Political Purge

"So, here's to the men who did what was considered WRONG, in order to do what they knew was right...what they KNEW was right."
--Benjamin Franklin Gates (National Treasure)

After Donald Trump and his close circle were hit by DOJ search teams, it appears that this administration is widening its nets. Tucker Carlson reports that subpoenas are in the process of being issued on dozens of Trump allies.

This is what a political purge looks like.

Obviously, this is meant to send a message ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, and to those who are considering involvement in the presidential election two years off.

Frozen Policy

Hear the Salvation Army band
Down by the riverside
Bound to be a better ride
Than what you've got planned
--The Bangles

Europe seems headed toward a self-imposed depression. Sanctions against Russia, combined with previous 'green' policies, have exploded in the face of euro bureaucrats, leaving the EU facing a winter with insufficient heat, electricity, and gasoline.

Some gas and electric bills are already printing 5-10x year ago levels.

Policymakers appear to be doubling down by developing plans for rationing, price capping, and money printing.

Absent a quick policy about-face, it is difficult to see how the EU survives the next few months.

Be Poor and Like It

"Tis too much proved, that with devotion's visage and pious action, we do sugar o'er the devil himself."
-V (quoting Shakespeare) (V for Vendetta)

Another version of the 'suck it up' message. Euro leaders tell their people that 'abundance' is a thing of the past. Be poorer and like it.

One has to wonder how long a people is willing to endure hardship in support of a bureaucratic ideology.

Still Radical

Benjamin Martin: May I sit with you?
Charlotte Selton: It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
--The Patriot

Two hundred and forty-six years after our nation's first law, its founding principle of liberty remains radical. From his early days of social existence, man has been tempted to surrender liberty to earthly rulers. As God warned Samuel, doing so invites despotism.

In 1776, the United States startled the world when it chose to 'throw off' that despotism in pursuit of self-determination. Since then, the authoritarians have been seeking to extinguish that flame of liberty and reclaim their power.

Events of the past few years suggest to some that the tyrants have made progress.

Personally, I prefer to believe that the opposite is happening. People tend to wake up when their freedoms are being stolen. 

Nearly a quarter of a millennium ago, we learned that when enough people wake up, they--the true radicals--have the capacity to push back.

Treason Mania

"A toast...to high treason. That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and--my personal favorite--had their entrails cut out and BURNED!"
--Benjamin Franklin Gates (National Treasure)

Glen Greenwald discusses the increased tendency to label people as 'traitors.' Out of concerns that treason term would be abused for political gain, the framers defined the limited scope of the crime in the Constitution itself. Per Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Treason was the only crime to be delineated in the Constitution. Why? Because the framers anticipated the grave danger of repressive governments seeking to silence criticism of, or opposition to, government policy by making it a capital crime.

Stated differently, they knew that liberal interpretations of treason would squash freedom of speech.

Given its constitutional limitations, treason has rarely been prosecuted in the United States, and less than 12 Americans have been convicted of treason in the nation's history.

Unfortunately, legal limitations have not prevented politicians and their media minions from shouting "Treason!" in the direction of those who behave in manners deemed unsupportive of consensus government policy.

Greenwald suggests that the Trump era elevated accusations of treason from a periodic transgression to a standard, reflexive way of criticizing political opposition. Indeed, the 'scandal' investigations that embroiled Trump's term can easily be seen as a protracted treason campaign. As Greenwald observes,

"The dominant narrative insisted that Trump and his allies were controlled by Moscow, subservient to the Kremlin, and were acting to promote Russian over American interests. That Trump was loyal not to the country that elected him but, instead, to an adversarial nation is something Democrats believe as an article of faith."

In reality, of course, many of those who have accused Trump of treason seem to possess little affinity for the fundamental institutions that underpin the United States and, in fact, seem hell bent on overthrowing them. As such, the Trump Treason narrative seems another ironic act of projection by this group. 

In any event, thanks to the Trump Treason years, "an entire generation has been trained to believe that 'treason' is the crime of expressing views that undermine Democratic Party leaders, diverge from the US security state, and/or dispute the consensus of the US corporate press."

Enter, now, the Ukraine conflict. Russia's invasion of Ukraine three weeks ago has taken treason mania to another level. (Although Greenwald calls it 'never-before-seen,' I suspect that we have, judging from what I've gathered about the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, as well as the Wilson and FDR years). People suggesting that NATO expansion or any other factor beyond 'Putin' helped spark this conflict, or that Ukrainian borders are not vital enough interests to the US to warrant American involvement, are reflexively labeled 'traitors.'

Our founding ancestors lived this accusation. By speaking out against the King of England they were deemed traitors for voicing legitimate political opposition to the crown. They understood that the hallmark of tyranny is intolerance of voices that questioned official government policy, and to criminalize them if possible by equating dissenting voices with treason.

That's why the framers articulated the First Amendment, and a limited criminal scope for treasonous behavior. 

If you've been labeled a 'traitor' for dissenting from the party line on Ukraine, then find comfort that you're on the right side of history and of reason. Don't take the insults personally.

Better yet, pray for them.

Cancel Culture and War

Watch me clinging to the beat
I had to fight to make it mine
That religion you could sink it neat
Just move your feet and you'll feel fine
--Culture Club

As observed by ZeroHedge, during a war (or in any situation of conflict) you want to hear both from both sides in order to make more informed decisions--even if the 'other' side is wrong or lying. Discerning truth can be extra challenging when the war propaganda thickens.

And degree of difficulty rockets higher when info flow from the other side is shut down.

Western countries were quick to suppress Russian new outlets last week. Moscow has now reciprocated.

This tells you that both sides have things to hide. Or that each side does not want or trust its people to make informed decisions.

After coming of age during Trump, BLM, CV19, et al, mature cancel culture is ready for war.

Russia Ukraine History

"Music should flow like a language. Changing a single note can turn joy to sorrow."
--Dusan Gavrich (The Peacemaker)

Media coverage of the Ukraine situation leaves an impression that the invasion happened out of the blue. That Russian president Vladimir Putin suddenly decided to attack an innocent border country in an aggressive land grab.

Any message conveyed by a broad range of Western media should be cautiously considered--particularly when it concerns acts of war against members of the West. Not only is there surely to be a tribal bias in the messaging, but any student of war understands that large scale campaigns are rarely initiated on a whim. Instead, there is probably a history, often a long one, that over time drives political leaders to be believe that their hand has been forced, and that the use of military force is justified.

In the case of Ukraine and Russia, there is a long shared history. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the land that is modern day Ukraine was split between Poland and the Russian Empire. Post revolution, the Ukranian People's Republic emerged as an independent state in 1917 that subsequently became a founding member of the Soviet Union in 1922, with its name changing to Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic. When the Soviet Union dissolved, the country regained its independence in 1991 as today's Ukraine.

A couple basic geographical features of Ukraine are worth noting. It shares a nearly 1500 mile border with Russia. It is also the second largest country by landmass in Europe (Russia is first).

Since it became an independent state, Ukraine's relationship with Russia has been a rocky one. Central to this conflict has been Russian concerns about the expansion of NATO. Russia has long viewed NATO as a threat to its sovereignty. Given the geopolitical features of Ukraine noted above, it is straightforward to grasp Russian fears about Ukraine being used as a NATO pawn.

In the early 2000s, political corruption in the Ukraine brought about the Orange Revolution. Partly backed by Western sources, including the US State Dept and Soro's Open Society Institute, the revolution resulted in the installation of pro-Western politicians in Ukraine's government. To counter, Russia began supporting Ukraine political movement that it liked. 

The following few years were marked by a series of protests, revolutions, and contested elections in Ukraine, undoubtedly spiced by outside influence from both Russia and Western entities. In 2014, instability and revolution prompted Russia to occupy and, ultimately annex, land in southern Ukraine that became known as the Republic of Crimea. Although the annexation was claimed to be the choice of an autonomous, pro-Russian state, its legitimacy has been contested per United Nations resolution.

Post Crimea, tensions have continued to escalate. Eastern Ukraine provinces (those close to Russia) have been susceptible to violent uprisings between nationalists and separatists. Repeated calls by Putin for formal agreements that would keep Ukraine out of the NATO scheme brought not action. Over the past couple of years, Russia began to amass troop strength and conduct military drills along the Ukraine border.

The suppression of this history in current media coverage makes it easy to be suspicious of the dominant narrative. We'll connect past to present in an upcoming post.

Freedom Convoys

Sometimes the light's all shining on me
Other times I can barely see
Lately, it occurs to me
What a long, strange trip it's been
--Grateful Dead

Truckers around the world are joining Freedom Convoys. Originating in Canada, the conveys involve lines of semis driving slowly or stopped on highways in protest to COVID-related mandates. Some of the convoys stretch 20+ miles long.

As Rand Paul observes, Freedom Convoys reflect the time-honored American tradition of civil disobedience. "Peaceful protest, clog things up, make people think about the mandates."

Honk to show your support. 

Compliance From Data Control

"You claim responsibility for one thing. Deny it for another. Nobody believes you anymore."
--Jack Ryan (Patriot Games)

Statists understand that controlling language helps their cause. By manipulating words to influence what people think, the cost of obtaining compliance goes down. If done cleverly, language control might cause people to submit to authoritarian rule willingly.

Similarly, statists understand that they need to control important data series. Commonly, this is done by taking control of measurement and reporting processes. By doing so, statists can slant results in their favor to make themselves look good.

For years, this has been readily apparent with metrics related to GDP, unemployment, inflation, and other measures of economic performance. Without exception, 'fudge factors' have been incorporated that abet the handiwork of bureaucrats.

People are now becoming aware that data control by the state extends into the public health realm. Case counts, hospitalizations, and deaths have all been subject to mischief. In each case, the direction of the schemes benefits those in charge.

By controlling the data, statists believe that they can lower the cost of achieving compliance by even more than what is possible by language control alone.

My question is this. At what point, if any, does manipulation of data become so blatant that it works against statist objectives--causing increasing number of people to revolt rather than comply?

Route One

I won't be coming home tonight
My generation will put it right
We're not just making promises
That we know we'll never keep
--Genesis

In 2010 a 'red wave' poured over midterm elections across the country that replaced Democratic with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. The Tea Party wave was said to be a reaction to the far left policies led by the Obama administration.

With midterms in this election cycle still one year away, voters tossed leftist politicians at the state level, highlighted by a stunning route in Virginia. The governor's race in New Jersey that featured a hugely favored Democratic incumbent remains too close to call.

What might this portend in next year's midterm elections? Not sure. But Democrats from the president on down are in damage control mode. 

And surely reflecting on looming political consequences of the socialist policies they have been trying to shove down the throats of Main Street Americans.

Chaos, Collapse, and Control

"I can feel it!"
--Jack Godell (The China Syndrome)

People seem incredulous that leftists truly understand the consequences of the policies that they are enacting or trying to enact. "Don't they understand that they are creating economic and social chaos?" they ask.

Chaos is the natural endpoint to socialism, of course. But why invite it?

My answer is that leftists want chaos. They believe if the system collapses, then they can build back better.

A fair follow-up question is, "How can leftists be so sure that they will be able to gain control of a chaotic situation?"

There would need to be lots of players in the cast, of course. Increasingly, however, I think one cast member is essential. Without this player, the left could not gain control over a collapsing system.

That's why lovers of liberty must keep eyes on China.

Papers Please

I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
--The Who

Early during the pandemic I was texting with a friend about the prospect of showing CV19-related 'papers' in order to go places. Sadly, that prospect has only grown since then.

On the plus side, this is waking people up. People are realizing that freedom is at stake.

Smile for the Spies

All I want is to be left alone

In my average home

But why do I always feel

Like I'm in the Twilight Zone?
--Rockwell

Judge Nap recounts what happened when he revealed that sources had informed him that the CIA had asked British intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election cycle. Not only did the CIA vehemently deny what ultimately was confirmed to be true, but subsequently the judge learned that the NSA had begun tapping his communication channels (phone, internet, etc). Sadly, none of this is surprising anymore.

Thus it was also no surprise when the Judge mentioned that Tucker Carlson has been subjected to similar surveillance.

Government spying on its people has become the norm. Because they fought so hard to throw intrusive government off, our founding ancestors are surely mystified why we tolerate it.

Smile for the spies, people.

Freedom Triumphs

"You can break a man's skull. You can arrest him. You can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what's up here? How do you fight an idea?"
--Sextus (Ben-Hur)

Events of Holy Week should make several things clear. 

Freedom, not safety, is God's gift. Freedom is the right and ability to make personal choices without someone else's permission. Free will.

Jesus was free to avoid the path to death. But, through exercise of free will, He chose to walk down the path instead.

Jesus challenged the status quo. He was fomenting a revolution in the hearts, minds, and souls of people everywhere. Through that revolution Christ was setting people free.

As such, He became a direct threat to all groups who held worldly dominion over those people. The scribes, the Pharisees, the chief priests, the Roman government. All of these groups, which together comprised the secular, religious, and political orthodoxy of the day, consequently conspired to kill Christ in order to quell the revolution.

Little has changed, has it?

By exercising His free will, Jesus showed us that we can liberate our souls from the slavery of sin and from the oppression of worldly tyrants.

Christ demonstrated that freedom triumphs in the end.

Takeover Assumptions

"How could it come to this? An army of rable...peasants. Everything will change. Everything HAS changed."
--Cornwallis (The Patriot)

There seems to be a view among statists in America that if they could just wrestle federal government control away from those with high preference for liberty, then they would permanently turn the country into a socialist authoritarian state. This grand vision of takeover is grounded in several questionable assumptions.

One is that liberty lovers would obediently bow to the strong arm of the state and surrender their freedom. This seems doubtful, given the history that surrounds the founding of this country. Research suggests that, at the time of the revolution, perhaps 1/3 of the colonists were willing to fight against the British. That minority fraction was still a large enough to spark a world-changing revolution. There will be resistance--armed if necessary. Authoritarians would have to put this resistance down.

Which brings us to another questionable assumption. Statists must believe that they can project enough government force to quell pushback to their policies. Will they be able to marshal enough strong armed agents, i.e., police, military, et al., to do so? Some agents of force will surely side with them, but others won't. Not only will some police and military refuse to enforce authoritarian policy, but many will cross over to fight for the cause of freedom.

Authoritarians also face the small problem of approximately 300 million guns currently in the hands of the citizenry. It should be no wonder why gun control (i.e., confiscation) is a perpetual priority of statists.

These takeover assumptions seem so questionable that it is difficult to imagine that statists haven't already come to realize the risk of being, as Jefferson famously wrote, 'thrown off.'

Perhaps they have. Which leads me to believe that they have an ace in the hole: outside help.

War Power Patriotism

Friends all tried to warn me
But I held my head up high
All the time they warned me
But I only passed them by
--Mike Curb Congregation

With President Trump authorizing a drone strike last week that killed a high level Iran military official, calls have once again surfaced about restraining presidential authority to act with military force. Typically, these calls come from the opposing party.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Democrats are amassing against Donald Trump, just as it was no shock to see Republicans protesting against Barack Obama's liberal use of drone strikes. Hypocrisy here has been evident for a long time.

Really worth watching the full six minutes of @Senmikelee's comments. He gives a great quick class on the Constitution and War Powers and how failure to follow the Constitution is why we've had a disconnect between the people and the wars we find ourselves in. https://t.co/xN8ZVj3DGm

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 8, 2020

On the other hand, it is refreshing to watch a small group of congressmen exhibit what is a rare trait in Washington: consistency. At the forefront of this group has been Rand Paul, accompanied by Mike Lee and Thomas Massie. This trio has been unwavering in their opposition to the clearly unconstitutional practice of ceding war powers to the president. They opposed it under Obama just as they oppose it currently under Trump.

I agree with @RandPaul and @SenMikeLee that the Constitution calls for Congress to debate and decide whether to further escalate the military conflict with Iran. The three of us have been consistent on this point regardless of which party has been in the White House. https://t.co/cILen9foXF

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 9, 2020

The War Machine reflexively calls this group unpatriotic and claims that they are helping the enemy by the opposing the president. As Kat Timpf notes, however, there is nothing unpatriotic about standing up for the Constitution. Our founding ancestors wrote the Constitution in rejection to the English model--a model which granted a single individual discretionary power to put a country at war.

"Both parties are at fault here," concluded Paul. "It isn't just Republicans. President Obama usurped the war powers. Bush did it. Truman, LBJ, you name it. It's hard to find a president who hasn't done it, but Congress has abdicated that role." https://t.co/R61xijl40X

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 10, 2020

The Constitution clearly places authority for declaring war with Congress. Congress has clearly abdicated its role in a bipartisan manner.

Unsafe Harbour

"Hong Kong. A borrowed place that lives on borrowed time. The British run it now. But in 17 years, the lease runs out, and the People's Republic is the landlord. But this is a city of survivors. And whatever happens, Hong Kong will be THE place."
--Josh Randall (Forced Vengeance)

Hong Kong's local government has declared what amounts to martial law in response to unrelenting public protests. The protests have been going on since June--primarily in response to a law that would permit fugitives to be extradited from territorial Hong Kong to mainland China for trial (or, given China's opaque legal and judicial system, outright punishment).

Kyle Bass observes that banks runs have commenced and ATMs are running out of cash. Not surprising, given that the martial law declaration grants Hong Kong government the authority to confiscate bank accounts.

Bank runs all over Hong Kong now. ATM machines running out of cash but there is something more important...failed leader carrie lam(b) can now officially confiscate bank accounts and assets without recourse. The HK legal system is essentially gone. #Bankruns #HKexit https://t.co/jz9sPrA30U

— Kyle Bass (@Jkylebass) October 5, 2019

This is not good. Banks runs and closed vault doors have a way of escalating tension.

So far, the Mainland has largely remained in the background during the entire uprising. Should the central Chinese government (and military) get involved and act to put this protest down, something that hardliners in Beijing are surely chomping at the bit to do, then the situation gets ugly right quick.

Then imagine the prospects of the US wanting to step in...

Sykes-Picot

Prince Feisal: Well, General, I will leave you. Major Lawrence doubtless has reports to make upon my people and their weakness, and the need to keep them weak in the British interest. And the French interest, of course. We must not forget the French now.
General Allenby: I've told you, sir, no such treaty exists.
Prince Feisal: Yes, General, you have lied most bravely, but not convincingly. I know this treaty does exist.
T.E. Lawrence: Treaty, sir?
Prince Feisal: He does it better than you, General. But then, of course, he is almost an Arab.
--Lawrence of Arabia

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 was a secret arrangement between Great Britain, France, and Russia about how to divide 'Asia Minor' and portions of the Middle East. The area at the time was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Part of the thinking of the agreement was that the Ottoman Empire had to be neutralized, lest key resources for trade (shipping routes, oil, etc) would be jeopardized.

Great Britain et al then spent decades trying to make it happen via regime support and other forms of 'nation building,' instigating war (e.g., Ottomans vs Arabs), biased trade policy, and other nefarious action. The US, never shy about meddling in the affairs of others as the 20th century progressed, gradually became involved as well.

Of course, this constitutes more than just awkward intervention. It is outsiders with an interest instigating violence in someone else's territory. A form of war.

It is easy to understand the resentment that native inhabitants have toward outsiders meddling in their affairs. Today's upheaval in the Middle East, and spillover violence elsewhere, can be attributed to arrangements put in motion nearly 100 years ago.

Politics as Violence

And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and
The shotgun sings the song
--The Who

In a 1918 speech, German sociologist Max Weber observed "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Of course, that government is legitimized force was understood long before Weber took the podium.

He goes on to note that the right to use force by individuals or institutions in state-governed territory exists only to the extent that the state permits it. Personally, I would have used 'privilege' rather than 'right' to describe this situation. But it does follow that a state that claims a monopoly on force will seek to limit its use by others...lest state authority be threatened and revolution be at hand.

"The modern state is a compulsory organization," Weber observes, "that organizes domination."

As such, those wanting to engage in politics let themselves "in for the diabolic forces lurking in all violence." Weber states that the kingdom of heaven does not operate under auspices of violence, and that those seeking salvation of their souls "should not seek it along the avenue of politics, for the quite different tasks of politics can only be solved by violence."

"Everything that is striven for through political action operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility endangers the 'salvation of the soul.'"

Put Down Palace

"These rustics are so inept. It nearly takes the honor out of victory."
--Lord General Cornwallis (The Patriot)

We've suggested that some social behavior, such as the recent WTC mosque/koran building dyad, can be framed inside a model of escalating conflict driven by emotion and selective reasoning. This model is exemplified by, and perhaps even rooted in, juvenile behavior on playgrounds, as the words/actions of one entity provokes response from another.

One juvenile behavior often associated with our escalation model is the 'put down.' Put down is slang for making a disparaging or belittling remark about someone, often intended to embarrass or humiliate. Claiming someone else as being 'stupid' or some variation thereof is perhaps the most commonly employed put down.

While put downs are sometimes conveyed on a face-to-face basis between originator and recipient, they are often transmitted remotely by the originator in a venue that provides safety or social support. For example, the originator might put down someone else while speaking with like-minded friends who will 'like' the claim. Blog pages and social networking websites serve as high tech venues for put downs today.

Reflecting on the put downs that I have personally issued suggests that they are a coping device. When others are successful, I claim that their success must have been 'rigged' in some manner. When others say/do things that I don't agree with, I claim they must be stupid, illiterate et al.

One term that psych folks associate with this type of behavior is 'defensive routine' (e.g., Argyris, 1985). A put down can be viewed as a routine used to defend oneself--most likely one's ego.

Put downs seem likely to foster elitist mentality in the heads of the originators. "We know how to spell better than you...We are smarter than you...We know better than you...We have capacity to rule over you..."

The United States came into being on the back of the elitist mentality of the British. Highbrow Brits looked down on Colonists as a bunch of rubes incapable of governing themselves. When the revolution commenced, Redcoat generals routinely lambasted their adversaries, calling them 'farmers with pitchforks' and the like. They were incredulous when these same rubes sent them packing and created a nation conceived in liberty rather than in class distinction.

Today, elitism has returned...as have the put downs.

References

Argyris, C. 1985. Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston: Putnam.