Two Weirdly Related Articles That Expose Our Establishment

I’m beginning my daily read—in alphabetical order. There are two articles at American Greatness that caught my attention for what they say about our Establishment.

Let’s start with Conrad Black.

You’ll recall that just a few days ago I praised Margot Cleveland’s article on the fraudulent 2020 election. In that article Cleveland basically threw her hands up as far as any hope for the judiciary addressing election fraud. She placed what hope she had for our system in the serious legislative reform—the criminalization of fraudulent actions carried out by public officials in defiance of election law directives. Still, by the end of her article you could sense her fundamental despair: “The status quo is clearly not working.”

Conrad Black isn’t despairing but, like Cleveland, he sees the crisis the country faces. The occasion for the article is to address the Wall Street Journal’s response to Trump’s indictment of the election process in 2020. He terms the WSJ “rebuttal” “shabby”—based on debater’s tricks:

The Wall Street Journal’s Shabby Rebuttal of Trump Settles Nothing

There has been an almost 100 percent media solidarity in declining to consider the obviously vivid possibility that the 2020 election result was false.

Black concedes Trump’s rhetorical excesses, but insists that Trump must continue his fight in the face of the Establishment’s united denial of the fraud. Here I’m not interested in the details of Black’s account. Rather, I want to point out a few paragraphs in which he provides the big picture that fits in with our discussion of Margot Cleveland’s article. It’s always a good thing to step back occasionally to take a look at the forest. Without that big picture, you can wind up lost in the forest. He begins with an interesting, almost counter intuitive, observation on the topic that Cleveland also wrestled with—the refusal of the judiciary to “get involved.” From from strengthening the arguments of the Establishment, says Black, this abdication by the judiciary has lent credence to Trump’s allegations while at the same time undermining the institutional credibility of the judiciary:

… Given the scores of millions of harvested or untraditionally dropped ballots, the refusal of the judiciary at any level to evaluate the many serious problems with the election on their merits, and instead just to decline to hear them for technical reasons having nothing to do with the gravamen of the complaint, has lent a level of credence to Trump’s charges that cannot be so easily dismissed with the condescension of a biased high school debating coach.

There were only 19 lawsuits that directly challenged the legality of the changes to voting and vote counting methods, almost all of them enacted officially on behalf of those for whom COVID-19 regulations made it harder to vote. None of these lawsuits, including the Texas attorney general’s case supported by 18 other states, was adjudicated on its merits. In a belt-and-braces approach to ensuring that Trump was defeated, the political establishment not only stuffed the necessary ballot boxes, but ensured that there would be no serious judicial review of the result.

That’s right. Black is alleging that the electoral coup was a put up job involving collusion of the entire Establishment—the state and local parties, the national parties, the federal Deep State bureaucracy (never forget disgraced former AG Bluto Barr’s “it’s all bullsh*t”), and yes the judiciary.

It is vitally important that President Trump continue to impugn the election result and that his complaint continues to attract a respectable amount of credence so that it cannot be airily rejected as sour grapes and self-serving bloviation from a familiar source. If Trump did not have a serious case, there could be no possible excuse for his conduct, including his purposeful but certainly not insurrectionist address to his followers in Washington on January 6.

The election result cannot now be altered; the Supreme Court probably ducked the Texas case to avoid the immense controversy an overturned election would cause. But nor should Trump’s enemies get away not only with a questionable election result but also with the suffocation of legitimate questions about the election and the connected propagation of the fraud that he premeditatedly promoted an invasion of the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob.

Mark that well: “the connected propagation of the fraud” about the January 6 Event. I don’t think I’m reading into this too much if I say that Black is hinting that the January 6 Event may have been manipulated for a specific political purpose—the institutionalization of fraudulent elections. Certainly he is saying that the “Insurrection” narrative is propaganda “connected” with that agenda, but …

Despite the wall-to-wall hostility of the national political media, the suspicion about the election is too evident and widespread to be exterminated. The national interest requires the sensible verification procedures provided in the Georgia and other voting reform bills—...

The danger, apart from the almost terminal incompetence of the Biden slapstick regime, is that dishonest elections become institutionalized, as the Democrats attempted in H.R. 1.

Though we would wish Trump put it less self-servingly and more persuasively, this is his argument. The Wall Street Journal should know better than to try to continue Trump-bashing when the real issue is free elections.

Now, never forget this: The US military was a central part of that whole fraud. Recall the months during which our Imperial City on the Potomac was under military occupation—for propaganda purposes. The American people largely got past that without being entirely snookered (hopefully this will happen with the Covid Regime, too). But don’t forget the corruption of our military.

That happens to be the theme of the second article at American Greatness—although the focus is understandably on the one disgraced man who exemplifies that corrupted military. This is where a professional military has led. Read the article for its Dark Comedic effect, but understand the seriousness of the issues behind it. This problem is much bigger than just one corrupt goofball:

Mediocre Milley Has a ‘Near Sputnik Moment’

One wonders, just exactly what the hell was the Joint Chiefs chairman studying when he attended the U.S. Naval War College to “earn” a master’s degree in national security and strategic studies?

We’re living in the post Watergate era still. In the wake of World War II—with the dollar now the world’s reserve currency—the progressive implications of the income tax finally were realized. Watergate featured the transfer of that progressive power to the Legislative Branch, and with it the power to tame the other two branches. But that power was quickly suborned, through electoral politics, by the special interests—both activist and corporate—who largely rule America. The SCOTUS, to its lasting discredit, cemented this power transfer by striking down the Line Item Veto, insuring that presidents, too, would be subject to this new, anti-constitutional, regime. Our professional military is part of that.

Finally …

I reference the following article about Conciliar Church matters for what it says about the manner in which neo-gnostic Progressivism corrupts everything that it touches in the service of self aggrandizing power. The power to create and destroy and to destroy and create—they shall be like gods. I cite the beginning and concluding paragraphs as illustrations of how neo-gnostic progressivism works, everywhere and always. Ignore the author’s misguided identification of monarchy with absolutism and Leninism—these are distinct phenomena.

Francis, Supreme Legislator? No, the Law’s Gravedigger

On October 10, Francis set in motion a mammoth synod on synodality, as if wanting for the first time ever to hear from the whole people of God. But he made it known right away - from the lips of synod secretary general Cardinal Mario Grech - that when the final document comes along it may not even be voted on. The counting of votes will be used only in extreme cases, “as a last and undesired resort.” In any case, to then deliver the document to the pope, who will do what he wants with it.

That this Leninist party practice is the synodality longed for by Jorge Mario Bergoglio comes as no surprise, given the unbridled monarchical absolutism with which he governs the Church, unrivaled by the popes who came before him.

See what I mean? If such unbridled absolutism is unrivaled in the history of the monarchical papacy as the Church came to know it, then maybe “monarchical” is not the right way to characterize such absolutism. Maybe “Leninist”—with all it implies about neo-gnostic revolutionaries—is the proper term.

“One wonders what may be the deep reasons for such a tendency, which appears completely unusual in the Catholic Church, which has always known anti-juridical tendencies within it, but not at the level of the supreme legislator,” meaning the pope. “In the legislative production of this pontificate, law tends to be perceived mainly as an organizational and disciplinary factor, that is, as a sanction, and always in an instrumental function with respect to certain choices of government, not as a basic tool for guaranteeing the rights (and observance of duties) of the faithful as well.”

The monarchical absolutism that marks the pontificate of Francis could not be better defined, in spite of the flood of words on synodality.

Again, as is typical of neo-gnostic revolutionaries everywhere, all truth and meaning have validity and are defined by service to the revolution. Synods, courts, legislatures—from the progressive standpoint this is never about inquiry into the truth of things. It’s about enforcing the desired revolution: “an organizational and disciplinary factor.”

We see this in the new Transgender Regime, in the Covid Regime. Reality and the God who created it are the enemies. Elections, like synods and court decisions, are valid only to the extent that they advance the revolution.