Bleeding Edge

The meaning of “Genos” in the past has been “kinfolk” …

It is as close to the core kernel of the meaning of “Nation” as we can ever come.

In ancient Greece, a “genos” (plural “gene”) meant race, stock, kin, and kinfolk, and it was a basic social construct describing a group claiming common descent, heritage and familiar bonds, and all together referred to by a single name.

Ellenes, was the common name for the Ancient Greek genos, and this had come from the original family tribe that evolved around the shores of the Gulf of Maleas where some of the earliest Paleolithic and Neolithic settlements have been excavated in recent years. That was the family of a patriarch named “Elin” (Ellen) and the original tribal “genos” of the Greek people. Since this was an early tribe of people, there was a proto-democratic tribal council that included only members of the GENOS of ELLEN, as only the rightful kinfolk including men and women, that was able to elect a leader, decide the important questions, participate in mysteries, offer justice, seek guidance, perform ceremonies, and wage war.

In the same vein, the Americans of today, hold the common name AMERICAN for the citizens of the United States of America. This is the genos of today … and the members of this widespread 325 Million strong kinfolk have the right to involve themselves in choosing their own Leader through proto-democratic elections, in meting out justice, in solving mysteries, in tribal matters, and in the decision making process of waging war or not.

Never in the History of FREE PEOPLE have anyone outside of the specific “Genos” been allowed to participate in the selection or election of a Leader, or in the familiar tribal bodies, in tribunals or councils of decision making, and in electoral bodies.

Only ENSLAVED NATIONS allow their Masters to dictate those terms and to participate in their electoral affairs. And yet today in American with over 22 Million illegal aliens that are allowed to vote — seems to me that we are fast becoming a SLAVE NATION if we are not one already…

Because most ancient “genos” seem to have been composed of noble families and of traditional indigenous family folks, as Herodotus the leading historian, uses the term to denote noble families, since much of early Greek politics seems to have involved struggles between the various genos. The many “Gene” in one city are best attested in Athens, where they all vied for supremacy, as the various ancient historical writers like Herodotus & Aristotle told us about them, in “the Wars of the Genos” …

Early modern historians postulated that “genos” had been the original & basic organizational group of the Sea People, the Dorian, and even the Ionian tribes that successively settled Greece during the Greek Ages, but more recent scholarship has reached the conclusion that various “gene” arose later as certain families staked a claim to noble lineage and created the photo-national identity. In time, some, but not necessarily all, national gene, came to be associated with the Nation’s mysteries and ceremonies, and evolved some type of hereditary priestly functions. Very much like the hereditary functions of the CIA (Bush clan), the FBI (Comey clan), and the MOB (Clinton clan) today.

The Hellenic Greek word GENOS comes originally from the Indo-European people’s Sanscrit language where “gaṇa” (/ˈɡɑːnə/; Sanskrit: गण) from Sanskrit and Pali meaning flock, troop, multitude, number, tribe, series or class. It can also be used to refer to a “body of attendants” and can also refer to a company, any assemblage or association of men formed for the attainment of the same aims, and a council of citizens. The word “gana” can also refer to councils or assemblies convened to discuss matters of politics, religion, or other topics.

In Hinduism, the “Gaṇas” are attendants of Shiva and live on Mount Kailash. Ganesha was chosen as their leader by Shiva, hence Ganesha’s title gaṇeśa or gaṇapati, “lord or leader of the ganas”.

So genos (pronounced ghe’nos) means, “kin” in an abstract yet literal or figurative collective form. It is the man born in a certain country, a person of the big national family, a countryman, a generation, kindred person, nation, offspring, national stock, common stock, tribe, nation, nationality or descent from a particular people, the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, of the same kind, and of the same sort.

It is always the ancients that keep us honest by reminding us, that History repeats itself…

Because indeed history repeats itself, until it becomes a nightmare, and it is then and there that the People, through popular wisdom of the Crowds — elect, choose, or appoint Leaders that might wake them up and get them out of that nightmare.

And indeed the People expect that this New Leader — the Right Statesman — will emerge, and like Moses will find a way forward out of the slavery, and out of the nightmarish quagmire.

From his perspective, the Leader has to balance the safety of his people, VS the long term Good of his nation, and ought to make provision for finding a way forward…

A way that might cut through the deserts and through the red tape, or through the status quo and the ruling elites that enjoy the mental and physical slavery they have assigned to the people.

We live in revolutionary times today.

Especially about the directions towards where the True America is heading.

And for that very reason, each and every thought, word, and deed, has to be balanced against the purpose we have as a Republic to make our path in the world and survive amongst the landmines of Communist aggression from China & it’s North Korean outpost, domestic Islamic terrorism, toxic international affairs, and from such a potent and toxic division that resembles a looming civil war at home.

And to top it all up — all of these terribly important issues must be balanced and subordinated to the internal need for peace, for robust economic growth, and for widespread prosperity at home.

And if there is one man that understands that, this man is the current President Donald J Trump that all his life had to meet payroll, and create wealth, and prosperity, by adjusting his development projects and his finances in order to keep his people happy, by winning some special victories. Indeed he is the only one amongst the fat cats of Washington DC, that sees the Big Picture, and respects people’s needs, and that is why he has fashioned the primary meaning of “America First” to be straightening up our screwed up and severely skewed priorities as a NATION of peaceful people, as a GENOS, and as a Democratic Republic that thrives in argumentative Democracy.

And that is what MAGA is all about and that is why he has made it also a priority to stop the domestic terrorists like the illegal alien gangsters, the Islamic Jihadists, and the Antifa groups.

And  you don’t think that ANTIFA is a terrorist organization, let me tell you this:

Further here is the very definition of Antifa as it comes a book from an apologist of Antifa and a friend of these domestic terrorists, Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” that is in reality, a nasty piece of anti-American propaganda. It is also a Gestapo manual, and a handbook for brownshirts, in as much as it is an anti-scholarly, and anti-ethical P.O.S. of a book. It is also a sedition and rebellion manual, and a treasonous combination of anecdotes, guidance, and extended thoughts from Western or former Western colonies about “how to do it.”

Bray’s most interesting extended thought examines when the use of violent tactics is most appropriate, and concludes that there’s no general rule, because it all depends on local circumstances. Representative Keith Ellison was recently photographed carrying a copy of Antifa, so it certainly has some contemporary political significance as the Leaders of the Democratic party seem to have ben encouraging that sort of violent domestic terrorism and the Gestapo tactics that go with it.

“Antifa” is short for “antifascism,” but Bray, a visiting professor at Dartmouth, doesn’t really define the enemy. Quoting historian Robert Paxton, he classifies fascism as:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensating cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Bray never mentions the two most important features of fascism: its revolutionary nature, and its roots in war, primarily the First World War. But I already said that this isn’t a scholarly book. It’s a manual for would-be reshapers of our world, a guide to political action. Basically, for Bray, fascism is what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth or computer.

What about his own, antifascist movement? Here, there are shorter sentences and clearer definitions. “Anti-fascism is “an illiberal politics of social revolutionism (sic) applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists…” And its goal?

Destroying fascisn is really about promoting a revolutionary socialist alternative … to a world of crisis, poverty, famine and war that breeds fascist reaction.

Inevitably, we are lectured about race, the current Left’s core issue. Long before Ekow Yankah wrote “Can My Children be Friends With White People” in the New York Times, Antifa offered a polemic against whiteness, while posing as an account of global antifascist movements. Both Yankah and Bray are professors at prestigious universities and both call for the throttling of “white supremacy,” with “white” mostly standing for power rather than skin color. Or does it? Bray enthusiastically quotes W.E.B. Du Bois on the horrors of World War I: “This seeming Terrible is the real soul of white culture—back of all culture—stripped and visible today, as a modern identity forged through slavery and class rule, whiteness is indefensible.”

So we’re not all born white, but you can certainly identify “whiteness.”

You can also become white, regardless of skin color. There’s upward mobility. We – like Bray’s Jewish and Irish forbears — can become “white.” But Bray and his colleagues are not interested in prestige and the ability to shape a new generation, they want a “revolutionary socialist alternative,” that will target “sources of white privilege and struggling in solidarity with the disinherited of the world.”

Bray is not a doctrinaire Marxist; his language is simple and straightforward, he’s interested in winning a political struggle, and he recognizes that his enemies are often popular and savvy. He’s clearly ambivalent towards the sort of street violence practiced by the (mostly European) Black Bloc, who disrupt our cities whenever controversial speakers appear or when the World Bank or IMF hold meetings. He rejects the notion that nonviolent action is more effective in building a successful mass movement. But he also rejects the claim, very popular in histories of fascism, that left-wing violence provoked support for the fascists in the twenties and thirties. He suggests that left-wing electoral gains were far more important for the growth of fascist parties.

As you’d expect, his ultimate argument amounts to: if you think your tactic will work, do it, but also build a nonviolent political movement.

Oddly, we don’t hear much about the Bolshevik revolution, or the Maoist or Castro revolutions. Bray’s silence about these important matters tells us a lot about Antifa, because ultimately Bray and his comrades are utopian radicals who invariably lose the debate if the audience comes to believe that they are just running dogs for the revival of communism. If they are to achieve widespread political success, they will have to confront this basic issue.

They’re not likely to succeed. No sensible person believes we are threatened by a massive fascist revival in the West, embodied in Donald Trump. Sensible people know that Antifa’s demonstrations, violent or otherwise, are part of a crazy leftist campaign against free speech and free institutions. You aren’t likely to see big trade unions, let alone a substantial political party, join the “antifascist” movement, because the utopianism Antifa embraces has never worked anywhere. Professor Bray and his ilk don’t have a mass following and aren’t likely to gain one. Their comrades and followers have had success on college campuses and have followers in plenty of newsrooms, but for the most part Americans don’t want them to win.

If you leaf through Antifa and look at the sources and authorities Professor Bray asks us to take as canonical, you’ll be amused at the authorities (largely marginal publications) and baffled that a university professor could ask us to take seriously the testimony and philosophy of the likes of “Ole from Denmark,” “New Jersey ARA veteran Howie,” or “Daniel, a Carabanchel anti-fascist organizer.”

Why should we believe what they say, or give it the status of serious thinking?

Jack Dorsey the churlish hipster CEO of San Francisco-based social media platform Twitter, applauded an article in the Medium, in which some other hipster CEO described how liberals intend to crush Normal Americans into serfdom in a bloodless “civil war.”

Here it is.

Ready?

It will just sort of happen. Why? Because. Americans will simply decide to be like California because of reasons and phew, no more troublesome conservatives and Gaia is saved!

So basically, wishing.

Well, that’s a kind of war plan. Perhaps by unleashing the power of hoping so they can utterly subjugate the half of America that voted against Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and drive the people who actually operate and defend this country into silent obedience.

Or not.

Now, I know what you’re saying. You’re saying, “Why do a bunch of San Francisco dorks think that 150 million Americans with 300 million guns are just going to give up their rights and their say in their own governance and submit to the commands of people who eat kale by choice?” That’s a fair question, and they have an answer.

Because you just are.

I didn’t say it was a good answer.

Recently I wrote a long column here describing the ugly realities of an actual Second Civil War – realities that are much uglier for the anti-freedom liberal side in terms of terrain, combat power, and morale. Naturally, this cry for sanity, which was only the latest in my long history of pleas to liberals to avoid the kind of civil strife I witnessed the consequences of overseas, was greeted by a torrent of outright lies. “You are advocating a civil war blah blah blah blah.” All liberal bull Schiff, including some by shameful collaborationist Fredocons who should know better, but not at all unexpected. The modern liberals’ rhetorical toolbox is filled exclusively with lies, which has the effect of making actual reasoned discussion impossible. Of course, that is their goal – they don’t want to defeat your argument. They want you bullied into silence. Tellingly, no one even bothered to try and counter the indisputable facts we have offered many times showing why liberals will fail if they choose violence – instead, they tried to shut me up by removing my One and a half million Twitter followers.

Yet, as I have shown before, the leftist liberal socialist dream of an America where they can crush all dissent from their orthodoxy, is not a scenario that I’m comfortable to be playing with.

Indeed the leftists want to silence you too, same as every other patriot. But that’s a short-sighted tactic because people who are silenced, particularly uppity Americans who take their natural rights seriously, won’t just shrug and give up. They will stew and fume at the injustice of their oppression and then they will radicalize and then, because they have been wrongfully denied access to the means of participation in the governance of their own society, they will inevitably exercise their power in the only way left to them. They will rebel. They have before. Sometimes it’s peaceful – like by electing Donald Trump. But if peaceful doesn’t work, they are going to give not being peaceful a try. That’s just human nature.

This is where the liars pounce again with their fussy faux-outrage. The socialist liberal leftists love violence directed at Normal Americans – but facts are facts. If the liberal plan to drive non-liberal Americans from the public square – the NRA, Laura Ingraham, and even Kevin Williamson silencing campaigns are just some recent examples – succeeds, it will only succeed for a little while. The fact is that if Normal people are barred from “legitimate” participation, they will participate “illegitimately.” Just ask the redcoats how taxation without representation worked out.

Here’s a hint: We Americans have good teeth, and don’t eat spotted dick.

But the liberal campaign plan hand waves away that whole unwillingness to be disenfranchised thing by announcing that this new “civil war” to totally disenfranchise half of America will be bloodless. Good – I’m all for bloodless – but did they ask the people they intend to disenfranchise about that? Because, as liberals love to point out when excusing urban mobs that riot and burn down their own neighborhoods because of real or imagined grievances, people don’t always choose to be peaceful when they are confronted by what they perceive as systemic injustice.

Systemic injustice is, of course, exactly what the liberals are proposing. They want to impose the traditional leftist governing mode of “one man, one vote, one time” on all of America, and cite California as a shining example of our future. According to the article, not coincidentally written in a state where recreational weed is now legal, California is “a thriving work in progress that gives hope that America can pull out of the political mess we’re in.” But there are problems with using California as a role model, starting with the fact that California sucks.

Oh, it doesn’t suck for rich guys living by the beach like Jack and his hipster buddies. California is pretty great for bros like him. But the guys who mo his lawn, wash his Tesla, and feed his pet pandas, well, not so much. The article claims, “California Democrats actually cared about average citizens.” Yeah, uh huh. Drive 10 miles inland from the beach and California dreamin’ becomes California nightmarin’.

California is a bankrupt failed state that is essentially Illinois with palm trees and better weather. Outside the coastal urban enclaves where Jack and his pals mingle, drinking kombucha and apologizing for their white privilege to their baffled servants, it’s a crowded, decaying disaster. Bums wander the streets, littering the sidewalks with human waste. Crime is rising. Illegal aliens abound, more welcome in the Golden State than actual Americans. California is an example all right, but a cautionary one.

So how did California go from conservative in the 80s to the blue hellhole it is today? The leftist zillionaires and the Democrat government unions bought the elections. It also got so expensive and so crowded here that a lot of the kind of people who made California red, and not terrible, moved away. Now you have a relatively small elite of really rich liberal jerks, and a large class of serfs to the Democrat welfare state – many imported for their delightful obedience and complacency – but no more huge middle class of Normals.

Those Normals went east, toward opportunity.

And the leftist started stealing votes to keep getting elected for ever. Late in 2016, we created a stir by suggesting that Donald Trump was likely right when he claimed that millions of noncitizens had illegally voted in the U.S. election. Now, a study by a New Jersey think tank provides new evidence that that’s what happened.

Last November, just weeks after his Electoral College win that gave him the presidency, then President-elect Donald Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

The reaction was angry and swift, with the left accusing him of being an “internet troll” and of hatching a “Twitter-born conspiracy theory.”

At the time, we noted that a group called True The Vote, an online anti-voter-fraud website, had claimed that illegals had cast three million votes last year. The media and left-wing groups immediately portrayed True The Vote as a fringe group with little credibility.

The only problem is, a study in 2014 in the online Electoral Studies Journal made a quite similar claim: In the 2008 and 2010 elections, they said, as many as 2.8 million illegal noncitizen votes were cast, “enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes and congressional elections,” said the study, authored by Jesse T. Richman and Gushan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

The bombshell was this: “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”

It got little coverage in the mainstream media, and what coverage it did get was almost entirely dismissive.

Now comes a new study by Just Facts, a libertarian/conservative think tank, that used data from a large Harvard/You.Gov study that every two years samples tens of thousands of voters, including some who admit they are noncitizens and thus can’t vote legally.

The findings are eye-opening. In 2008, as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the election. In 2012, as many as 3.6 million voted, the study said.

In 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there were 21.0 million adult noncitizens in the U.S., up from 19.4 million in 2008. It is therefore highly likely that millions of noncitizens cast votes in 2016.

And it was no accident. Democrats had extensive get-out-the-vote campaigns in areas heavily populated by illegal aliens. As far back as 2008, Obama made sure that those who wanted to vote knew it was safe, announcing that election records would not be cross-checked with immigration databases.

And last year, the Obama White House supported a court injunction that kept Kansas, Alabama and Georgia from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The message was sent, loud and clear: If you’re a noncitizen or here illegally, don’t be afraid. You’re free to vote. No one will stop you.

We don’t know the exact number of illegal votes. No one does. But the data that are available suggest that the number of illegal votes was substantial — probably in the millions, as Trump said — and likely had a significant impact on the election’s outcome.

Even Democrats should find this troubling; every vote cast by a noncitizen voter negates the vote of a citizen voter. It’s that simple. It’s time the Democratic Party started living up to its name and stop encouraging noncitizens and illegal aliens to vote in our election.

Otherwise, we’ll have a Civil War soonest…

Of course, the liberal plan for civil war does not take into account how prosperous states like Texas went hard right in the 90s and show no sign of changing colors, and there is no mention of how Republicans hold more elected offices today than at any time in history.

Well, as any successful general knows, when faced with unpleasant realities you ignore them and hope it all somehow works out.

Or not.

In the end, the “civil war” is going to be won, according to the warplan for Operation CARACAS REDUX, when America just sort of opts to be like Cali and elects all Democrats. Why would it do that? That part remains unclear. Part of it is because it is obvious that Democrats care so much more for the workin’ man, but apparently no one asked the workin’ men because the workin’ man voted for The Donald. Also, people really care that the weather in a century might be slightly warmer, so there’s that. None of these are really good reasons. Their warplan seems to be, “Wish hard, and it will be so.”

But it won’t be so. Normal Americans are not going to simply give up their rights and their self-determination because a bunch of liberals want them to. Sure, the weaponization of culture with corporations and tech companies trying to silence and marginalize decent citizens is troubling, but in short order there will be a backlash as Normals react to these new, overtly fascist tactics.

A much more realistic scenario is the country splitting apart, probably with some level of violence. That’s not a wish, though that won’t stop the liberal liars from claiming it is. Ignore what they say and watch what they do. Liberals are repudiating the entire idea of rights and democracy in favor of an ideology that embraces their own elite rule by decree. That they admit that it is impossible to reconcile our rights and our self-determination with their lust for unchallenged power is the one accurate thing in the liberal “civil war” game plan.

They are correct when they say “in this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward.” Yep, true. They are also correct when they observe that, “America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences toward the slippery slope of civil war.” Yep, also true, and it ought to scare the hell out of them.

If the liberals ever get their wish for a new civil war, my money is on the side with all the guts, the guns, and the glory. Ahhhh… and let’s not forget the side with the trillion plus bullets, ammunition clips, along with the reloadable cells, and all the powder & magazines that the good American gun totting patriots keep for hunting, for self protection, for target practice, and for protecting our Republic, as well as occasionally aiming and shooting the fascist “Antifa” thugs, should they attempt to destroy our country in earnest.

MAGA has got it all figured out as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, but because “America First” has an equally compelling meaning internationally, it also implies taking seriously what the United States might do for itself vis-à-vis foreign nations—beyond simply using them as weapons in domestic battles, as so many politicians and commentators do today in what passes for discussion of Russia policy.

America is in the throes of revolution. The 2016 election and its aftermath reflect the distinction, difference, even enmity that has grown exponentially over the past quarter century between America’s ruling class and the rest of the country. During the Civil War, President Lincoln observed that all sides “pray[ed] to the same God.” They revered, though in clashing ways, the same founders and principles. None doubted that those on the other side were responsible human beings. Today, none of that holds. Our ruling class and their clients broadly view Biblical religion as the foundation of all that is wrong with the world. According to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy, or any form of intolerance.”

The government apparatus identifies with the ruling class’s interests, proclivities, and tastes, and almost unanimously with the Democratic Party. As it uses government power to press those interests, proclivities, and tastes upon the ruled, it acts as a partisan state. This party state’s political objective is to delegitimize not so much the politicians who champion the ruled from time to time, but the ruled themselves. Ever since Woodrow Wilson nearly a century and a half ago at Princeton, colleges have taught that ordinary Americans are rightly ruled by experts because they are incapable of governing themselves. Millions of graduates have identified themselves as the personifiers of expertise and believe themselves entitled to rule. Their practical definition of discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, etc., is neither more nor less than anyone’s reluctance to bow to them. It’s personal.

On the other side, some two thirds of regular Americans chafe at insults dropping from on high, and believe that “the system” is rigged against them and, hence illegitimate elected and appointed officials, plus the courts, business leaders, and educators, are all leading the country in the wrong direction. The non-elites blame the elites for corruptly ruling us against our will, for impoverishing us, for getting us into wars and losing them. Indeed many people demand payback with interest.

So many on all sides have withdrawn consent from one another, as well as from Republicanism as defined by the Constitution and as it was practiced until the mid-20th century, that it is difficult to imagine how the trust and sympathy necessary for good government might ever return. Instead, we have been running a cool, or even frigid cold civil war.

However, Statesmanship’s first task is to prevent this frozen cold civil war from turning hot, because in today’s circumstances, fostering mutual forbearance may require loosening the Union in unfamiliar and unwelcome ways in order to accommodate differences that may otherwise become far worse.

Since the Ruling Elites and the Deep State see Trump as Spartacus and a Giant Leader of the Enslaved People rising up — they have unleashed Mueller to keep those they perceive as their own slaves in check. Mueller is engaged in regular WaterGate type of tactics masquerading as “truth seeking” and he is the ultimate representative of the Deep State so that the people call this era of politics Watergate Redux — which simply means that the Deep State and the Ruling Oligarchy elites are using Gestapo techniques, Nazi attitudes of political propaganda, and are weaponizing the FBI, the DOJ, and plenty of security agencies to spread misinformation, in order to attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election, that ushered this popular rebellion.

Same as in the early seventies, when political operatives disguised as delivery men broke into a Washington D.C. office, and “bugged” the DNC offices located in the WaterGate building, these illegal efforts to spy on the political opposition and smear the opponents — would culminate in what we now know as the historical “Watergate” political scandal.

In the late teens, political operatives disguised as FBI agents, NSA personnel and other employees of the Federal government eavesdropped, harassed and raided the offices of the political opposition.

The raids of Michael Cohen’s hotel room, home and office are just this week’s Watergate.

Political operatives have now seized privileged communications between the President of the United States and his lawyer. Despite fairy tales about a clean process, these communications will be harvested by the counterparts of Peter Strzok, who unlike him are still on the case at the FBI, some of it will appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and some will be passed along to other political allies.

That’s what happened at every juncture of Watergate 2.0. And it only follows that it will happen again.

Just like the eavesdropping, the process will be compartmentalized for maximum plausible deniability. The leakers will be protected by their superiors. The media will shrilly focus the public’s attention on the revelations in the documents rather than on the more serious crimes committed in obtaining them.

Nixon couldn’t have even dreamed of doing this in his wildest fantasies. But Obama could and did. Now his operatives throughout the government are continuing the work that they began during his regime.

Attorney-client privilege is just one of those rights we have to give up to protect ourselves from a conspiracy theory invented by the Clinton campaign. (But no amount of dead Americans can ever justify ending immigration from Islamic terror states or deporting illegal alien gang members.)

We are at the latest stage of a process that began when the Clinton campaign funded a dossier alleging foreign ties by her political opponent. It did this using a law firm while lying on its FEC disclosures about payments to that firm. (But unlike Cohen, Hillary’s lawyers will never be raided by the FBI.)

That dossier was then used to justify eavesdropping on Trump associates by political allies in the State Department, the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Council. This wasn’t really breaking new ground. Obama had already been caught using the NSA to spy on members of Congress opposed to his Iran Deal.

The contents of the dossier were rambling nonsense. Its claims about Michael Cohen were easily disproven. But that covert investigation was transformed into an overt one with Mueller. And Mueller’s very public investigation follows the same path as the secret investigation by Obama associates. Both used the dubious claims of the Clinton dossier as the starting point for an endless fishing expedition.

Eavesdrop enough, raid enough, squeeze enough and you will eventually find something. And even if you don’t, you can always manipulate them into denying something and nail them for lying to the FBI. Indeed, Mueller’s and Rosenstein’s technique is to keep “squeezing” people, hoping that they may find someone who is weak, or afraid, and maybe willing to lie under oath for these hoodlums masquerading as Law Enforcement. And maybe they will then be able to trap the President based on fake testimony, that the Mueller & Rosenstein Deep State and Ruling Elites Cabal have themselves manufactured.

Mueller has yet to deliver anything on Russian collusion. But so did Susan Rice and Samantha Power who couldn’t find anything related to it either. Instead they all assembled a vast network of international conspiracy theories, some badly made porn, and a hooker (Stormy – “huge planters” – Daniels), along with the liars of the leftist pink pussy hat wearing misguided “Les Miserables” who openly wish to remain SLAVES, and who fight for that wish along with those whose only purpose in speaking out is to justify more Gestapo raids, more Stazi style eavesdropping, and more Stalin purges and expeditions.

These are the Orwellian Police State tactics usually used by Communist dictatorships, or by the NAZIs, where domestic security agencies accuse the political opposition of treason, spy on them, raid their homes on fake charges, and then look for anything that can be used to put them away. Just like in Hitler’s nazi Germany, and in Stalin’s Russia. And they all do that for the exact same reason.

They want to deny people their choice of government, and want to keep the populace enslaved for good.

Russian domestic security agencies, from the KGB to the FSB, used these tactics against political opponents who might pose a threat to their rule. That is exactly what’s happening here.

This isn’t just an ideological war that Washington D.C. is fighting to suppress a political revolution. It is a straight up Orwellian nightmare. Simple as that.

Even Obama and Hillary’s political operatives couldn’t have pushed the DOJ and other agencies this far outside their comfort zone under ordinary circumstances. There had been previous abuses of power, under JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Clinton, but there has been nothing like this since the Alien and Sedition Acts or Madison’s Machiavellian scapegoating of the Federalists, for the disastrous War of 1812.

To the empowered by a badge political operatives of Hillary Clinton, like Comey, Rosenstein, Mueller, Strzok, Page, Steele, and their many comrades, and allies within the FBI — President Donald J. Trump is an unprecedented threat to the business of the Federal government.

These people don’t care about Americans, they shrug at whatever the economy is doing, they care none about health care, tax reform, housing, or justice. All they care is where it affects them in the mad wish for power and control. Any kind of social issues don’t move them in any way, either. They are as interested in the ideological left-right battles as the nomenklatura of the Soviet Union were, in reading the works of Karl Marx, besides a cursory memory reading so that when quizzed they could give intelligent answers…

There are indeed two Americas. One is your country. The other consists of the people who run it. Both have their headquarters in Washington D.C. And they get along pretty well most of the time.

Except when this New Spartacus shows up and wishes to upend their apple cart…

The people are allowed to vote for whomever their party chooses. They can even vote for less respectable choices as long as they understand that those people will never get anywhere. Then the people they select will go to Washington D.C. and be briefed on what they can and can’t do. There they will rent pricey condos, bicker with each other, eat at nice restaurants and, in theory, make laws.

Then the nomenklatura, the bureaucracy that runs the country, will transform laws into policy. The policy will be shaped by judicial rulings and expert opinion. By the time the policy sausage comes out the other end of the Imperial City, it will have very little to do with what the voters might have wanted.

There are plenty of gatekeepers to keep a common sense idea from being implemented. If a congressman proposes that sensible measure you suggest to him, it will never leave the committee or it’ll be watered down. The Senate will neuter it or the president, on the advice of his advisors, will veto.

And then along came Trump and the American people and shook the whole thing up… and the Praetorian guard starting getting terrified at their loss of power, their shaking caused the Saul Alinski Doctrinaires, to start reacting badly, and now are preparing for an all out war.

Meanwhile, the gates began to collapse. The nomenklatura propped them up. Judicial rulings were used to block everything. The petty bureaucracies within government agencies stalled and sabotaged. Former agency bosses, their internal allies and the media colluded to target Trump’s agency heads with scandals.

The elected head of the government and the unelected heads of the government were at war.

Mueller is the tip of the nomenklatura’s spear. The DOJ is the bluntest weapon in the D.C. arsenal and for the first time it’s been completely unleashed to undo the results of a presidential election.

The same leftists that fought for the civil rights of terrorists and drug dealers, cheer government eavesdropping on the political opposition and the violation of attorney-client privilege because it was never about civil rights, it was about protecting their political allies and punishing their enemies.

Radical movements are inherently totalitarian. And totalitarians view process, whether of elections or criminal justice proceedings, as a train that they ride until they take power and then disembark.

As Roger Nash Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU, wrote, “If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then… it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties… When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever.”

The working class of Washington D.C. has achieved quite a bit of power along with a fortune in overseas bank accounts, mansions, private schools and all the privileges of membership in the ruling class.

But the leftists cheering Mueller’s abuses might pause to consider the consequences.

The Romans broke their republic. Now we’re breaking ours. The pink hat brigade enlisted the Praetorian Guard to bring down Trump. But the Roman lesson is that once you break the republic, it stays broken. Once you use political mercenaries like Mueller to overturn an election for you, they might not stop.

The left likes to believe that it can close Pandora’s Box whenever it pleases. History tells us differently.

The Praetorian Guard didn’t stop. What can be done once, will be done again. When control of the DOJ and FBI matters more than elections, then voters will be irrelevant and the Praetorian of D.C. will rule.

And then a new Watergate really will happen each and every week.

Taking Sides

Well-nigh the entire ruling class—government bureaucracies, the judiciary, academia, media, associated client groups, Democratic officials, and Democrat-controlled jurisdictions—have joined in “Resistance” to the 2016 elections: “You did not win this election,” declared Tom Perez recently, the Democratic National Committee’s chairman. This is not about Donald Trump’s alleged character defects. The Resistance would have arisen against whoever represented Americans who had voted not to be governed as they have been for the past quarter-century. It is a cold civil war against a majority of the American people and their way of life. The members of the Resistance mean to defend their power. Their practical objective is to hamper and otherwise delegitimize 2016’s winners. Their political objective is to browbeat Trump voters into believing they should repent and yield to their betters. This campaign might break the Trump presidency.

In the meantime, however, it exacerbates the spirit of discontent in the land. In 2016 the electorate, following the pattern it had set in 2010 and 2014 (and even in 2012, except for the presidential election), voted Republican to show its desire to reduce government’s intrusion in American life, to get out from under the ruling class’s socio-economic agenda and political correctness. But the Republican leadership did not and does not share the electorate’s concerns. Cycle after cycle, Americans who vote to “throw the rascals out” get ever more unaccountable rules piled on by the same unelected bureaucrats; and even modest attempts to hold back capillary intrusion into their lives get invalidated by the same judges. They come to believe that the system is rigged. In short, they want to drain the swamp.

Yet such revolutionary sentiments do not amount to a coherent program to reverse the past century’s course. Donald Trump’s promises with regard to the swamp and to restoring America’s greatness would be extraordinarily difficult to keep even were they matched with due understanding and forceful execution. But the ruling class is so big, so pervasive, and so committed to its ideas, that sidelining it, and even more so, undoing its work, would require at least matching its power, pretensions, and vehemence. In other words, it would take raising the temperature of our cold civil war’s right side to match or overmatch the temperature of its left side. Statesmanship’s task, however, is to maximize peace, not strife.

American society has divided along unreconcilable visions of the good, held by countrymen who increasingly regard each other as enemies. Any attempt by either side to coerce the other into submission augurs only the fate that has befallen other peoples who let themselves slide into revolution. It follows that the path to peace must lie in each side’s contentment to have its own way—but only among those who consent to it. This implies limiting the U.S. government’s reach to what it can grasp without wrecking what remains of our national cohesion.

Lincoln’s Example

The events preceding the Civil War, which killed some 10% of military-age American men, may offer some guidance. The conflict loomed for 30 years because Northerners and Southerners wanted to impose their views about slavery, the tariff, and much else on the other. South Carolina had nullified the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Because war was the only way by which it could have been forced to accept the tariffs, President Andrew Jackson and Congress, while threatening the use of force, offered a compromise that effectively let South Carolina get what it wanted out of nullification.

By 1858, America had become a “house divided” by a cold civil war that, Lincoln warned, would lead eventually to total victory for one side or the other. Lincoln left no doubt which side he wanted to prevail. But, until the firing on Fort Sumter left him no other option, he focused on cooling the conflict. He would send no obnoxious officials to the South—effectively agreeing to at least temporary nullification of federal law—though he made clear he would defend federal forts and arsenals in the South. He would faithfully enforce the fugitive slave law in the North, and even consider a constitutional amendment specifically protecting slavery where it existed. He believed that, so long as slavery was not allowed to expand into the territories, regardless of what the Southern states did within their boundaries, the best features of diverse America would triumph in the end.

To this extent, Lincoln was following the standard American way of getting along with people with whom one disagrees. Ever since Roger Williams led his band out of Massachusetts to found Rhode Island, Americans have avoided contention by sorting out into more congenial groups. The Constitution was written to reflect the reality of very different ways of life, united by a common commitment to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and to the supreme law of the land. The waning of agreement among ourselves regarding first principles has increased the need for—and the difficulty of—tolerating differences among ourselves.

As with Lincoln, the practical limits of the U.S. government’s reach should guide its grasp. Of what would similar statesmanship today consist? Much of the heat in contemporary American politics comes from the attempt, principally from the Left but increasingly from the Right as well, to force the entire nation to live in precisely the same way with precisely the same values. Statesmanship should begin by questioning and moderating that tendency.

Accepting Reality

Consider sanctuary cities (and states). Some hundreds of cities in America have declared that they are taking no part in enforcing national immigration laws. The government of great big California has set up an executive office to figure out all the ways in which to evade or just to stiff anything it does not like coming from the Trump Administration. And why not? Practically speaking, the federal government doesn’t have the power to make local officials enforce its rules, or even court judgments, against significant popular opposition. Yes, nowadays every federal agency has its SWAT team. But state or city officials, backed by the voters, can nullify or simply ignore a federal law, regulation, or court order, because countering peaceful nullification is hard—and usually unwise, too. Sending paramilitaries to arrest elected officials or citizens who comply with local law or policy is a blind alley. Yes, President Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce school desegregation after Brown v. Board of Education. But that symbolic act (no resistance, no force, no arrests) succeeded because the government then enjoyed a moral authority that it has since squandered. Nothing like that will ever happen again.

The reality is that, today, the people of California and Massachusetts continue to diverge from those of Texas and the Dakotas in so many ways that applying the administrative state’s formulae to them requires ever more force. Substituting administrative force for waning consensus makes for less national unity, not more. Why not, then, deal with the problem by accepting reality?

Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?

Now that identity politics have replaced the politics of persuasion and blended into the art of war, statesmen should try to preserve what peace remains through mutual forbearance toward jurisdictions that ignore or act contrary to federal laws, regulations, or court orders. Blue states and red states deal differently with some matters of health, education, welfare, and police. It does no good to insist that all do all things uniformly. Why shouldn’t each spend its money and legislate as it wishes? Regarding sanctuary cities, the federal government can, and should, withdraw whatever money such jurisdictions receive from the federal government for the functions in question. Indeed, as jurisdictions on the Left and Right effectively nullify some of the administrative state’s functions, fewer and fewer congressmen and senators will be inclined to maintain those functions. America’s founders had learned from the history of empires that keeping diverse peoples under the same roof requires interfering as little as possible with their views of themselves and of the good. Time to relearn federalism.

The limits to such forbearance are set by the Declaration of Independence’s requirement that no one may rule another without his consent; such unity as may be possible, therefore, has to result from the politics of persuasion. Today, states and cities ruled by the Left are seizing disproportionate influence in national politics by counting the votes of non-citizens. California issued drivers’ licenses—de facto voter registration—to a million illegals. Countless localities, such as New York City, Detroit, and Florida’s Broward County, do similar things. A few million votes here and there add up to a wall protecting today’s ruling class as it imposes itself on the rest of the country. Because this fraud so threatens the body politic’s integrity, a federal law requiring positive proof of citizenship for voting in federal elections is a sine qua non of continued national cohesion.

The Common Defense

Revolution narrows statesmanship’s focus to first principles regarding foreign affairs, too. The fundamentals never change: foreign policy must serve internal needs first. It must speak softly and carry a big stick. In revolutionary times or times of profound discord, this approach is especially important: minimize interference in others’ affairs so as to minimize occasions for others’ interference in ours, and maintain such military capacity as would discourage anyone from taking advantage of our temporary distraction. The overarching challenge is to secure such respect from other peoples as may be needed to live safely and without interference as our body politic secures internal peace.

George Washington’s Farewell Address stressed the priority of avoiding foreign commitments that set Americans against one another, encouraging them to be partisans of contending foreign causes. Contrary to Washington’s warnings, U.S. foreign policy has oscillated between support for, and opposition to, governments and factions entangled in the Middle East’s perennial struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Like its predecessors, the Trump Administration seems preoccupied, for example, with the question of which sect will hold the mayoralty of Mosul. But attention to such questions exacerbates divisions that already exist among Americans. Our incapacity to make lasting changes in other peoples’ arrangements with one another continues to subtract from the respect that we Americans need in order to secure ourselves from foreign interference at a time when this is crucial. The same is true of official U.S. pronouncements on world events that are not of our making and are beyond our control. They bark without biting, furthering contrasting reactions among Americans and increasing foreigners’ contempt for us all.

We should take to heart Washington’s injunction to treasure and defend America’s peculiar, yet exceptional nature, and circumstances.

Military preparedness naturally unifies Americans of disparate views insofar as it is directed to “the common defense.” Since political divisiveness results from suspicions that our military power is directed to partisan ends, military power can contribute mightily to national unity by focusing unambiguously on protecting Americans and killing those who harm us.

In this regard, nothing has ever enjoyed so near-unanimous support as defense against ballistic missile attack.

Most Americans mistakenly believe it already exists, and strain to comprehend why U.S. policy remains not to raise any obstacles whatever to Russian and Chinese missiles hitting our country.

Americans of all sorts (elites of a certain age excluded) could unite around missile defense as essential to themselves and to their neighbors.

Revolutions end when a coherent, persuasive idea of the common good returns to the public mind. Only then can statecraft be practiced rationally, as more than a minimalist calling designed to prevent the worst from happening.

Or as in the Book of Kings, (Samuel 1:14) Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer:

“Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those enemies of ours, the hated Philistenes. Perhaps the Lord will act on our behalf, because nothing can hinder the Lord from saving us from death and giving us Victory — whether by many or by few.”

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

And if there is a civil war to come — here is the Warrior’s lament for our tribe of fearless fighters…

“Not many bows will be drawn,
nor will slings be common,
for whenever battle will be joined,
it will not be in the broad plains;
instead the much-sighing work,
will belong to the clashing swords,
that will slash deep wounds everywhere,
everywhere where men are found,
for the warlike lords are experienced,
and want to fight in person, seeing the
enemy’s eyes, and killing them hastily,
in that manner of everywhere war.”
–Dr Churchill