Part III: Establishment Gain from US Demise

Establishment Opposition to Democracy, Christianity, and Capitalism

 

[Editor’s Note 21MAR2017: We received some feedback that the 3 mentions of those of Jewish decent in the quotes and summary statements immediately below are anti-Semitic. Double-checking both the context and the primary sources, that is not the case. The quote context asks about and attempts to explain a paradoxical phenomena of leftist mindset using two easily observed examples: the rich leftist who works to oppose the capitalism that made him rich, and the secular/liberal/progressive Jew in America who supports pro-Palestine policy in America rather than a pro-Israel platform. For evidence that this is an observable phenomenon among some American Jews, consider this article from the Haaretz newspaper in Israel “American Jewish Support for Israel Is Eroding, and It’s Got Nothing to Do With the Palestinians“. Another example is from a pro-America/pro-Israel magazine co-founded by Elie Wiesel, which pulls together thoughts on the phenomenon from several dozen influential Jews of note: “The Growing Gap Between Israel and American Jews“. From the opposing viewpoint, here is a pro-Palestine publication on American policy which observes and attempts to explain the same phenomenon. Next, going back to our original primary source, John C Wright, it is found that he writes from a devout Roman Catholic perspective and opposes racism including anti-Semitism. While the foundations of his point of view may run contrary to our Protestant readers, we have highlighted and recommended only those points which appear fruitful for all true Americans and all true Christians, points important to him as well. Last, all writers for our site support the right of Israel to exist and defend itself as a nation and a people and we strongly disagree with any racist or anti-Semitic ideology.]

 

To understand establishment motives, we must understand some of the tyrannical establishment mindset.

To that end I quote extensively from a political and philosophical article penned by the writer John C Wright. The entire essay is well worth a read to understand the enemy mindset, but we are skipping past most of the reasoning and looking at some concluding paragraphs. Wright’s “Unified Field Theory of Madness” opens thus:

Leftism is an enigma. We need a theorem that explains not one or two aspects of Leftism, but all their traits.

And, while we are at it, if we could also explain why the Rich, who are routinely vilified by the Left number among its most ardent supporters, or the secular Jews, our theory would be very potent in its explanatory power.

Why would folks like the rich or the secular Jews support a movement that demonizes them and destroys the routes they followed to attain success?

Jumping to section 8, the final section of the theory (emphases in bold are mine):

From the roots of the compassionate epistemology, which forbids them from holding any opinion based on judgment, we have seen how this flowers into to the judgments all opponents are evil, all lovely things hateful, no war is just, no independence of thought is to be tolerated, no success to go unpunished, and no truth to be admitted.

But what is the one thing the Rich, the Chosen or the Elite, blessed by so much, cannot get for love or money in a Christian Commonwealth, in a Free Market, or by vote in a Democracy?

They cannot get rank. They cannot get the imponderable pomp and honor and deference due to men of noble or high station paid to them by the lesser and inferior ranks.

For it is not just wealth, or race, or intellect that makes a man into the shriveled and whining destroyers I have here so tellingly described. It is a sense of being cheated.

You heard me. These pampered and privileged members of the elite feel that they are being robbed of their just due. Being elite is not enough. They want the lesser beings, the common men, the mob, the peasants, the underlings, to give them the honor and worship and adoration normally paid to a true and ruling aristocracy.

These people hate America, and everything for which she stands, and hate Christ, and everything for which He stands, with the bitter hatred of someone who has earned a high position and been cheated of it. Democracy does not give them what they want. God does not give them what they want.

Look at what Leftist political theory did in Russia and Red China once it was freed of all lingering doubts and checks and chains. Look at the piles of skulls. Then look at the Dachas and the larger-than-life monuments to the Beloved Leader.

They want to be aristocrats, in spirit if not in fact. They want to be born into privilege, and to be admired, without the tedium of actually doing anything to earn admiration, neither in the marketplace of the market, nor in the marketplace of ideas.

There is no paradox at all of rich man being committed to policies that will destroy the laws and customs needed to create wealth. The Middle Class creates most of the wealth, most of the jobs. Socialism requires cooperation between certain protected industries to be kept alive as neutered pets. Whether the rich bribe the powerful or the powerful extort wealth from the rich makes no matter: the end result is a partnership between the rich and powerful to trample the faces of the poor. That is the end result of the mindset described above, once it is free to act, and devoid of scruples. Imagine a boot stomping a human face forever.

Any proud man who feels the society has not given him his due will gradually grow more critical and impatient with it. Remember the hatred poured out upon the Middle Class, and our religion, and our morals, and our work ethic. Remember how we are accused, and accused, and accused of the very things we and we alone, across the ages, have cured or corrected or minimized, everything from pollution to racism to population outnumbering resources.

The reward of wealth is not enough for the rich socialist; the reward of freedom from racism not enough for the Jew who supports Palestinian bombers and hates the state of Israel; the reward of sinecure is not enough for the Ivory Tower professor. They see men who are self-reliant and happy and God-fearing who do not bow the knee to men who possess more, physical or intellectual possessions, than do they. They do not fear and love their superiors. That the ordinary working man, a father with a family, should be happy in his suburban home, and pay no honors and make no obeisance to the would-be elite in our elite-free society is intolerable.

They do not want our money. If they wanted money, they would not spend countless billions on boondoggles or flush it down ratholes. They do not want to rule us. If they wanted to rule, they would not be so absurdly incompetent when in power.

They want only to have the honors, like Princesses, not the duties of war and lawmaking, like Kings. In the final reckoning, when all is said and done, all these paradoxes can be explained by the simplest theory of all.

Leftism is the sin of pride disguised as compassion.

So, the elite establishment is driven by a sense that they are better than us, the common men. And is that not what we see with politicians and big businessmen who act as if they are above the law?

When will you rise up?

Ask any military man who’s held a security clearance (like myself) what would happen to him if he did even an iota of the things Hillary Clinton did with her private email server as Secretary of State. I personally know men whose careers were immediately ended by innocent mistakes at the lowest level of classified material handling, even though security nets in place prevented any actual loss or compromise of information. These were honest mistakes and not of any malice whatsoever.

Ask any small businessman what would happen if he conducted himself in the manner of some of the larger firms on Wall Street or the international banks. Sure, the big companies and big banks got fined (pennies on the dollars they stole), but in most cases no one went to jail. See for example, the case of HSBC openly laundering drug money for the cartels (originally reported by WND). While I hate to point to a source like Huffington Post, even they can see the lack of justice and accountability for those high up, if only because they condemn big business and cheer Occupy Wall Street while also cheering lawless politicians on the left, not realizing the problem is an alliance of lawless businessmen and lawless politicians of all stripes.

Consider also the case in which Congress knowingly and deliberately broke their own laws (by filing that the House and Senate each had a total of only 45 employees) in order to give themselves and their thousands of staff employees a break from ObamaCare which no citizen can receive. Tyrants!

When ObamaCare threw members of Congress and their staffs out of their health plans and socked them with a pay cut in the neighborhood of $12,000 each, Republican and Democratic members of Congress collaborated with President Obama to devise an illegal scheme to keep that money flowing. Members and staff are now the only federal employees who receive a taxpayer-funded Federal Employees Health Benefits Program premium contribution toward non-FEHBP plans.

The fact that members wanted to hold onto their $12,000 tax-free, taxpayer-financed premium contribution played only a small part in the bipartisan and near-unanimous support for this illegal scheme. The main reason member supported it was that if congressional staff took a $12,000 pay cut, there would have been an exodus from Capitol Hill.

And ObamaCare was perhaps the least popular law ever forced upon the American People despite their objections. It likely lead to the electoral “House cleaning” at mid-term elections by an outraged populace. And the “brain drain” that Capitol Hill was so desperate to prevent that they flouted the law as it applied to themselves and their enormous staff? Michael Wear gives us one example of those who would rule over us.

Michael Wear is a theologically conservative evangelical Christian who worked for Obama in the Democrat Party. He helped with faith-outreach strategies for Obama’s 2008 campaign and was director of Barack Obama’s 2012 faith-outreach efforts. In an interview with The Atlantic about his book, it is reported (emphasis mine):

Several years later [after 2008], he watched battles over abortion funding and contraception requirements in the Affordable Care Act with chagrin: The administration was unnecessarily antagonistic toward religious conservatives in both of those fights, Wear argues, and it eventually lost, anyway. When Louie Giglio, an evangelical pastor, was pressured to withdraw from giving the 2012 inaugural benediction because of his teachings on homosexuality, Wear almost quit.

Some of his colleagues also didn’t understand his work, he writes. He once drafted a faith-outreach fact sheet describing Obama’s views on poverty, titling it “Economic Fairness and the Least of These,” a reference to a famous teaching from Jesus in the Bible. Another staffer repeatedly deleted “the least of these,” commenting, “Is this a typo? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Who/what are ‘these’?”

As John Wright explained, they hate Christianity, they hate Democracy, and they hate the Free Market because all three systems only recognize a man based on his merits, while the various levels of establishment elite feel they have been cheated out of being praised as inherently superior to the rest of us. And those who would rule over us don’t even understand some of the most basic references from core literature of Western Civilization (more on that later).

Tearing Down Civilization

Another political/philosophical article from John C Wright works through the ideological stones of civilization and how a nation convinces itself to dear down its own civilizational foundations. Definitely go read the whole thing.

A civilization whose citizens have lost the ability to admire its virtues, beauties, benefits and strengths is one whose citizens are losing the ability to defend that civilization. Before we pull stone from stone to dismantle the wall that separates civilized life from the chaotic bloodshed, cruelty, and misery of barbarism outside, it behooves us to examine the wall, and ask three questions of it: What is Civilization? How is it maintained? What can undo it?

Summarizing a bit, without the laws of civilization all labor is vain because anything you build or develop can be seized from you by force. But even barbarians tend to honor the ties of family so as not to live in total anarchy. Thus, the first stone of civilization is protection of the family unit. The capstone is when the intellectuals convince the King that due to a higher law, the King is not above the laws of the land.

Safety from constant attack allows differentiation of labor into basic groups:

  • The king and his fighting men
  • The priests: “whoever or whatever it is to whom you entrusted your common intellectual and spiritual heritage, such as your academics, media, singers of songs and tellers of tales, the press and philosophers”
  • The merchant class
  • The peasant class

Here is how the bulwark of civilization is torn down, as related by Wright. See how far America has pushed itself today:

  1. The clerks or intellectuals undermine the idea that the King is NOT above the law. This begins with the philosophers teach that truth is relative and words are meaningless. [Allan Bloom identified this as a lead trait of new (and far less intelligent) college students back in the 1980’s.]
  2. The press abandons objective reporting and makes the philosophers’ lies into actuality by practice and only reporting spun lies. [This one is becoming more plain by the day with all the fake news in the mainstream media.]
  3. The singers change from songs of beauty to songs about evil and ugly things. The storytellers always depict the civilization as worthless, wicked, hypocritical, and vile, so that the people know only disgust for their own civilization. [You may screen movies for your kids for profanity, violence, and indecency. But do you notice all the subversive messages? Dads portrayed as buffoons and idiots who need a tween girl to show him how its done. Kids encouraged to ignore elders in their community and go follow their heart. A theme that ‘the evil is not as bad as you thought, but the good is worse than you imagined.’]
  4. Lastly, the philosophers at this point need only suggest the wall of civilization be torn down to reach an Utopian paradise on the other side. The King “must be granted a plethora of unlawful powers in the name of breaking down the wall blocking the way to Utopia.” [Liberals now panicked that Trump has a phone and a pen and can undo every executive order that was not a law out of congress fail to realize if that power scares them, perhaps no man in America should have it.]
  5. The King (or whoever is chief of enforcing law in the land) destroys the sense of honor among his fighting men (those who defend the land and enforce the law, i.e. the police and military and all civil servants). The police become militarized and the opponents of the people, the military becomes neutered and perverse. The civil servants are corrupted and selectively follow law in each of their own areas they oversee.
  6. The merchants and middle class who are the economic powerhouse are quickly corrupted because there can no longer be faith in fair enforcement of contracts. Some make favoritism deals with the king, creating crony capitalism. Industries become property of the state.
  7. Last, the family is torn apart through perverse and unequal family laws. Men are set against women, husbands against wives, and parents against children.
  8. Civilization is gone and anarchy reigns. Might makes right is now the only law of the land, and the elite who pushed this destruction tend to have many resources to make themselves mighty.

One last item to highlight is the attack on beauty, linked in the quote from Wright above. The ugliness of modern art and the upsetting of cultural norms coming from all our centers of art and media contribute thus to destroying civilization:

…if beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder, then beauty tells us what is a truth, a real truth, a truth from a world beyond the world of petty propaganda, a beauty beyond the world of pornography…if beauty is not merely in the eye of the beholder, then beauty is meant to be served, not used for your selfish pleasures. Beauty humbles the proud, for it shows them something beyond themselves and their appetites.

…Go into a modern art museum: look at the urinal, the severed cow head, the can of shit, the soiled bed. These are not the expressions of one or two aberrant individuals with psychological problems: this is the condition of our culture for nearly a century, an industry involving endless amounts of money public and private. This is the leadership of the artistic vision controlling our civilization…

Marcel Duchamp Fountain (1917) is a urinal; Martin Creed Work No. 227, The Lights Going On and Off (2000, Turner Prize Winner) is a light going off and on; Damien Hirst A Thousand Years (1990) is a maggoty cow head; Michael Craig-Martin An Oak Tree (1973) is a glass of water on a shelf; Andres Serrano Piss Christ (1987) is a crucifix dunked in urine; Piero Manzoni Artist’s Shit (1961) is a can of excrement; Tracey Emin My Bed (1998) is an unmade bed.

To what end? (italics emphasis mine):

Imagine two men: one stands in a bright house, tall with marble columns adorned with lavish art, splendid with shining glass images of saints and heroes, mementos of great sorrow and great victories both past and promised. A polyphonic choir raises their voices in golden song, singing an ode to joy. The other stands in a slum with peeling wallpaper, or a roofless ruin infested with rats, hemmed by feces-splashed gray concrete walls lurid with jagged graffiti, chalked with swearwords and flickering neon signs advertising strip joints. Rap music thuds nearby, ear-splitting, yowling obscenities. A bureaucrat approaches each man and orders him to do some routine and routinely humiliating task, such as pee in a cup to be drug tested, or be fingerprinted, or suffer an anal cavity search, or surrender his weapons, or his money, or his name. Which of the two men is more likely to take a stand on principle not to submit?

Which one will automatically and unconsciously assume that human life is sacred, human rights are sacrosanct, and that Man is made in the image and likeness of God? The man surrounded by godlike images? Or the man surrounded by mocking filth?

In other words, the attack on objective beauty serves to blind us to the thought that there are higher principles worth dying for, and instead to submit and just do whatever we are told.

Tomorrow: Part IV: The Internal Destruction of the United States?