words, resided not in the individual but in the group – the collective. In fact, there was no distinction between “truth” and what we now call political correctness; the truth was determined by the will of the people, which was expressed as the product of a dialectic (and, actually, by the social dominance of “agents of change” -- political leaders by and large, but also members of the academe and what we now call the media). But here we encounter a phenomenon that I noted quite often back then, which was that so many of these activists, who presented themselves as altruists and humanists, were actually quite infantile in their personal behavior and particularly their interactions with other people. They may have been demagogues in public, but they were petty tyrants and spoiled brats in private – and this got me thinking about the psychological roots of activism, and of liberalism in general. How many of them really believed in their cause? How many were sincere? And how many had a personal agenda that tended to interfere with, or cancel out, the good the were supposedly doing?

So even back then there was this personal note – this radical subjectivity – that, rather than being overcome, served as a kind of energizer, but which, for that reason, may have corrupted the process. So if you take this subjective tendency and mix it with what Ayn Rand calls “social metaphysics”, plus the general moral anarchy of the time... well, the bottom line is that there were no absolutes, no bedrock principles, and that politics – the will of the collective, however defined – was the highest manifestation of truth (with the perfectly logical result that the word “truth” pretty much went out of use). (I can think of no better example than this: In my day, the consensus was that Israel could do no wrong. Now things have shifted – not 180 degrees maybe, but more than I would ever have thought possible. And yet the facts behind the issue have changed very little in essence. So what brought about the change? Who decided, in other words?)

So, between then and now – did this cluster of ideas, tendencies, and motivations remain within the halls of academe, paralleling the wider culture but not always interacting with it, and eventually manifest itself in the absurdities of today? Or did they flow out into the larger culture, and by an iterative process over many decades flow back into the academe, in a distorted and grotesque form? What, in other words, are college students responding to now? A specific set of premises, facts, and theories – or some sort of aura or atmosphere? Where do they get their cues – their marching orders, if you will? Because in former times it was fairly obvious; in these times, it's much less so simply because of the radical subjectivity of it all.

And – does it even matter on this level of detail? In any case, I think the key is subjectivity. Back then something was true if the group said it was. But then the “group” became fragmented over time into sub-groups and sub-sub-groups, based on ever finer points of identity politics – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, body type, and so on. (We see this brought out very clearly by the article.) And if the degree of fragmentation we've seen so far is acceptable – commendable, even – why stop there? Why be part of a group, however small, that is ever searching for something to be upset, indignant, or offended by, when you can be your own group? The essence of identity politics is, after all, to choose one, or very few, demographic descriptors as the key to one's identity and place in the world, and as a platform from which to protest injustice. But where is it written that it has to stop there? Why not cut to the chase and identify with a group of one – namely oneself? That way, you don't even have to get together with anyone else in order to decide on which issues to focus on on any given day – you just wake up each morning and decide for yourself... or, better yet perhaps, put off deciding until you've gotten a taste of what the world is dishing out that day, at which point you can withdraw back into your shell and claim grievance, unfair treatment, bullying, persecution, and pretty much any form of -ism you like – and who is to argue? If it's all subjective anyway – if there are no absolutes – if it's all a matter of opinion – then why isn't my opinion superior to that of any group? If smaller (social and political fragmentation) is better, then why isn't the smallest unit – me – best of all? Don't I have as many rights, if not more, as any group? Don't I have, above all, a right to feel offended and threatened, since if we're only talking about me, then anything that comes along is an existential threat? In other words, one can put up with threats to one's group because, after all, the group is not identical to the individual – I am more than the group to which I belong (although it would be hard to detect any admission of this sort in the current climate). But if my “group” is me, and no more, then all of my interactions with the world cut to the quick if they are negative – and carry an aura of insecurity if they are good. So the solution, such as it is, had to be to provide “safe havens” where I can recover from the inevitable buffeting I'm going to get the minute I walk out the door – or, even if I stay home, by means of the Internet, TV, books, magazines, newspapers, the telephone, etc. I will exercise non-stop vigilance when it comes to “microaggression” or “triggers”, because, after all, I am an entity unto myself – and yet no more robust or secure than an egg without a shell.

I mean, really, what is wrong with these people? I was certainly not a paradigm of mental health when I was in college, but at least I had enough sense to realize that I was my own worst enemy – that it was not “them” or “the system” that was the main source of my discontent. This sort of fairly basic insight seems totally lacking in the current crop of quivering undergraduates.

It's ironic that there is a traditional American ideal of the independent, fearless, self-actualizing individual who only acts as part of a group when it's convenient, and the rest of the time is a lone wolf. This is part of our mythology as a people and as a nation – and, yes, it probably is a myth, by and large, although we've all encountered people who seem to come pretty close to this description. (We find them more often in literature and movies – and, referring to Ayn Rand again, in her novels.) And yet in practice, it seems like most self-contained people are self-contained for all the wrong reasons. (Note that the word “idiot” is ultimately derived from a Greek word meaning “one's own, private”. So these poor souls who run off to safe rooms at the slightest provocation can could be called idiots.) Any number of patients in mental asylums are king of their own hill. There is a mental disorder in which the individual believes that he is the only thing that exists. (This is a philosophical disorder as well.) But how far is the pajama and teddy bear crowd from this state? Will they recover? Or are they on to something? They are, whether they are conscious of it or not, the personification – the reductio ad absurdum – of liberalism, subjectivism, and all of its political and social trappings. They are victims, certainly – but so are we, if you include the social costs of having to deal with them. When there are things we are not allowed to discuss, we are accepting the tyranny that their helplessness imposes on us – which, I guess, means that they are not so helpless or powerless after all. And maybe on some level they realize that and revel in it.

Russian Gossip

Senator Harry Reid is not exactly enamored of the truth, but he let something slip the other day that is more significant than it might sound. If a Republican had said it, it would be called a “gaffe”, but since the Democrats/liberals invented the term and have declared themselves the sole authority on what is or is not a gaffe, we can't expect the label to be applied in this case.

So according to a Washington Post article (published on July 30), “...Reid has suggested that Trump's murky ties to foreign interests and general inability to not speak his mind should be reason enough for the people briefing him to make things up.” The briefings in question are those provided to presidential candidates by the intelligence community, and supposedly include “classified information about the government and our foreign policy efforts.”

Let's dissect this statement by Dingy Harry (Rush Limbaugh's apt nickname) for a moment. “Murky ties to foreign interests”? I guess that doesn't include the countless millions the Clintons have received from foreign governments in order to gain “access”, whatever that entails. “General inability to not speak his mind”, means, in language used by most humans, that Trump speaks his mind. Imagine! A politician actually coming out and saying, in public, what he really thinks. Pass the smelling salts. No wonder the Washington establishment is worried sick; in the unlikely event he becomes president, he might carry this unsavory habit with him into the White House. It could, for starters, be the death of diplomacy (a skill which Hillary Clinton demonstrated so well as secretary of state, ahem).

But the real gem in all this is the idea of the intel people making things up for consumption by the president, or by a presidential candidate. One would almost think that this is a new idea, and that it's never been done, or even tried, before. Never mind mere candidates; my theory is that, on the contrary, most presidents in our time, since they are figureheads and empty suits more than anything else, have been deceived on a regular basis by the intel people, and probably a lot of others as well (the military comes to mind, but also “lifers” in the State Department and elsewhere). Do you honestly think that anyone is going to share information vital to national security with the likes of George W. Bush? (And what would he have done with it if he'd had it?) I imagine similar things about Clinton (soon to be known as Clinton I) and Obama. Contrary to Bush's self image as “the decider”, I don't think presidents in our time “decide” squat, basically. They are front men... scapegoats, when necessary... and sock puppets for the Regime. Whatever they think they've “decided” has already been decided; the trick is to play along with the game and not let them in on it (although I suspect that some of them finally start to catch on, but by then it's too late). (And what are they going to do, go on live TV and announce to the nation, “I'm nothing but a stooge”? That's not the way their minds operate; delusional systems are way too powerful to put up with a dose of reality of that sort.)

I've long been convinced that the last president who had any real authority, and who exercised it, was Lyndon Johnson. He always seemed to be in charge, and always seemed to be willing to do pretty much anything to get his way... and he had an unmatched ability to intimidate -- in other words the ability to scare everyone else shitless, basically. He was America's last true tyrant. All of those who came afterward were organization men at best, heads of committees, and spokesmen for the Regime... and they were studiously kept away from real people... from the masses, the hoi polloi, the unwashed – just as Trump and Clinton are at present. They are kept in their respective bubbles until the election, at which point one of the bubbles will burst and the other will become even more impenetrable as the next administration gets under way.

So why not tell our illustrious candidates even a little bit of the truth – just a harmless secret or two? You know, to keep up appearances. Well, Dingy Harry's fear is that Trump might blab it to the Russians, and the Republicans' fear is that it might wind up in Hillary's e-mail, and thus in the hands of the Russians. So the Russians are behind both of these people's perceived vulnerabilities when it comes to keeping secrets! Who said the Cold War was over with? Maybe I'd better clear the scrap lumber out of my fallout shelter.

The Ruling Class and its Discontents

A recent op-ed piece by William Rivers Pitt of Truthout celebrates, in no uncertain terms and with more than a touch of gallows humor, the decline and fall of the Bush dynasty as exemplified by the miserable failure of Jeb Bush, who has dropped out of the presidential race. His essay can be found here:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35193-please-clap-the-bush-dynasty-has-been-broken

A word of caution is in order, however. At least one commentator has speculated that Jeb, who notoriously stated that his strategy was to somehow win the nomination despite losing the primaries, is being held in reserve by the Republican powers that be, ready to “parachute in” to the convention and save the day – i.e. snatch the nomination away from Trump and Cruz (pushing lesser mortals like Kasich aside like so many dust bunnies, of course). The idea, apparently, is to fit Jeb with a pair of tights, a cape, shiny boots, and flashy headgear, and style him as some kind of superhero whose sole mission is to save the Republican Party. (“It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Bushman!” Oh... wait...)

Well... lots of luck with that, is all I can say. But in this wackiest of all wacky election seasons, who knows? The Republican establishment is certainly acting desperate, and grasping at straws – resurrecting Romney from the political graveyard to do a hatchet job on Trump (which, of course, backfired very badly; they should have left Mitt in the toy store with the other Ken dolls) and cooperating with the Democrats to send rent-a-mobs to any and all Trump rallies.

Now, the immediate revelation from all of this, for those who hadn't already figured it out, is that there is, in fact, only one “establishment”, and it consists of the power structure of both of the major parties. Trump is, if nothing else, the ultimate anti-establishment candidate, since he doesn't care who he offends from anywhere along the spectrum. What counts above all is to preserve the integrity of the establishment and keep it in charge, little matter which party is nominally in power. This is the kind of insight that is normally avoided by maintaining the faux kabuki drama of the election season, in which the parties pretend – like professional wrestlers – to be in dire opposition, when they really are in one accord on nearly all points. But these are desperate times, and they clearly feel that it's worth letting the cat out of the bag – at least on this occasion, counting on the brain-dead electorate to go back to sleep and forget all about what they are now hearing and seeing, like the guys in “Men in Black”. It's a strategy that has worked time and time again, so why not give it another shot?

But there are other implications to all of this, and they should not be overlooked. One is that the power structure – the ruling class – operates in subtle and surprising ways at times; they are more agile than we give them credit for. One would think, for example, that an elite bunch like the Bushes would want to keep their name in lights and to win at all costs. They are, after all, part of the perennial power structure, and they want to keep it that way – or so one would think. And yet even those at the top of the heap have to make sacrifices once in a while; someone has to be picked, when the need arises, to “take one for the team”. Consider, for example, that the Rockefellers, who are indisputably at the very top of the hierarchy (at least in this country), nonetheless feel obligated to offer up some of their members on the sacrificial altar of politics -- with mixed results. Consider that the Kennedys had to offer up some of their sons to the gods of war, and that one of them didn't come back alive. This is all along the lines of maintaining some sort of credibility with the impulsive, delusion-prone American public, who – enamored as they are with “American royalty” -- are nonetheless still a bit resistant to the idea that we have rulers like unto the royalty and nobility of the Old World. The delusion of democracy must be maintained – or at least it has been so far, but it has started to seriously erode of late. And the ruling elite are not – as irritating as it must be at times – completely immune from the requirements and needs of “democracy”; lip service must be paid, even if from their lofty perches, to “the people”, lest “the people” start to murmur, and resist, and even – heaven forfend! -- rebel.

The age of revolution is, of course, over with and long gone... and ruling elites around the globe are no longer in the sort of danger that engulfed the hapless Romanovs, for example... or the Chinese dynasties... or the French aristocracy. We are now in the age of the technocrat... the pragmatist... the globalist (another talking point for Trump)... and are ruled by a centralized power whose main tentacles are not so much armies as banks, stock exchanges, and “defense” contractors. But it is precisely because the trappings and prerogatives of ancient royalty are a thing of the past that control by other means must be maintained – through instruments such as the media, the “entertainment” industry, “free trade”, and the dominance of a vast array of rackets from agribusiness to big pharma, big medicine, prisons, centralized food distribution, consumerism run amok... and all the modern equivalents of the “games and circuses” and “free bread” of old. Empires, in short, do what they have to do, and they do, in fact, have to adjust to the times.

Consider, for example, that there are no longer any “idle rich”; they are nowhere to be found. The richest people on earth nonetheless have to work for a living, after a fashion. Society has been restructured to the point where a hundred years ago you had the working poor and the idle rich, and we now have the working rich and the idle poor. And yet, ultimately, the same people are in charge now who were in charge then, and the vast majority of them are – gasp! -- white men. We can fantasize all we want about “diversity”, and “access to power” by “minorities” of all stripes... and, certainly, the Regime knows how, and when, to throw a few bones out now and then... but the basic hard facts remain the same. Any boy born in a log cabin, figuratively speaking, can rise up in the system to where he is invited to weekend retreats at Sea Island, Davos, Mackinac Island, Bilderberg, the Bohemian Grove... wherever... but despite their feeling of having been anointed, they are, ultimately, tools, poodles, and window dressing... and, most importantly of all, dispensable. (And scapegoats, when the need arises – as witness George W. Bush.) Surely you don't think that once Hillary Clinton, for example, has outlived her usefulness she won't be dropped, along with her reprobate husband, into the Regime's dumpster; it has happened before, and it will happen again. In fact, this could be said to be the case for nearly all politicians and, frankly, all “world leaders”.  More often than not they are tools, lackeys, and sock puppets -- and the puppet masters are the faceless few at the very top – and they are, and remain, faceless for a reason.

But (with all due respect to the conspiracy community, of which I am a member anyway) there is no such thing as perfect control, and the world remains full of surprises. Did any of them anticipate, for example, the rise of militant Islam? Sure, no doubt they are using this phenomenon to their maximum benefit... but their jobs would have been easier if the scales had not fallen from the eyes of the Islamic world (albeit decades after the end of formal, classical colonialism). Did they anticipate the rise of the Internet and “social media” as, not only a tool for thought control of the masses, but as a means by which the masses (some of them, at least) would start to ask questions and connect the dots? Thus, another irritant that has to be dealt with – and we see in the news every day evidence of their exertions to do so.

So yes, “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” -- or whatever the modern-day equivalent of a crown is (and do not doubt that some of the actual remaining “crowned heads” of Europe are very much participants in this struggle). Plus, we have the natural paranoia that inevitably haunts the very few when they are confronted, in whatever form, by the very many. The mob... the masses... the rabble... are greater in number than they have ever been in recorded human history, their demands are becoming harder to meet (because they keep upping the ante), and they are showing signs of restlessness. You can award some of them membership in the middle class, which is a guaranteed neutralizer... but that still leaves quite a few – a majority, in fact. You can even allow them to, occasionally, have a voice – from the social media right up to the ossified and dysfunctional United Nations – but, again, you're not really solving anything, only postponing the consequences.

And yet, power remains – as it has down through human history – the ultimate narcotic. Better than sex, better than money (although these are, let's admit, universally fringe benefits). To sacrifice people by the million, and even entire nations, for the sake of power, is nothing new – and to hold onto it once it's gained is nothing new. What changes and evolves is the means... the mechanisms... the tools... the iconography... the narrative. Every culture has its myths, legends, and fairy tales – that's a given; that's human nature. It's what people believe – what they are led to believe – that determines outcomes, and those outcomes become solidified into what we call “history”. Once in a while people become more sophisticated, slightly better informed, and more skeptical – and so the means, mechanisms, and tools have to evolve as well, and morph into a new mythology. We tend to forget that not only do power and control go together, they are the same thing. How can you have one without the other? And yet we go around worshiping men (and women) of power, but chafing at the control they exert on us. One consolation, at least – perhaps the only one – is that even the power elite... the ones at the end of every string and binding chain... have to pay their dues as well. The fate of Jeb Bush – a very small person in this grand scheme – provides an example of this, and it may serve as small comfort. 

But he may be down and out, but he's not “out out”, despite Pitt's optimism, so to speak.  Just be prepared for, somewhere down the line, the moment when you hear someone say “they're baaaaaack”.

The Trump Test

If there's anything more amazing, startling, and amusing than the Trump candidacy it's the reactions of all the usual suspects. It was said of a politician of an earlier era (I forget which one) that everyone hated him except the people – and it seems that Trump is in the same category. What's ironic is that, in our time, everyone pretends to be a populist but only Trump and Sanders are the real thing – populism, by definition, being a movement against the establishment – whatever that happens to be. So we, as I've commented previously, are seeing bimodal (bipolar?) populism – a pull from both the right and the left, as personified by The Donald and The Bern. And the establishment is fit to be tied – and I include in that both liberal and conservative, the near-left and the near-right (assuming there is no functioning middle, which is a pretty safe bet these days). The MSM pour hot coals on his coiffed head on a daily basis, as does Fox News and any and all neocons (which includes all other Republican candidates) – the worst invective coming from people who, one would think, would resonate, or at least understand, what Trump is all about, and at least empathize a bit. George Will, for example, whom I respect for his usual wisdom and sterling prose, is absolutely over the top in his hostility... my local paper, neocon-dominated although they do make space for libertarians now and then, is aghast at The Donald, right down to, and including, the house editorial cartoonist. The “argumentum ad Hitlerum” has been brought out in full force – and, let's admit, der Adolf was a populist of sorts, much to the dismay of the establishment of his time.

I'll tell you who isn't afraid of Trump – the libertarians and the paleocons (including Pat Buchanan). They “get it” -- not that they necessarily agree with Trump on all, or even most, issues, but they understand his appeal and don't attempt to blame it on sheer demagoguery (or racism, xenophobia, not being nice, etc.). They realize that a large portion of Americans, of every shape and size, feel threatened, oppressed, ignored, ridiculed, left out, and exploited – and they sympathize. And who is consistently speaking to them in language they understand? Nobody but the Trumpster. They might wish it otherwise – that, for example, the mainstream Republicans would “man up” for once and stop all the pathetic me-too-ism that has been their meme for so many years and election cycles. Any time a libertarian stands up in the midst of a Republican gathering he is booed, hissed, and firmly ushered out the door – as witness Ron Paul & son. Any time our delusional, fanatical, bloodthirsty foreign policy is questioned or criticized, whoever dares to speak up is immediately plastered with the usual labels, starting with “isolationist”, “abandoning our allies” (by which they mean Israel, and none other) – the term “peacenik” having gone out of fashion, apparently.

A current American Conservative (paleocon, note) article gives Trump, along with Kasich, a C in foreign policy – which is their best rating other than a B for Bernie... but I imagine they would give Bernie a triple-F for domestic policy, so we can consider Trump a winner overall. Here is the article:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/?mc_cid=b9ed6b64b9&mc_eid=9b64b44470

But – let's face it – the American voter is motivated primarily by domestic policy issues, which is your doctor's word for “pocketbook”. We don't think a whole lot about foreign policy until someone we know is sent to some craphole overseas and comes back in a body bag or with missing limbs, and then cognitive dissonance forces us to allow that, well, it must have been worthwhile, considering the price that was paid. Military spending, most of which can be marked down to empire building rather than true defense of the homeland, doesn't seem to enter anyone's mind as a real expense, in competition with domestic spending – as if our infrastructure doesn't suffer when we spend more rebuilding countries that we've destroyed than we spend on our own highways, sewer and water systems, power grid, etc. It's as if those funds are not fungible – or are, but only under the most extreme circumstances. The fact is, any and all military spending imposes opportunity costs on any and all domestic spending. But apparently we'd rather live in squalor and have a mighty military than enjoy the wealth we have created here at home.

And granted, Trump is very gung-ho when it comes to our military activities overseas, but at the same time seems more hesitant than most candidates when it comes to taking on new burdens in that arena. As the article notes, he “can't seem to make up his mind. He supported regime change in Libya in 2011, but wants to withdraw completely from Syria. He would review the Iran deal and has made comments that could indicate he supports a smaller defense budget, but offers no concrete stance.” But he doesn't have blood in his eye (or anywhere else, ahem) about Russia, and is not itching to go into Syria with the same doomed-to-failure approach we took in Afghanistan and Iraq. He actually comes off as something of a pragmatist (vs. dogmatist or Cold War revivalist) when it comes to foreign policy – and this is sure to enrage all the mainstream “conservatives”.

So, basically, the Trump Test comes down to this. If whoever, or whatever, it is displays nothing but hysteria and seeing Hitler under every bed, you can confidently ignore them, because what it means is that (1) they are sold out to the idea of empire; and (2) they don't really understand, or care, about the plight, grievances, and attitudes of a good portion of Americans (who, admittedly, don't live less than an hour's drive from either coast, so their opinions can't possibly be of any value, and those people don't count in any case); and (3) they have no sense of humor (or, aren't cynical enough, which is probably the same thing when it comes to politics).

Trump is, in short, a symptom – but hey, isn't all of politics symptomatic in some way? Isn't it all about not liking the way things are and wanting them to change? The only question is, for any given candidate, does one agree with their assessment, and with their notions as to what has to change, and how? It's a political issue – grist for dialogue, discussion, and debate... and not for running around with one's hair on fire. We should know by now that any candidate will seem like gift from on high to some, and a lunatic to others.  Clearly, the people who react most hysterically are the ones with the most to lose -- and yet, one wonders, in many cases, precisely what they are so terrified of losing?  What is George Will afraid of?  What is my local paper afraid of?  Are they really so sold out to the establishment that any threat to it is seen as an existential threat to themselves?  In which case, shouldn't we, perhaps, be a bit more skeptical when we read what they have to say?  

The Real Silent Majority

It's pretty much a truism that, in any society, the loudest voices are of those who want change – the dissatisfied... the disenfranchised... the victims (whether actual or self-styled). A subset of this group would be the theorists – the “idea people” who set the terms of the debate and use language in the service of their agenda (whether for good or ill). They are the agents of influence, and of change – but they would be helpless without their loyal followers – the “true believers” (or “useful idiots” in some cases). In the current election season (would that it were only a “season” rather than perpetual) we have – as I've commented on previously – a rare, if not unique, situation of raised voices on both the left and the right – populist movements of people who feel cheated, ignored, and left out. On one side we have the Tea Party (still alive and well, as far as I know – not that it was ever a formal organization), and on the other the “Occupy” crowd (ditto). The Tea Party is represented to a greater or lesser degree by the more “conservative” Republicans; Trump's relationship with them is ill-defined, if it exists at all. And the Occupy contingent is represented fairly well by Bernie Sanders.

This is, as I said, a rare thing in American politics – to have dueling populist movements. Most of the time, there is one party – one world view – in charge, and the “loyal opposition” on the other side. Populist movements, when they spring up, often create a third party, which rarely lasts for more than one election cycle. Someone has commented that Trump's campaign represents a third-party movement within the Republican Party; it seems that the same could be said of the Sanders campaign within the Democrats. And then you have the real third parties, like the Libertarians and Greens, which only complicates the picture even more. But in any case, it seems that no one is satisfied these days, and they are all protesting and fighting against the depredations of some ill-defined establishment -- “big government” for the right, and “not big enough”, or “big enough, but with the wrong priorities” for the left. But both sides are trapped in their own contradictions, since the right wants smaller government except for “defense”, which you can apparently never have too much of... and the left wants government to somehow mend its ways and start serving “the people” -- even though big government is, by and large, a creation of the left, and it was created precisely in order to, guess what, serve “the people”. Obviously, something funny happened on the way to Utopia. The “democratic socialist” (referencing Bernie Sanders' position) movement, which started during the Progressive Era and went into overdrive with the New Deal, has now morphed into oligarchy, domination by the Money Power and the military-industrial complex, and perpetual war – and this with nary a shot being fired, to say nothing of any sort of revolution. If Sanders and the leftists want to rewind the tape and start over, they'll have to go back at least as far as pre-World War I, in other words 100 years. Socialism without a love affair with war and empire might be possible – look at Scandinavia – but for the “major powers” it seems to be an impossibility. Even the former colonial powers, who should have learned their lesson, jump at any chance they get to return to the fray and make a cameo appearance on the world stage, as witness England and France's pathetic tag-along enthusiasm for our follies in the Islamic world.

And yet, having said all this, there is nonetheless a large, faceless, non-noisy portion of the citizenry, and they are, in fact, the biggest single piece – a plurality at least, and most likely a majority. And they are satisfied – complacent... smug, even. They don't object to paying taxes (the ones who do, I mean)... they don't have any problem with big government, even in its current manifestation... they are perfectly happy with every law and regulation that the rest of us find intrusive and onerous... they think that anyone who doesn't like the way things are is some kind of radical, nut, or “hater”... and one never hears from them, because they are profoundly satisfied. They are the true establishment of our time, at the grass-roots level. They are the true conservatives, as opposed to the “conservatives” who want radical change, or who talk like they do.

Who are these people? Why, Hillary Clinton supporters, of course! They are the ones who have completely sold out to the system – or were born into it, so didn't have to. They are like a huge baby that is perpetually locked onto the teat of government, and spends its life in a dream-like stupor. The only thing that can ever get their attention is any sort of threat to their “rights” -- which means their entitlements, which means their right to the fruits of someone else's labor. They are the current-day manifestation of the communist concept “to each according to his need” -- except that their “needs” are titanically greater than anything Marx or Lenin ever dreamt of, or would have tolerated.

And I don't want to give the impression that I'm talking only, or even mainly, about “the deserving poor”. There aren't nearly enough of those to fill this box, and to scapegoat them would show a lack of compassion. No, these would be people of all social classes, right up to and including billionaire “crony capitalists”, who could not imagine getting along without government help of some sort. There might have been a time in our history when welfare was for the poor, but those days are long gone. The poor get a trickle, but the so-called “capitalists” get a windfall. And again, is this a natural and inevitable evolution of our society, or did something go terribly wrong at some point, and might it be possible to go back and take the “road less traveled” again? (This is certainly the fond wish on the part of Bernie Sanders and his supporters.)

So here we have an election arena – a marketplace of ideas, if you will – that is using up all the air time (and all the air) and which seems to involve everyone to some degree or other. It's as if everyone in Rome is at the Colosseum and no one is out there doing ordinary, everyday tasks. But that's not the case! There is a silent majority, and they're silent because they're satisfied... and they are firmly in Hillary Clinton's camp because she represents what they all want – the “nanny state”. She is Big Nurse – just do what she says and we'll get along fine. Otherwise... you don't want to know.

The problem for the noisemakers – populists left and right, and their candidates – is that they don't fully realize that this demographic exists – or if they do they're in serious denial. They assume that revolutionary fervor will carry the day, that it is a force multiplier of sorts and can turn a numerical minority into a majority in terms of energy and impact – and they can point to plenty of historic examples, like pretty much any bonafide revolution. But I don't think we're living in times like those. For revolution to work, you need a lot of desperate people – a majority, even; we might have come close to that state during the Depression, but it's been far from the case ever since. (And no, “quiet desperation” won't do, because that's too akin to despair and is therefore enervating.) 

Religion was supposed to be the opiate of the people, but that was just a myth perpetuated by those who wanted government to be the opiate of the people – which it has, in fact, become. And even those who occasionally stagger out of the government opium den into the fresh air can only think clearly up to a point. They still accept the premise that “something has to be done” and the only entity that can do it is government. If they thought more clearly they would realize that government is the problem, and it can't be expected to fix itself. But then they would also realize that they are in the minority, and... what's to be done? Pass the opium pipe, I guess.

The Bottomless Pit is Open for Business

The powers that be have finally admitted – with great reluctance, of course – that our expedition in Afghanistan is not having the expected (or at least advertised) result, and that we must – must! We have no choice! -- remain there as an occupying force for the foreseeable future, i.e. forever, for all intents and purposes. No Cold War, this – which, despite all the bluster and threats, at least had some symmetry... some balance. Yes, it was one political/social/economic system versus another, but it was also one empire versus another, with many of the same strategies and tactics used on both sides. The result was a sort of mutual understanding; each side was the image of the other, in a dark mirror.

The Cold War was not unlike a chess game – and even though the Russians are far better chess players than we are, they were the ones who retired from the field, not from lack of resources or sheer fatigue, but because they eventually tired of their own propaganda and illusions. Their empire got old, the hard-liners died off, and the temptations of the world economic community were too great to resist. So that empire faded in a remarkably peaceful way; no one surrendered, they just underwent a major shift in priorities – a sea change, if you will, from collectivist dogmatism to relative pragmatism. (And there are worse things than having leaders who are pragmatists rather than theorists.) And it's not that there were, and are, no regrets – there's plenty of Stalinist nostalgia floating around Russia these days, at the same time that the Romanovs have been granted icon status by the revitalized Orthodox church. (We have our own Cold War nostalgia, which is alive and well. Any number of government and military types long for the conflict they grew up with, with its clear demarcations, as opposed to the tangled mess we now face in the Middle East. This is one reason why they mistakenly fight the War on Islam as if it were conventional warfare.) The real story of Russia in the 20^th Century may not be how the Soviet Union came to be – that's a fairly clear picture. The real story is how it managed to evolve, or devolve, with a minimum of violence and strife, without a civil war, without starvation and mass displacement of people... in short, a model for how an empire can come to an end in a reasonable way, which is a much rarer phenomenon than how empires are established and grow.

Afghanistan, however, is another matter, as the Russians found out first and as we are now finding out. The “graveyard of empires” certainly contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union (with no little help from us, and now we find that our friends then are our enemies now), and the question is how much it has contributed, is contributing, and will contribute to our own demise – as an empire at least, if not as a nation.

That's all on the conventional wisdom/historical model side. But there is another level of analysis at work, and it has been from the outset... and I've discussed it many times. In short, the War on Islam (my term, but I believe it to be more accurate than the alternatives) replaced the Cold War just in the nick of time to keep the military-industrial complex from suffering any economic hardship, and just in time for an oppressive domestic policy that had been in the works for decades to become firmly established and justified – for the rule of war is that no matter how physically removed the battles are from home and hearth, the citizenry must, sooner or later, pay the price. Security is touted as the main justification for “why we fight”, but when security necessitates an ever-increasing loss of freedom, one wonders whether that wasn't the idea all along. Diminished freedom seems to be the cost of “security”, and yet we aren't even all that secure, so it winds up being a net loss for the citizenry (and a huge gain for those in power).

Another facet of all of this is the adoption of perpetual war as an economic, political, and diplomatic reality – and the more politicians (including the president) claim that this is not the case, the more clearly it seems to be the case. And this is another reason why the War on Islam, AKA the “War on Terror”, is so ideal – because we are dealing with an amorphous enemy that doesn't play by the “rules”... there are no “exit criteria”, i.e. there is no way of knowing if we've ever “won”... and we are continuously sowing dragon's teeth, i.e. all of our efforts to weaken the opposition – however defined – only result in more opposition. We have an endless parade of monsters and bogeymen to deal with – first the Taliban, then Al-Qaeda, and now ISIS, along with countless lesser organizations, bands, brigades, insurgents, factions, rebels, counter-rebels, counter-counter-rebels, and splinter groups, not to mention actual countries like Syria and Iran. Pair that with our on-again, off-again “allies” in the Middle East and Europe, and it starts to look more and more like our fight – that we are the ones riding out on a white charger while everyone else stays warm and cozy at home, with attitudes ranging from skepticism to outright mockery and derision. “Oh yeah, there goes Uncle Sam again, blowing titanic amounts of blood and treasure in order to, somehow, save the Middle East from itself.”

Afghanistan in particular is frustrating simply because the “radicals” seem to be the only ones who give a damn – who care how things turn out. The populace in general is hunkered down, desperate, and helpless, and either unwilling or unable to aid in the effort. Perfectly good armies seem to evaporate the minute we set foot on their soil, to be replaced by hordes of wild-eyed fanatics; it happened in Iraq, it happened in Libya, and it will, eventually, happen in Syria. Like it or not, for all of the strife that characterizes that part of the world, the one thing that will make them all unite in common cause is our presence – for us to invade and occupy. Then suddenly Job One is to get rid of us... or, failing that, to make our lives as invaders and occupiers thoroughly miserable. And from the humanitarian point of view, how does the civilian death toll compare, pre-U.S. invasion with post-U.S. invasion? I daresay it's much worse after we get involved; again, this is demonstrably the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seems to be the case in Libya as well. Even the lowest form of colonialist ambition – take the oil and run – turns out to be a fallacy; we can turn oil exporters into oil importers in the twinkling of an eye. So where is the profit? Where is the benefit? Cui bono? Clearly, it's in the interests of the military-industrial complex to keep up this dreary routine for as long as possible, and on the domestic side, as I said, it's in the interests of power-hungry politicians to promote totalitarianism in the interests of “national security”. “Department of Homeland Security” -- “Transportation Security Agency” -- “National Security Agency” -- anyone see a trend here?

So back to the issue at hand. Headline: “Afghan exit strategy fades” (as if there ever was one). Sub-headline: “Terrorists' resilience could keep thousands of soldiers in country for decades, commanders say.” The first questions that should be asked, but never are, are as follows: Where did these “terrorists” come from? And what makes them so “resilient”? (And really, folks, where do they get all of that weaponry, much of it made here, or in Russia, or even in Israel?) And what makes us think that we can ever defeat them, even given “decades”? And – the most radical idea of all – why not just leave? Are they really going to follow us back to the homeland and create all sorts of death and destruction? Well, they already are, to some extent. But what if that's because we persist in occupying their country, or their part of the world? What if Ron Paul was right when he said that “they're over here because we're over there”? (That remark, made during a presidential debate, nearly caused Rudy Giuliani to have a fatal stroke, if you'll recall.)

Of course, this is all represented as a “shift in mindset” on the part of the military, and especially on the part of Obama, who really, truly wanted us to get out of that godforsaken place – honest, he really did. Right. My theory is that he has standing orders: Whatever you do, and whatever you say, we are not getting out of Afghanistan, not now, not ever. (Again, who benefits?) The only thing that has changed is not some “mindset” or “outlook” but their willingness to publicly admit that the situation is hopeless – a variety of hopelessness that, mysteriously, requires us to stick around rather than getting the hell out.

But! But! – you might say – hasn't the military been planning, for years now, to leave Afghanistan once they could say “mission accomplished”? Well, no. They've been making that claim for years, sure... but anyone could see that the day when we could say “mission accomplished” would never come – not only because of the reality of the situation, but by design. For example, one of the countless bogus criteria presented is “building an effective Afghan army and police force”. Um... has it ever had these? I seriously doubt it. National character comes into play here. Afghanistan is simply not one of those places that is cut out to have an effective army and police force. It is ideally suited to having warring tribes, which it has had down through recorded history – and if we pulled out it would go back to ancient ways, and probably be too caught up in feuds and vendettas to cause any damage outside its (artificial, by the way) borders. Hence, another foolproof “criterion” which is not a criterion at all. But why quibble? Why not spend “billions of dollars a year” and have “thousands of advisers on the ground” (the diplomatic term for combat troops)?

The best quote from the article is as follows: “'What we've learned is that you can't really leave', said a senior Pentagon official...” How true! But how did they “learn” that? Who told them?

Well, it's sort of like what happens when your team is knocked out of Super Bowl contention – you can finally sit back, relax, not worry, and enjoy the show rather than engage in endless nail-biting. All the American public has to do now is accept that we'll be in a state of war forever... or at least until the Republic collapses from its follies. Perhaps we will get a break, and the end won't really be the end, as exemplified by the Soviet Union. There might be a light at the end of the tunnel – but as long as the people who are now in charge remain in charge, that light will not come any closer.

One final quote, again from a Pentagon official: “This is not a region you want to abandon.” That's funny, I sure do – and I'll bet a lot of other Americans do as well. But who listens to us?

Whose Apocalypse Is It Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Won’t They Ever Learn? (NO)

So… in the wake of the Paris attacks, and the newfound respect for the notion of actually controlling immigration -- i.e. who gets to cross our borders and settle down -- we have at least two Republican candidates for the presidency proposing some, let’s say, startling ideas.

From the Sunday paper (an AP article) -- “… Ben Carson said… that he wants to expand the government’s surveillance operations aimed at potential terrorist threats….”  “’… I would be in favor of monitoring a mosque or any church or any organization or any school or any press corps where there was a lot of radicalization and things that were anti-American…’”  And, tellingly, “He did not expound on just how an administration would determine what constitutes ‘radicalization’ or ‘anti-American’”.  “Carson added that funding for FBI surveillance activities should be increased.” 

In the meantime, Donald Trump said “’I want surveillance of certain mosques‘” and “has also voiced support for closing certain mosques as a way to contain the terrorist threat…” 

OK.  Nothing new about harassing the many for the sins of a few; we have only to consider German-Americans during World War I and Japanese-Americans during World War II.  But that’s not my point.  When it comes to government surveillance, monitoring activities of religious groups and journalists, and focusing on “radicals” and “anti-American” activities. it’s already happening.  Have these guys already forgotten the IRS harassment of conservative non-profit organizations?  Or the NSA monitoring of communications among individuals and organizations considered threats to national security?  How many times, of late, have liberals in politics and journalism equated conservatives with terrorists -- even in the context of the “climate change” issue?  And let’s not forget various snippets of guidance coming from the Justice Department and the FBI warning local police departments about the terrorist potential from “right-wing” and “anti-government” organizations, and even from home schoolers! 

No, the kind of thing Trump and Carson say they want is already here, firmly in place and being implemented 24-7.  Of course, the targets of this around-the-clock intelligence operation are not the same people Trump and Carson have in mind, but it hardly matters.  The government has been given the tools -- largely by Congress, which means by both major parties.  Whenever the government begs for funding in order to fight against “the bad guys”, they get it -- because everyone assumes that the ones the government identifies as bad guys are the same ones they do.  Oh yeah, give the government anything it wants, and the hell with the Bill of Rights, because this is an emergency!  It’s an “existential threat”, and all the other scare words and phrases that are used to energize the process.  Problem is, even if today’s “bad guys” are the ones you had in mind, tomorrow’s bad guys might be your constituents -- or you.  And then what? 

How many Catholic politicians voted for ObamaCare, only to find that part of the long-term agenda is to insist that Catholic hospitals perform abortions, or be put out of business?  Oh, right, there is “wording” in the law that supposedly keeps that from happening, but we all know how laws can morph over time -- and add an executive order here and there and you have, once again, something those who voted for it in the first place wouldn’t recognize.  (I'll mention in passing the use of RICO against anti-abortion protesters.)   

It’s the same old scam over and over, and the Republicans fall for it every time.  Set up a straw man, present it as “the” enemy, get everyone to rally ’round the flag and vote the government basically unlimited powers -- but just in this one area, mind!  And only on a temporary basis!  And, surely common sense will prevail, etc.  Well… when it comes to “temporary”, all you have to do is count the number of New Deal agencies that are still alive and well, and causing untold waste, fraud, and abuse.  Any tool that the supposed conservatives provide to the liberals/statists/totalitarians in order to deal with an alleged enemy, or threat, will eventually be turned back on them.  Want to limit freedom of speech in order to deal with communists?  Now it’s aimed at “talk radio”.  Want to keep communist and radical leftist political parties out of the election process?  Now it's the Tea Party and the libertarians.  Is the press too socialistic?  Too communist-inspired?  It’s the “right-wing” press and media that we’re supposed to be concerned about these days… because everyone knows there is no daylight between them and the KKK, and those guys are nothing but “home-grown terrorists”.  And as far as things being “anti-American”, well… doesn’t it depend on whose definition of “anti-American” we’re using?  According to Obama, it’s anti-American to want to restrict the entry of refugees from any country, in any number, and for any reason.   

And so on.  Again, give them the tools and they’ll use them against you.  I want to call up Trump and Carson and say:  The way to fight big government is not by making government bigger, you dummies!  You have to dismantle it all -- piece by piece, brick by brick… even the parts you “like” once in a while, when they agree with you and act in your interests.  You can’t complain about SWAT teams arresting home schoolers and organic farmers but then turn around and give them anything they want when it comes to drug dealers and immigrants.  You can’t complain about government efforts to suppress free speech but then advocate denying it to Moslems, even “radical” ones.  If you want mosques monitored lest they teach “radicalism”, and then closed if they do, then don’t complain when the government starts pressuring Christian churches to stop teaching against things like gay marriage, or just about anything else that is the political flavor of the month -- i.e. to stop “preaching hate”.  The day may come when Christian churches are threatened with closure (rather then just losing their tax-exempt status) for holding positions that oppose those of the Regime. 

It’s easy to applaud when the Regime beats up on the other guy… but then when you wind up in the cross-hairs, what principles are you going to appeal to, since you’ve long since given up on principles, and on thinking in those terms. 

And as far as this election goes, well… the Republicans are doomed; I’ll say it again.  But at least recent events have convinced them to sign off on increased government powers, regardless of the Constitution… and that was, of course, the idea all along.  This way, the debate is no longer between big government and not-as-big government, but only about big government Type A and big government Type B -- but in the long run there is really only one type, and it’s Type T for Tyranny.     

Empires Without Borders

As a kind of sidebar to the previous post, I have to point out that the dissolution of our borders does not signify the end of our empire -- of our long reach (military, economic, political) around the globe.  Just the opposite, in fact.  What it represents is a certain stage in the rise and fall of empires.  They begin with a secure and stable home base -- a city, region, country, whatever… and a surplus of resources, which makes “expeditions” possible.  Poor countries don’t go empire-building, in other words.  You have to have more than you need of something -- manpower, weaponry, natural resources, technology… but also less than you think you need of something else -- land, other natural resources, power and glory, and so on.  And, your neighbors have to be in, for whatever reason, a somewhat weakened position.  So the pressure mounts, and before you know it Germany is invading Poland, or England is colonizing India, or the U.S. is striding onto the world stage in World War I.  But regardless of the many varieties of empire-building (which includes old-fashioned “colonialism”, now dreadfully out of fashion), you can be assured that, at the early or expansionist state, there will be a stable home base -- a base of operations and a stable political situation with an enthusiastic, or at least mollified, citizenry, that doesn’t object to the horrendous waste of resources that military campaigns typically represent.  If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, it is the first refuge of politicians who seek their own power and glory at the expense of the country and its citizenry.

But this is just an early stage of the process, albeit a stage that can last for a considerable time.  But eventually there is a turning of the tide -- empire building and the maintaining of empires seem to get more expensive over time, probably because resistance grows among subject peoples, but also because corruption grows within the empire, sapping resources at an ever greater rate.  At the same time, the price to be paid on the domestic side grows as well, until we find out we’re spending more on “foreign policy”, AKA the military, than we are on domestic needs.  Once this tipping point is reached, the process accelerates until you wind up with, basically, an empire with a hollow center -- that is, an apparently powerful span of influence and control “on which the Sun never sets” but a homeland in political disarray, economic distress, and social and moral chaos.  This is the point at which we find ourselves at this time, and as the demands of empire continue to increase -- as they inevitably do -- the hollowing-out effect will become more severe and more obvious -- and more of a political issue.  (Please note that, so far, there has been no serious questioning of the magnitude of our military expenditures -- probably because both major parties are completely committed to empire, as are the media.) 

Another symptom of this particular stage of things is that, as I discussed previously, borders start to dissolve and we become ever more helpless in the face of invasions (however characterized) -- often, but not necessarily, originating in the same places we colonized and thought we had control of.  So you have this paradoxical situation where we continue to exert ourselves world-wide -- with our most advanced technology going into war-making… er, I mean “defense”… and yet, on the domestic front, all we see, hear, and read about is a rising tide of social chaos, economic distress, welfare-ism, entitlements, anarchy in urban areas, moral dissolution, and a general feeling of unease and existential angst among the citizenry. 

And yet, this may not be so much a paradox as an inevitability -- a natural stage of development, which in the broadest sense represents a decision, or innumerable decisions over many years, to prefer war and empire over domestic prosperity and well-being.  The fact that we are, and have always been, an ideational society (as opposed to one firmly rooted in race, ethnicity, faith, and a sense of place) only serves to aggravate the situation; there is, basically, nothing stopping us from carrying our Utopian quest to the four corners of the globe (yes, that’s technically nonsense), because what’s good for us is good for everyone else on earth, or at least ought to be, if only they would see things our way, and if they don’t, well, we have cruise missiles and drones and so on -- the great pacifiers.

But again, why should an empire increase but the place of its origin suffer?  Why should we be invading other countries while, at the very same time, ours is being invaded (albeit by different means)?  I think it’s because once our ideas -- our idealism -- becomes outward-directed, there is no turning back.  Whenever the subject is brought up, whoever brought it up is accused of “isolationism” and thus kicked out of the marketplace of ideas.  It becomes “empire or bust”, just as so many covered wagons in pioneer days were inscribed “California or bust”.  To quote JFK, we “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship” in the interest of empire (although he didn’t put it quite that way).  Well, that marvelous bit of rhetoric gave us Vietnam, and all the follies since then have followed the same pattern.  The common element is that as empire increases, domestic standard of living decreases -- or at least fails to live up to its potential, defined as “what would things be like if we weren’t always fighting a war somewhere?”  And don’t talk to me about some trickle-down economic effects of war -- war may be the health of the state, but it’s the death of the economy in the long run, as we are seeing in our time.  Only the elite who are masterminding the whole business come out ahead. 

For what is a border, after all?  It’s a statement, basically -- a way of saying “we live here, we built this, we have our traditions, we’re doing things our way, and if you want to join us kindly get in line, we’ll accept as many newcomers as we can short of over-burdening our economy, disrupting our society, and watering down our traditions and legal system.”  Yes, it represents an “us” vs. “them”, and this is considered very poor form these days.  Because, after all, we believe in “fairness”, don’t we?  And “social justice”?  And there’s that poem on the Statue of Liberty, etc.  So we have to suspend judgment as to how many newcomers we can take, and absorb -- “all are welcome”, not because we are such principled and compassionate people, but that we have forgotten our principles and forgotten that charity begins as home. 

It’s a hard saying, I know, that open borders represent political and social decadence rather than humanity and compassion, but I believe it to be the case.  Yes, we have always accepted immigrants, but standards were in place, the bar was set high, and the gate was narrow.  If we take anyone in for any reason -- or for no reason at all except that they showed up -- we are saying, basically, that we’re no different, we’re no better, and we have nothing worth defending.  (But at the same time, we have unlimited resources, which seems a bit contradictory.)  And this is just groovy for the people who want to get in, few of whom, I’m guessing, give a tinker’s damn about our history, traditions, laws, or culture.  They’re just looking for sustenance and shelter -- perfectly natural human needs -- or, perhaps, for what is called “opportunity”, even though we’ve pretty much fallen into despair on that count of late.  Or, yes, they may be infiltrators seeking to bring the whole system down -- but who can tell?  Is there a DNA test for “terror”?  So we are being undermined by people who only want a chance, but also by people with malicious intent.  We have the huddled masses and the destroyers.  And the question becomes, with all of this going on how much longer can we sustain the American Empire?  Is it really possible that, one of these days, “America” will consist entirely of military bases overseas with nothing but an economic and social desert at home?  Because if you project current trends outward that’s what you get.  I don’t think it’s ever gotten to that point historically -- something has to intervene first.  The question is, what will that something be? 
       

We Won’t Always Have Paris

The attacks in Paris seem to represent a high water mark (to date) of the combined invasion of and attack on Europe originating in the Islamic world.  The first, and most politically fraught, question, is this:  Are the supposedly needy refugees/immigrants who are being welcomed with more or less open arms into Europe the same people who are committing the terrorist attacks?  The liberals would answer, with indignation, “No!  Of course not!” -- the point being that the refugees are trying to escape from the same people who are terrorizing their home countries and Europe.  But then we read stories about terrorists who enter Europe under the guise of refugees -- and of the possibility that a similar thing could happen here if we admit refugees from Syria.  So there’s the dilemma.  When humanism and compassion come up against self-defense, we have usually chosen self-defense first -- but those days seem to be over. 

And I’m not just talking about the massive social, economic, and political impact of hordes of (mostly undocumented) migrants.  Aside from the terrorism issue, this represents a truly historic phenomenon, comparable to many other great migrations and invasions down through the millennia.  And not the least amazing thing about it is that resistance has been nil -- comparable to our own situation with regard to immigrants coming across our southern border. 

And why has resistance been nil?  Don’t tell me it’s only about humanistic or compassionate motives; if that were true would we, and certain European powers, be bombing the same people on their home turf?  (Oh, wait, that’s called “collateral damage”, right?)  Would we be playing a major role in creating the refugee problem in the first place, by helping to prolong conflicts in places like Syria?  Would we have freed up radical Islamists in Iraq to persecute Christians and drive them out of the country?  So no, forget about humanism and compassion as prime motivators.

Economically -- well, there are arguments, mostly made in the privacy of executive suites, for allowing unlimited numbers of refugees from south of the border -- AKA cheap labor -- to come here.  The counterargument has to do with the welfare state and entitlements -- but of course those expenses are paid by the taxpayers, who have, basically, no say at all in the matter.  Of course, there has always been a suspicion of “foreign elements” on our soil -- going at least as far back as the influx of Irish refugees from the potato famine, and that was before the Civil War.  “Yes, they’re Catholic, but doggone it, we need cheap labor to build the railroads, so let ’em in, they’ll all be ’absorbed’ eventually.”   

That’s the argument on the “capitalist” side.  On the liberal side, the argument (again, discussed mostly behind closed doors) is that immigrants = voters, and liberal/Democratic voters at that, so it’s OK.  Thus, you have a united political will for once -- both establishment conservatives and liberals approve of unlimited immigration, although the capitalists won’t admit it in public.  (The liberal argument, as in Europe, is based on humanism and compassion -- qualities they seldom display in any other context.)

And as for people who fear that they’re going to lose their age-old culture -- or at least have it watered down beyond recognition -- they are given smug and patronizing assurances by those in charge.  There is nothing to worry about!  And besides, you’re just being racist.  Or intolerant, or bigoted, or reactionary, or “fascist” (still a big-ticket label in Old Europe).  Right.  Except -- there are already vast tracts of European cities and suburbs that have been given over to total occupation and domination by Moslems, who are perfectly happy pursuing their own lifestyle and living by their own rules, no matter how much those clash with the law of the land.  They have, in fact, acted as colonizers, except that they entered the scene at the bottom rather than at the top.   

And as to whether that could also happen here, well… how about so many of our “inner cities”, which have been implicitly declared no man’s lands by law enforcement (especially in reaction to the recent controversies over police-citizen relations)?  The bottom line is that it’s difficult to enforce the law in the midst of an anarchistic culture, or one that has a heritage of laws of its own.  Much easier to retreat to the suburbs where they can bug people about letting their grass grow too long.   

So the bottom line for us (in the U.S.) is, if you want the cheap labor and the voters, you have to take the criminal activity and the burden on the welfare system.  Period.  And apparently, this sounds like a perfectly fine bargain to our ruling class.  In Europe’s case, it might be about cheap labor; I doubt if it’s about votes because Europe is already the socialist paradise we aspire to be someday. 

But the question remains -- how is it that we’re defenseless?  And how is it that Europe is even more defenseless?  (I have yet to hear of trains full of undocumented immigrants leaving Juarez and crossing over to El Paso on an hourly basis.)  I feel that -- like for many other issues -- there is something deeper going on here… something instinctive, primordial… something the people affected have no idea of. 

What is it that distinguishes the current crop of immigrants/refugees from the, let’s say, “natives”?  It’s the same thing that has distinguished all invading hordes across the ages -- energy, determination, and sheer numbers.  Have you ever stopped to wonder why the flood of humanity across our southern border is a comparatively recent problem?  The border has been there, in its present configuration, since 1854.  And yes, there have always been people sneaking across.  (Remember when they were called “wetbacks”?  That‘s right up there with tacos and sombreros and Speedy Gonzales.)  And is this flood only about economics -- about the comparative standard of living of Latin America vs. the U.S.?  But that’s probably not as radically different as it used to be.  Perhaps it’s better communication -- TV, the Internet, movies -- that has inspired people to leave everything behind and seek a better life in El Norte. 

I’m sure all of these factors play a role, but I submit that a lot of it has to do with pure population pressure, and especially with the fact that -- to over-simplify a bit, certainly -- they reproduce and we don’t.  Or, we don’t reproduce at anything like the rate at which they do.  So it boils down to something almost as simple as elementary physics -- the differential energy -- therefore pressure -- levels of gases, or water pressure.  There are just too many people trying to get in, and too few trying to keep them out.  And it’s not just a matter of technology, or even “political will” (gravely lacking in this case).  It really is a kind of irresistible force.  (And our border is far from being an immovable object.)  We’ve seen it time and again in history -- invaders usually stick around.  They settle down, become more peaceful… but nothing is ever the same. 

We share, with the Europeans, a kind of pathology -- call it a cultural suicide wish.  We want to be “welcoming”, and “compassionate”, and so on -- but behind it is an unstated premise that our respective cultures have had their day… the experiment is over (the “American experiment” in our case and a kind of cozy form of socialism in Europe’s case)… and it’s time to explore new options -- to welcome fresh blood, vigor, and new cultural offerings.  And when you add to that the spectacle that we are helpless… stupefied… paralyzed… in the face of this new wave of humanity, one really not seen in either our history of that of Europe for many generations… you get the current situation. 

And as for the argument that our Western culture is robust, and enduring, and immune to takeover by mass numbers of the unwashed -- well, all I can say is that in that respect the war is already over, and the other side has won.  By which I mean, our own cultural revolution and that of Europe -- both originating in the 1960s (when else?) -- have done their work.  The long march through the institutions has been largely accomplished, with only a few lingering holdouts (think:  “talk radio” and the Tea Party for us, and the neo-nationalistic “right-wing” political parties in Europe).  Our resistance has been weakened to the point where just about anything could have taken over -- but the Islamic influx was probably not exactly what the revolutionaries had in mind.  For them, the plan was to infiltrate and weaken “traditional” society with its history, customs, religious faith, and mores, so that the home-grown radical element could take over -- and this has, in fact, happened to a great extent if you look at our politics, domestic policies, and of course that Great Satan, political correctness.  But guess what, the elements that took over our culture and that of Europe turn out to have an Achilles heel, namely that although they have great resistance to counter-revolution from within, they have little or none to invasion from without.  They softened up the battlefield only to find that there was a powerful invading army coming in right behind them, taking advantage of much of the same rhetoric and many of the same arguments that the revolutionaries used to such great effect. 

So the argument that we somehow have built-in resistance because we’ve been here longer, and we have a history, and there are more of us than there are of them (so far) -- I call this “voodoo demographics”.  It’s the notion that there is something magical in the way things are -- the status quo -- that, all by itself, will suffice… that now that the revolution is, basically, over with, we can just sit back, relax, and be frozen in place, and not have to worry about any external threats.  (In this, the revolutionaries of the 1960s have become the real conservatives of the 2010s -- things will stay the same from here on out because Utopia has finally been gained, and it is so right, and just, that nothing can prevail against it, either from within or anywhere else.)

The Islamists, of course, have a different idea -- and they are nothing if not students of history.  They were turned back from Europe, by a hair, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, and the Ottoman Empire was dealt a death blow by World War I, and ever since then the Moslem world has been on life support owing to oil and very little else.  But hey, radicalism thrives on adversity, right?  Happy people don’t start revolutions -- and they don’t uproot themselves and take off for unknown lands by the millions unless they have a pretty good idea that, in the long run, they can better their lot -- or, alternatively, restore the Caliphate which will now include the lands they were wrongfully deprived of centuries earlier.  The shame of colonialism must be avenged! -- and, by the way, the French are as guilty as anyone else when it comes to throwing their weight around the Third World. 

The U.S., of course, is a new project for the Islamists, and there is, after all, that ocean in between… but they are over here anyway.  And don’t they call us “Franks”, which harks back to the Crusades?  Aren’t we seen as an extension of Europe, and, to add to the insult, the foremost supporters of Israel -- the ultimate thorn in their side? 

So here we sit, like the latter-day Romans… gazing over the wall at the barbarian armies, but too busy eating, drinking, and being merry to take any of it seriously.  Yes, we have our history, our traditions, and our battered faith (where it survives at all), but they have a kind of energy and determination we don’t understand -- and, perhaps, haven’t understood since the time of the Crusades, when we had the upper hand (at least for a while) and they were the helpless ones.  It’s already true that Europe, as has been pointed out, is basically a museum, with very little similarity between past glories and current decadence.  I have seen the remnants of Islamic glory in Spain; how long before all that is left of Christian glory in Europe is remnants?  And on our side of the “pond”, how long before the American Experiment succumbs to similar pressures from the lowly whose only strength is that of determination and sheer numbers?  We were overcome by a different breed of radicals, but even their days now seem to be coming to an end.  In this, we can take a certain ironic comfort.