China, the Election, and the Color Revolution

It was, perhaps, a forgone conclusion that China would rise to the status of peer-competitor with the US. It was not a foregone conclusion that Americans and American institutions would aid that rise.

China has a long history and memory. It enjoys almost an almost homogeneous ethnic population. It has industrious people and they are many. It enjoys access to numerous resources. Over the last decade-plus, its geopolitical efforts have ensured access to ports, markets, and additional resources. (see previous summary of why China knows it is destined to greatness).

We learn just this week that a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Eric Swalwell, apparently received funding and had carried on an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy. Swalwell was of course one of the key members of the chorus that sang tales of Russia and Ukrainian collusion for nearly four-years. This is not unique to Swalwell, Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff for years. The Swalwell incident is, however, more pronounced. A young attractive female shows up with money and sex, Swalwell in his capacity on the Intelligence Committee received numerous briefings on counter-intelligence. A guy with a melon head and crooked mouth ought to have noticed a honey-pot when it tried to seduce him.  Any intelligent person with knowledge of sources and methods would have. Swalwell was briefed, many times; he knew better.

Yet, it is not just Swalwell. We might attribute his collusion with foreign enemies as merely the failings of weak moral character – the old “cannot keep it in one’s pants defense”; maybe.

We have now video proof that Chinese inside the party apparatus claim openly that the reach of the CCP into the bastions of power in the US is wide-reaching, intentional, and integral to China's long game. John Zimrak points out:

The speaker is not some fevered crank, or even a Chinese dissident embittered by the totalitarian government’s religious repression, forced abortions, and concentration camps. No, it’s Di Dongsheng, Vice Dean of the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China. He serves as Vice Director and Secretary of the Center for Foreign Strategic Studies of China.

Those are bold words, spoken openly to an audience that is apparently in the know. Americans that have made the same claim about China and its involvement, schemes, nefarious activities, and hegemonic goals have been labeled over the years as “conspiracy theorist” by our own media and geopolitical and intelligence ‘experts’. When we pull the onion back and begin to breathe in the full scope of the vast web of money, influence, and cooperation between institutions, corporations, and many within our government that seek personal gain we begin to understand why ‘elites’ in the US deny these facts and ‘elites’ in China know it as an open secret.

Zimrak goes further, asserting “that in every way, the COVID crisis has proven to be a massively successful biowarfare attack against the United States (and other countries) by China.” Many others have made that argument, all denounced or relegated to the corner and silenced. I have argued the same thing since April (our response was scripted by Alinsky, the gain of function element, and COVIDs role in the Color Revolution).

None of this seems unrelated. Darren J. Beattie, Ph.D. Is the man that deserves the most credit for placing the term ‘Color Revolution’ into the common vernacular in 2020. He was not the first to write about what was going on or to see the connections of trees to the forest, but he wrote a series of articles that gained traction and occupied some time on news outlets discussing the concept. Oddly enough, now that we are in the final stages of what we must now clearly describe as a color revolution (see an explanation of the term here) Beattie has made recent statements effectively denouncing those that point to China as having any relevance. Beattie must know that all previous color revolutions have been carried out through a combination of elements external and internal to the target nation.

Beattie did not respond to efforts to ask clarifying questions on his recent statements. It is, however, disconcerting that the one man that is now known as the ‘expert’ on the subject by most that only heard the term a couple of months ago would say things, even if nuanced, that would dissuade the masses from seeing 2020 as it truly is.

We have seen the capture of fake ID’s inbound to the US from China in July (link), 10,800 assault weapons parts from china seized (link), and 28 million in gold bars smuggled in from China in Aug (link) just the things we have caught and seen are enough to make one notice rising smoke.

In 2020 we witnessed that journalism in the main is dead and cold, left as an empty carcass capable only of disseminating disinformation and feverishly working to suppress the truth. Most of the media says nothing of China other than to 'debunk' legitimate stories and concerns. Why? How far do the effects of money and Chinese influence operations go?

Color Revolutions always center on elections, disputed results, and a culminating event. In the initial stages, the focus is on fear, confusion, disinformation, and chaos. The culminating event is always an attempt to hijack the narrative and then seize control, under the color of law and the promise of a return to normalcy.

No honest American, that has seen with their own eyes the events of 2020 unfold, can say with certitude that we are not in the midst of a color revolution. No honest American, seeing all the connection to, subtle involvement by and benefit by China can say with certainty that they are not involved.

The Great Reset: How We Got Here

Herein is a collection of videos and resources that assist in explaining how we arrived in 2020 at the point that we were susceptible to a Color Revolution, poised on the verge of a Civil War and many now clamor for a Great Reset. Many otherwise intelligent people have been deceived, confused and absolutely wrong this year, never seeing the forest for the trees, unable to see that all of the troubles, chaos, and issues were related and all pushed us toward the 'need' for a draconian solution.

Analysis of current trajectory toward a Great Reset

Ten part series that details much of the organized effort by communitarians, communist, socialist, and their allies progressives to move the West and the world toward a naturalistic, centralized, and ultimately authoritarian system. 

This is a must-see, Yuri Bezmenov was a KGB propagandist and defector. He lays out in this video the methods used by international communism, to subvert and supplant governments in the West.

Do you remember those 'crazy' Birchers? It seems they too were not wrong.

The following is a promotional/propaganda video from the World Economic Forum. They are not even hiding their goals anymore. All of those 'conspiracy theorists' that called out Davos and the Bilderberg Group were not wrong about at least this portion of their agenda.

Speaking of conspiracy guys - here is one that called out the plan and objectives of the globalist for thirty years (with shocking accuracy). This loud, obnoxious, and over the top guy got many of the players, events, and circumstances of 2020 right, the folks he has called out are saying the quiet parts out loud now.

 

Jones is whack-a-doodle, easily deceived and often wrong...but the video below gets a lot right.

Christians ought not worry, this was all prophesized. You ought to take an honest look at your church, your heart and your own discernment. Almost all of the major denominations proved themselves to be tragically flawed in 2020, falling for pieces and parts of the deception that has brought us here. If your pastor twisted scripture to tell you that a communist and racist organization was worthy of support (BLM) or that this was all just a moment and that trusting the authorities was wise, then they failed to lead.

Stop listening to those flawed and often false preachers, they were deceived this year and deceived their flocks!

Perhaps also, if you see this all now as the manifestation of Biblical prophecy, I would suggest you not jump too fast on the hope of a rapture in the near future. What if all this plays out slowly, and we and subsequent generations live through the emergence of an all-powerful government? What if it takes a hundred years for this to fully play out? We were promised persecution (hated for his namesake) for being true followers, not prosperity. We still live in this world, we still have responsibilities.

What is going to be will be. Politics cannot stop this all, if God wills it we perhaps could slow it down, delay it for a few generations. Evil is on a timeline, it knows its time is limited. It has polluted all of the institutions we are supposed to be able to trust (media, education, religion, and government). A vast swath of our population lives each day under a polluted worldview. Many wolves wear sheep's clothing in places we expect otherwise. The very best we can do now is to take care of our own.

Covid and the Color Revolution

In mid-late February, many watched foreign news services concerning the status of China and the Coronavirus outbreak in China and wondered if this was ‘the big one’.  When a totalitarian regime locks down a city of millions, literally welds people into their homes and builds emergency Army hospitals and somehow, despite their hold on internet services, footage escapes – wise people wake up and notice.  I recall the chatter in various places regarding low cloud cover that appeared to have source from smokestacks near the quickly built hospital – crematoria were the conjecture.

I took it all seriously.

Then I watched with growing anticipation, and perhaps some anxiety, the situation with the Diamond Princess cruise ship (and others). I recall seeing an interview with an MD, an infectious disease guy, that visited the ship. He stated he had never seen a more dangerous situation, in terms of quarantine and controls. This was clearly not news to anyone that has even casually observed various ‘outbreaks’ on cruise ships over the years. The close quarters seem to make them rather like petri dishes.

We all watched, and then, despite the fact that most of the passengers were older and in what would seem high-risk categories, the infection rate was not outrageous and the fatality rate was low. That was a moment of clarity for me, the first time I thought the China story was odd.

I am not going to argue from facts and data here. I have not bothered to go back and find the various stories and links, things that any of us that watched this closely will recall already. My arguments here are from reason, what does common-sense tell us about what we have seen. In the aggregate, if we look at the big picture, our reason and common-sense tell us already that something is odd. Common-sense has served humanity for centuries when it was impossible to parse all the facts down to finite levels of detail. It is sufficient now.

Things that ought to make us wonder:

  1. Low infection/fatality rate in vulnerable populations on cruise ships early on.
  2. From March to June, people went on Spring Break (we were told that was apocalyptic), to big box stores, and more WITHOUT MASKS.
  3. We were told mask would actually make it all worse.
  4. We observed verbal gymnastics as government bureaucrats explained the criteria for counting COVID-19 deaths, and we recall how those criteria changed.
  5. We saw a spike of deaths, many in nursing homes in New York, only to learn later that some bizarre things went on. (see this young lady’s research, here)
  6. We were told that nobody could talk about therapeutics, we were told to “trust science” but only some scientists apparently. (more here)
  7. At one-point, Brix told us that if we did everything perfectly, 200k people would die and if not 2 million would perish.
  8. Of the 210k that have died WITH COVID, current CDC statistics demonstrate that a small percentage die with ONLY COVID. Most of those deaths were old people with other serious problems.
  9. 99.8% (mean) of everyone that gets COVID survives just fine. The Flu appears to be about 99.991%. We see it as infectious, but it is not the Zombie virus, and we all are beginning to know that.
  10. Despite all of the hyper emotionality related to ‘super-spreader’ events, the media has never said a word about mass protests, unless they are related to lockdowns.

Here are the current CDC stats for COVID, bear in mind, not all counted in these numbers are people that died exclusively of COVID, many had other conditions.

0-19: 99.997%

20-49: 99.98%

50-69: 99.5%

70 & over: 94.6%

Taking a gander at those numbers, and the other things our eyes see, common-sense informs us that none of the lockdowns make any sense. Perhaps they never made sense. Humans have faced viruses and sickness throughout history. How is a virus that has such a high survival rate different? Why was 2020 different? How many people have had their lives and livelihoods ruined over this? How many people avoided going to regular doctor visits for fear of the ‘rona and as result cancers and other maladies have gone undiagnosed?

More things to ponder:

  • What of all the talk of Fauci, the NIH, and the Wuhan lab - and why is Bill Gates touted as a virus expert now? Good things to ponder, here is a thread.
  • You have likely heard of Event 201, the exercise in the fall of 2019 put on by Gates, the NIH, and others to practice for a pandemic. Have you also heard of CLADE X? (see more)
  • What if some of those videos that came out of China could be shown as fake, you know the ones with dead people laying in the street, would that make you take notice? (Look here)
  • Remember how as early as April progressives and radicals were building the narrative that in-person voting was so dangerous (this was just before they began ignoring mass in-person protesting) (see thread)
  • Did you know the WHO is a bunch of nefarious clowns? (read all about it)
  • Lastly, why does nobody mention China and their gain of function research at the Wuhan lab anymore? (link)

The cost of all of this is something we have not yet fully reckoned. We will likely never fully know the cost, but if we are honest, we know down deep it was huge. Do you recall when Boris Johnson initially planned for Great Britain to protect the vulnerable and work toward herd immunity? He was literally shut down. Do you recall when Trump wanted to close the border and take precautions but carry on? The media and the opposition party screamed bloody murder. (remember all that in January, we do)

We were told to trust the science, but epidemiologists working in Africa have long known that quarantines often do not work and sometimes have negative outcomes. A lockdown of this scale has no precedence, there is no data. it was not based upon science, rather a public policy guess.

Many of us recall the spat of academic papers that appeared and then disappeared claiming that COVID-19 had aspects of bioengineering. That was both odd and disconcerting, more so because it all was quickly suppressed. Here is one you may still read, "SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon".

And what if, as generally happens with viruses in the wild, this has become less deadly over time? Do all the panic and economic devastation and political posturing still make sense to you (view a thread on this topic)

I wrote back in April that the reaction and overreaction to this virus looked very Saul Alinsky-like. The fear generated in the population enabled the government to do things previously unthinkable. We learned in 2020 that our inalienable rights are contingent upon the whims of even the lowest elected officials, and sometimes unelected bureaucrats. The massive payouts, the massive debt, our initial attempts at universal basic income (UBI), our flirting with modern monetary policy (MMP) – all unimaginable in 2019. In a real sense, we moved much closer to a central, all-powerful socialist state in 2020, a larger jump than the New Deal and the Great Society.

China benefitted from all this. Some experts have claimed the virus was bioengineered. (article here) We now know it is not nearly as deadly as China portrayed and let escape in videos. We know that corporations want to return to the old trade model. The Democrats likewise. The democrats and China benefitted from this virus. Talk about election interference...coincidence?

Common-sense tells us that none of this made any sense. The virus is real, a lot of people get sick, some die but it is not what we were told, it is not at all what we are told. Americans know, or should know that this was all wrong.

Yet many do not. Almost all of our subsidiary institutions that we are supposed to be able to trust have failed us this year. Academia, the media, organized religion – all went along without objection, often leading the charge of absurd emotionality.

If we look around the world, we have to wonder the following:

  1. Why have the homeless in the US not been stricken?
  2. What of Africa, South America, and India? Why no large outbreaks?
  3. How did China get back to work and back open so quickly?
  4. Why is the bulk of the extreme lockdowns and the crisis focuses primarily in Five Eyes nations FVEY (Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the U.S.)?

The Five Eyes fact is especially disturbing. Parts of Australia are undergoing draconian government actions, arrests, restrictions, etc. New Zealand locked down a nation because four people in one household tested positive. The U.S. shut down the world's most vibrant economy, and has not let up? Why is the virus so selective?

If you can come to the realization that nothing about Coronavirus and our reaction made any sense then the next question that is obvious is why, why now, why at this point in history? Beyond the fact that the overreaction advanced socialist objectives, why has this overreaction affected only the FVEY nations?

Some suggest this is related to a globalist inspired color revolution. It is the Five Eyes nations that stand, or have stood, against a growing Chinese peer-competitor status and perhaps even hegemony. The populist and nationalist position of the Trump administration is anathema to those that stand the most to gain from globalism. Trump is as dangerous to that agenda and perhaps Sanders was, and we see what the Democratic party did to keep Sanders off the ballot (twice). BREXIT and a popular reaction to centralization were dangerous to globalism in Great Britain. These sorts of things cannot stand it seems.

Given the facts, given what our innate senses, our common-sense, tell us about 2020 and COVID, given the lockstep fashion in which the media has never questioned the narrative, in fact, they are the chief purveyors and perhaps creators of said narrative, given what we see we now; something is rotten in Denmark.

It is not only possible, but it also seems likely at this point, that all of this COVID response was contrived. That it is all related to a larger effort to conduct a soft coup, a color revolution in the U.S. The riots, the unrests, the unleashing of hate and angst, supported fully by one party and excused by the media – all seems related now.

If true, if this is a color revolution, it will end poorly, likely in violence.

 

If Democrats would use the FBI and CIA to illegally spy on a presidential campaign, do the things they did to Bernie to keep him on the sidelines, spend four years undermining effective governance, yearn for the day that relations can be restored with their idolized totalitarian capitalist welfare state of China AND openly support violence, looting and arson on American streets, is it a far stretch to consider that they would support an all-out color revolution attempt and use an infectious but not extremely deadly virus (perhaps one designed for this purpose) to help that cause? If they have used the intelligence community once for illegal activities is it inconceivable that they are now using intelligence assets in all FVEY nations to cement power?

It is plausible, more so than a mere coincidence! (Color Revolutions Explained)


Many of the links with research are from 'L' (@SomeBitchIKnow) follow her. She is amazing at digging for and aggregating bits of information. The conclusions and assessment are my own and do not necessarily attach to her take on all this (they should but I cannot speak for her).

I also realize, only recently, that some Q folks hold to this theory. I am not one of those folks, I did not get my assessment from them, this started to smell fishy to me in April. I will say, that just because many Q folks ask similar questions does not negate the theory. They are not wrong about everything, they perhaps just sometimes fill in too many gaps in their analysis. 

The “Trump and GOP Senators Deliberately Infected with COVID Theory”

It is hard to know what to make of the sheer number of reasonable people that are coming out on social media and stating how odd it is to them that Trump and so many GOP senators and campaign folks are all getting COVID now, just before the election. It is almost as if they already believe there is a color revolution going on. I realize full well that Congress spoke this week and told us that theorizing about theories is not acceptable when they condemned Qanon. Much of the leftist world celebrated and reminded us that of course, a cabal of pedophiles does not run the world, Putin does! Only some theories about conspiracies are acceptable it seems.

But what to make of reasonable people questioning the timing and circumstances of Trump and others getting the 'rona? One easy explanation is that they were in the same place at the same time. A counter-argument is the Trump travels all over, sees thousands of people - why now.

Eccentric entertainer Alex Jones predicted on March the 13th 2020 that before the election, 'they', would either infect Trump with Covid-19 or tell him that he was infected and then 'they' would ensure that he never left the hospital, essentially assassinating him. In this case 'they' are the folks running the color revolution.  Those were pretty wild things to suggest several months ago - in October, it seems there are regular people willing to consider such depravity is possible.

Here is the key thing to take away - the fact that enough people have seen enough odd shenanigans going on (lies in the media, contrived violence, mass deception) to even make it feasible that one could ponder something as dark and nefarious as the above having occurred is enough to tell you how bad this is - it is almost like a 'social signal' that informs us that we collectively know something is up, we cannot know all the facts, but we know somebody is out to harm us, we sense it and see tell-tale evidence.

Heck, before 2020, I thought all the talk of 'the CIA killing JFK' was humorous. Now I go back and watch one of his later speeches where he warned of dark and secret forces at work and I wonder, could those 'whackos' have been right all these years.

Here is another take - if you think folks questioning the timing of these infections are 'nuts'. Wait and see what happens if Trump recovers quickly. Mainstream media will claim it was all a hoax. I had a relative ask me today if I thought Trump really had COVID. He may be bombastic, he may be very 'New Yorker' - but he does not appear to be a man that would fake an illness and look weak, this is not in his nature. Just wait though, for the National Enquirer (I mean NYTs and CNN) to suggest this was all a hoax that he was ever sick - it will happen!

This is our color revolution. JFK was right, dark and secret forces are at work and deception abounds.

Universal Basic Income

CNBC, reporting on comments by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi highlights the first open admission that left-liberal progressives intend to utilize Coronavirus as a pretext to implement some of their most radical short-term objectives. Quoting Pelosi[1], CNBC reported, “Others have suggested a minimum income, a guaranteed income for people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so.”[2] Andrew Yang included universal basic income (UBI) as part of his 2020 presidential campaign. Yang was quoted as saying, “I’m pleased to see the White House adopt our vision of putting money directly into the hands of hard-working Americans.” Bernie Sanders, in one of his last campaign speeches before dropping out of the 2020 election proposed a scheme to pay every household $2000 monthly.

Willkie in her CNBC article parroted numbers of unemployed in the U.S. at approximately $25 million. She sailed to acknowledge that phase one of the CARES Act included a provision that added $600 per week to unemployment benefits, above and beyond what one would normally qualify for based upon prior income level. Numerous other sources have reported the impact of this fact – individuals make more money being unemployed than working[3], and some are unwilling to go back to work.[4] On the face of it, this is an absurd policy. No reasonable person can make an honest argument in support of a policy that redistributes wealth and pays people more not to work than to work unless the worldview behind the support of the policy leads the supporter to other, unspoken objectives. By any honest account, this is plunder.[5] If we accept the reasonable conclusion that paying people more to be unemployed than they made while working is absurd and the people supporting such are not deficient in mental capacity then we must also accept that something else is at play – it is a straightforward syllogism.  It is also a fact that the same people that supported the boost to unemployment pay in the CARES Act are now suggesting full-blown UBI, we begin to see the greater objective.

Universal basic income, once adopted, would be nearly impossible to rollback. It would be perhaps the most transformative public policy legislation in U.S. history. The implications of control and intrusion in everyday life and control of the economy are wider than any previous move toward centralization. UBI, if adopted, is a great step forward toward socialism. The fact that both of these programs are being slipped in amid a ‘crisis’ seems deceptive. “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit…”( ESV Colossians 2:8). Socialism is a derivative of the ideology of Marxism and the deception being used to implement it is abhorrent. Public policymakers and citizens must be vigilant.


[1] See video of Pelosi's statement, https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1254764438000984064.

[2] Willkie, C. “Pelosi says universal basic income could be ‘worthy of attention now’ as coronavirus stifles economy”, CNBC. 27 April 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-update-universal-basic-income-could-be-worthy-of-attention-pelosi-says.html.

[3] See, “Some people are earning more in unemployment benefits than they did while working, leaving little incentive to return to their jobs”, Business Insider, 21 April 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-benefits-may-be-higher-than-wages-for-some-workers-2020-4.

[4] See, “Furloughed Workers Don’t Want To Return To Their Jobs As They’re Earning More Money With Unemployment”, Forbes, 28 April 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/04/28/furloughed-workers-dont-want-to-return-to-their-jobs-as-theyre-earning-more-money-with-unemployment/#50054cb06b76.

[5] Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. United States: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Law/DZKE3-pV1AYC,  p. 13

Saul Alinsky and Coronavirus

An editorial essay in The Washington Times [1] argues that much of the hyper-crisis reporting and governmental action related to COVID-19 aligns with principles laid out in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.   Chumley begins her argument by quoting one of Alinsky’s foundational presuppositions, “[a]ny revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.”[2] She argues that “[t]his is Coronavirus Chaos, exemplified.” In support of that bold statement, she provides examples of America being in full panic mode and willing to sacrifice more civil liberties to gain more perception of security. She argues that the Constitution has effectively been suspended, to the applause of the left and right. Pastors have been arrested for conducting services, fathers handcuffed for taking their kids to the park, public protest outlawed, and individuals drug from public transportation by the police.

Chumley observes that all of this, and more, have occurred in a time when we have yet to understand the real nature of Coronavirus. She observes that even a mere hint of skepticism is met in the public and private square with ostracization and ridicule. This comports well with Alinsky’s foundational presupposition, of a non-challenging attitude by defeated people, combined with later suggestiong toward the use of ridicule. Americans are not allowed to work, to produce and create a livelihood. Quoting Alinsky again she observes that this “shake[s] up the prevailing patterns of […] lives — agitate[s], create[s] disenchantment and discontent with the current values.” Chumley does not suggest that Coronavirus is not real, nor that it is necessarily a creation intended to bring about the consequences observed. She merely points out that the crisis and reaction cycle related to the event meshes well with Alinsky’s radical prescription. Her observation itself is a radical statement, bold questions and observations in a time when the discussion is so limited in the public square.

The Washington Times piece raises numerous questions that policymakers should be asking and framing during this event. Chumley raises two issues that are undeniable facts. First, the progressive left-liberals have held an objective of implementing many of the policies that have so easily entered public policy over the proceeding weeks, the adoption of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)[3] as one example. The second is perhaps subject to interpretation but hard to argue against, much of the behavior of left-liberal media outlets and politicians align with Alinsky’s Rules, it appears that progressives are taking advantage of the crisis, perhaps even exacerbating it, in order to enact policies they might never gain consensus to enact otherwise.

If we ignore the ease that governments across the land have attacked religious liberty, often to cheers of ‘Christians’, as well as numerous other assaults on civil liberties and basic common sense and address just the implications of our adoption of MMT, we find those implications to be profound. One simply cannot put the genie of universal basic income and magic money creation back in the bottle once released. The longer the lockdowns continue, the more ‘stimulus packages’ passed by the Federal Government, the nearer we approach to establishing a universal basic income scheme. Printing money to give to people not producing is contrary to historical lessons, averse to common sense and contrary to biblical teachings (Proverbs 12:24). Public policymakers across the land must take action now to react to Cornovirous in a principled, right-reasoned, common sense manner. The Governors in South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennesee have recently taken the right steps in restarting their economies – others should follow.

Chumley’s interpretation of recent events and her analysis of progressive left-liberals utilization of this crisis to advance their agenda is a cautionary lesson for policymakers. Policies made in a time of uncertainty, when facts and truth are distorted and the emotions of the populace enflamed are often bad policy.

 

Chumley, C. “Coronavirus and the smell of Saul Alinsky”, The Washington Times. 18 April 2020. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/18/coronavirus-and-smell-saul-alinsky/.

[1] One might argue, perhaps correctly so, that The Washington Times has a bias. Other news organizations that disavow the existence of their own observable bias would certainly make this claim in an effort to support an argument that the Times is not a legitimate news outlet. This is an absurd argument, in a time when the entire ‘Fourth Estate’ has abandoned neutrality and objectivity, the Times is as much a legitimate news source as any other.

[2] The Washington Times via, S Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, Vintage (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010), https://books.google.com/books?id=VIH0UbZ8qU4C. p. XiX.

[3] See for instance, “Unlimited Money and No Liquidity: Welcome to 2020”, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/unlimited-money-and-no-liquidity%3A-welcome-to-2020-2020-04-15.

Coronavirus, Crisis, and ‘Opportunity’

A recent CNN piece that discusses the percentages of black Americans in three locations and the relative population size by infection rate. The article subtly hints at what some, more radical progressive public figures, have been claiming – that there is inequity caused by discrimination therefore the government must provide universal healthcare for all.  This is crisis/problem creation, straight from Saul Alinsky’s Rules.  


A recent CNN article[1] demonstrates the propensity of the left-liberal media to act as sophists[2] executing what one might argue is a direct application of Saul Alinsky’s Rules. Alinsky argued that “revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude”.[3] He also argued that the first task of revolution is to create issues or problems.[4] As the events of coronavirus drag on, we are beginning to see more news articles and discussions of how the ‘crisis’ impact favored progressive issues – this is essentially narrative building.

Yan and Holcombe in their CNN piece discuss Chicago, Louisiana, Michigan, and New Jersey comparing the total racial makeup of each area, and that to the incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infections. For example, the article states that in Chicago 70% of those infected are African-American while that population comprises 32% of the total. Quoting a representative from a group called The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law the group stated it wants to “ensure that communities of color receive equitable treatment during the crisis”.[5] This sort of piece subtly echoes what more radical progressive elements are saying, it is part of a narrative, creating the problem as Alinsky suggested. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently stated that “inequality is a comorbidity”[6] and that “[w]e need to drop the Medicare eligibility age to [zero] right now”.[7] The CNN article mentioned above lacked context, failed to address other potential underlying causes that might explain the numbers presented and left the reader with one presented solution, ‘the discrepancy must be related to discrimination’. It is part of a greater narrative effort.

This progressive narrative is wrong on several counts. Thomas Sowell points out that the state of healthcare in a nation is rarely an indicator of people’s health.[8] It ignores the fact that we will “always have the poor”. (Mathew 26:11 ESV) It is blind to the fact that every time governments try to eliminate all poverty, they only succeed in lowing wealth overall.  However, the CNN piece and the emerging narrative from the far progressive left is reductionist as it sees one problem, inequity based upon discrimination, and one solution, government-run universal healthcare.

This is, of course, not the only plank of the progressive narrative being pushed. The Post Millennial reports that “Jealous of coronavirus, radical trans activists seek attention from Buzzfeed”.[9] On its face, this is so absurd[10] as to be unbelievable, yet this is part of the debate in the public square.  This is the result of what Alasdair MacIntyre termed the victory of Nietzsche and Weber over Aristotle.[11]

Recognizing the progressive narrative and Alinsky’s tactics is one thing, counteracting them is another matter. Shaffer in Manifesto points out that principles and real revival are required.[12] However, even from what we might consider now an innocent perspective in 1981, he foresaw real change might require something more extreme.[13]

Public policy based upon the Weberism and emotivism that MacIntyre describes as the prevailing worldview[14] is flawed. It is antithetical to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded. It is ultimately absurd because it does not comport with proven economic principles and does not align with the observations of history. If America is to traverse this crisis and those to follow with any semblance of freedom, right-reasoned government and morality we must act. The sophist, the progressive narrative weavers and the “useful idiots”[15] must be denounced or converted. Old assumptions about the value of enlightenment thinking must be reexamined.[16] The center can no longer hold. Two such opposing worldviews cannot coexist. Only poverty, tyranny, suffering and persecution can follow the complete victory of progressivism.[17]

[1] Yan, M, Holcombe, M., “Coronavirus hitting some African American communities extremely hard”, CNN, 6 April, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/health/us-coronavirus-updates-monday/index.html

[2] See Aristotle's Ethics: Writings from the Complete Works - Revised Edition. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2014. (EE 1.6 1217 1-6), https://www.google.com/books/edition/Aristotle_s_Ethics/NGmYDwAAQBAJ. via Strauss, Leo, Cropsey, Joseph. History of Political Philosophy. United States: University of Chicago Press, 2012. p. 121. https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Political_Philosophy/E7mScxst9UoC.

[3] Alinsky, Saul D., Rules for Radicals. United States: Random House, 1972. p. xix. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Rules_for_Radicals/4LbvAQAACAAJ.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Yan, M, Holcombe, M., “Coronavirus hitting some African American communities extremely hard”.

[6] See, https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1246091210449719296.

[7] See, https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1246134686092537862.

[8] Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. United States, Basic Books, 2008. p. 93. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Applied_Economics/gh4JdTv-t9sC.

[9] See, “Jealous of coronavirus, radical trans activists seek attention from Buzzfeed”, https://www.thepostmillennial.com/jealous-of-coronavirus-radical-trans-activists-seek-attention-from-buzzfeed.

[10] Clark, Barry, The Rise of Absurdity in Western Philosophical and Political Views (January 22, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3523995 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3523995.

[11] MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013. p.112. https://www.google.com/books/edition/After_Virtue/00rsK2Y98gQC.

[12] Schaeffer, Francis August. A Christian Manifesto. United Kingdom: Crossway Books, 1981. p. 71. https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Christian_Manifesto/eWHBcQAACAAJ.

[13] Ibid. 130.

[14] Ibid. 121.

[15] 1959, Congressional Record, Section: Appendix, Useful Idiots: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Edward J. Derwinski of Illinois in the House of Representatives on June 30, 1959, (Reprint of editorial from June 23 edition of the Chicago Daily Calumet), Page A5653, Column 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (LexisNexis Congressional Record Permanent Digital Collection)

[16] See, “Government for the Common Good”, https://calhouninstitute.com/government-for-the-common-good/.

[17] Clark, Barry, From Radical Progressivism to Authoritarianism (December 19, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3506918 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3506918.

The Role of Religion, Morality, and Worldview in Public Policy

Everyone has a worldview. Many hold to a ‘religion’ even if it is not theistic and almost all individuals in society adhere to some form of morality. Thus, religion, morality and worldview always shape public policy.  The central question then becomes, particularly in a pluralistic representative republic, what role does the traditional and conventional views on morality and worldview play on public policy and should these views be considered salutary and preferred.  

______

It is inarguable that everyone holds a worldview. Religious views, theistic and non-theistic, are ubiquitous. Everyone among us, even the most immoral and those whose morality is based upon nothing more than self-interest, have a moral view. Therefore, religion, worldview, and morality are the key inputs to public policy development because these views and their variations fundamentally shape the entirety of how one views the world. Necessarily, the central question before us centers on the role that traditional and conventional views play in public policy creation.

Science, or empiricism, requires ‘religious’ faith to account for something arising from nothing.[i] Big History, an academic and ideological movement that attempts to paint a thematic metanarrative from creation to consciousness, is an organized attempt to synthesize this ‘faith’ into a counter-narrative to traditional religious stories. [ii] Modernism shapes views of morality and religion toward progressivism and Monotheistic Therapeutic Deism.[iii] Postmodernism denies metanarratives entirely and defines truth as being subjective.[iv] All three of these worldviews require faith, adhere to elements of dogma and in some cases have features of doctrine, they influence their adherents' views of public policy as much as a Christian, Muslim or Jewish view.

What value should these newer worldviews hold relative to the traditional and conventional positions of a people of a nation? What role does, or should, the permanent things of a people play in shaping policy? Christians understand that man is fallen and all ideas, idealism, and constructs of man are imperfect. (Romans 5:12) Russell Kirk argued that permeant things are “those elements in the human condition that give us our nature, without which we are as the beasts that perish.” [v] One could argue that Christianity is a permanent thing of American culture.[vi] If we accept the arguments of Edmund Burke, as paraphrased by Kirk, we must take into account the history, the moral order, the resources, and prospects in all that government is and does.[vii] History, tradition, and convention are, therefore, important. America’s four-hundred plus year history is replete with significant examples of Christian influence. Our traditions and conventions deriving from our British heritage of culture, language and law is a Christian heritage. Therefore, not only is it important for a Christian worldview to have input into the creation of public policy, it is arguable that such a position should be privileged if we want a culture and a government for the common-good that aligns with tradition and convention.[viii]

@onlyBarryLClark

_____________________________

[i] See previous argument that “Nothing comes from nothing’, http://barryclark.info/first-principles-axioms-and-syllogisms/

[ii] See, Behmand, Mojgan., "Big History and the Goals of Liberal Education." In Teaching Big History, edited by Behmand Mojgan, Simon Richard B., and Burke Thomas, 21-26. University of California Press, 2015. Accessed April 4, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt9qh2dw.8. And “Gates’ Big History Project Closes Young Minds to God”, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/08/big-history-project-closed-to-god.html

[iii] Passing on the Faith: Transforming Traditions for the Next Generation of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. United States: Fordham University Press, 2009. p. 9.

[iv] David W. Scott, Lecture on postmodernity, THiC, Boston University, May 3, 2011. http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/files/2011/05/Lecture-on-postmodernity-David-Wm-Scott.pdf

[v] Kirk, R. 1969. Enemies of the Permanent Things: Observations of Abnormality in Literature and Politics. Arlington House. https://books.google.com/books?id=xLCBAAAAMAAJ . And “The Permanent Things”, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/02/russell-kirk-the-permanent-things.html

[vi] See previous argument, Clark, Barry., The Philosophy of Commonsense: A Cultural War Primer, Abbeville: The Calhoun Institute, 2019, https://books.google.com/books?id=CK6-DwAAQBAJ. As well as, DeMar, Gary. America's Christian Heritage. United States: B&H Publishing Group, 2003.

[vii] Kirk, Russell. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered. United States: Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ORD), 2014. And “Edmund Burke and the Constitution”, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/05/russell-kirk-edmund-burke-and-constitution.html

[viii] See previous argument, “Government for the Common Good”, https://calhouninstitute.com/government-for-the-common-good/

This gets Stranger by the Day

Three days before I went into isolation with the wife and dogs a friend of mine and I went to lunch and obviously discussed the developing Coronavirus story, (this was 11 March). He said, and I believe he was half-serious, that he wondered if China could have done this intentionally. He was commenting on my post from 2 February discussing gain of function bioengineering experiments and the Wuhan high containment biotechnology lab. We laughed and moved on. Conspiracies are complex, and therefore are almost never the answer to an event.

However, this entire situation gets stranger all the time. Below I lay out all the very odd things that simply make no sense when you look at them all together.

  • February 2019 - China opens a biosafety lab in Wuhan China for the purpose of conducting experiments with highly infectious pathogens.
  • Beginning in 2019 and accelerating drastically in 2020, CEOs have left their companies and dumped their stock. (record numbers, particularly in 2019 when the economy was churning).
  • 18 December 2019 - The House impeached Donald Trump. Remember, he was a danger to the universe and could not be allowed to remain, it was 'that serious', remember the words?
  • 31 December 2019 - Reports of a new respiratory illness in Wuhan China.
  • Late January 2020 - Wuhan is cordoned and isolated.
  • From late January until the week of March 9th we are told by Trump that any talk about a pandemic is a hoax and fake news, the left media said it was just like the flu and medical 'experts" said it was not that bad.
  • The week of 23 March - the US economy shutdown. Congress passes two massive 'stimulus' packages.
  • 26 March 2020 the US tops all nations in the number of Coronavirus cases.
  • 27 March 2020 -Trump authorizes the call-up of 1 Million ready reservist and retirees. (this is not the national Guard nor drilling reservist, this is folks that have retired or 'left' the service)

Consider these facts:

  • These massive bills passed with really very little debate, the Democrats control the House, remember how dangerous Trump was in their words in December, now they are all working together?
  • These bills contain the progressive dream agenda and enormous 'help' to large corporations. It is the worst of both worlds from both sides.
  • It 'nationalizes' part of entire industries - taking ownership of a portion of the airlines.
  • QE forever? The government can create 'money' to buy shares of entire industries as it pleases?
  • A large step toward universal basic income (universal poverty).

Only a Republican could have done what Trump has done, the Defense Production Act, activated today - in peacetime! The progressives could never have hoped to accomplish what has occurred without regular Americans literally taking up arms. It could happen when a swath of Americans believe in "Q" and think Trump equals 'Judges'.

I am not denying that people have and will die from COVID-19. However, nobody, not the experts nor the media seem to understand the true nature of this thing. We have no real data to even analyze the problem. In all of history, what nation has ever stopped their economy and essentially mortgaged their future of many future generations based upon guesses and fear? I took it seriously, as an individual, as individuals should - but this? This thing we have done, very strange set of coincidences - and I do not believe in coincidences.

China has now shut its borders. It is ramping up its production and economy while we create trillions of dollars in magic money. Why? what are the implications? How does this all work out to our benefit?

I am not suggesting the following is the answer to these questions but it certainly looks a lot more like all those conspiracy guys that have preached for years that some global cabal of governments and the elites were planning a crisis to take our freedom and impoverish us are worth reconsidering right now. It actually seems plausible.

Nothing that has happened, shutting it all down, creating these outrageous bills, locking people down, trampling the Constitution - all while we cheer. It is very strange. That is the only fact I know for sure, it is strange.

I am beginning to smell a color revolution. Look for riots in the street before the election.

Plausibly Explaining It all

All of the coincidence and strangeness above could make sense, if:

  • Trump and Congress are idiots, liars, and fools.
  • Medical 'experts' in the west were either deniers, fools or liars
  • Maybe all those CEOs just saw the tea leaves of a coming recession (nothing to do with Coronavirus) and resigned their positions and cashed out over the last 14 months - nothing nefarious in that case.
  • The virus really is as bad, or close to as bad as some of the models predicted - it was only less deadly in said because of social norms in places like Japan and Hong Kong, and governmental control of the population (and spread) in China.
  • The West's love of individual freedom (in this case license to not be good citizens) made us more susceptible - think Carnival, Madi Gras, Spring break and idiots going to bars.

It is possible this really was an 'accident of history', just a natural virus that China's authoritarian regime was able to control through draconian measures while our attention in the West was diverted by incompetent news media and politicians worried about petty partisan squabbles. If it turns out to be a pretty bad virus, but just an accident of history that highlights and takes advantage of our weaknesses as moral citizens - well perhaps there never needed to be a 'global cabal' and all the conspiracy theories associated with it.

In either case, authoritarianism wins, China wins, freedom loses, the entire ideal of 'Americanism' loses. Sometimes, oftentimes it is just 'accidents of history' that shape and define the future. Cultures and societies that are not prepared for those accidents, and people that are not just and moral, do not survive them unchanged.

Our only real option is to seriously consider a new system of government that values the common good and morality as a virtue.

 

Candidates, 2020 Presidential Election

I have noticed some friends throwing about the idea that perhaps one or more of the Democratic candidates would be tolerable, even acceptable perhaps. I have heard Biden, Gabbard and Klobuchar mentioned in this regard. I have only one acquaintance that I know of that supports Sanders (and would conceivably be open to Warren). I will not discuss those two, their ideas are disastrous, anyone that doubts that could care less what I say.

I get that many folks are disgusted by Trump. I will discuss him at the end of this post. But first to these ‘tolerable, perhaps even acceptable’ Democrats.

If you are a Christian and a Conservative, and at this juncture of the cultural war, I cannot imagine that you can be the first without also being the second, then you must oppose abortion. I cannot imagine how a professing Christian could support that. As a realist you probably acknowledge it is here to stay for the time being in one form or another, but, a Christion metaphysical realist view of the world, and a plain understanding of the Word simply must inform you that it is wrong. So where are these ‘almost acceptable’ Democrats on the issue?

Klobuchar and Biden would use your tax dollars to provide abortions, making you even more complicit in murder. Gabbard would simply maintain the status quo, meaning any judges she appointed would solidify the state of the law as it stands. Not acceptable to any Christian.

On healthcare, all of the candidates would place us further down the track toward a socialized healthcare system. Gabbard is with the hardcore socialist, Klobuchar proposes something less drastic and Biden is interested in saving his legacy by ‘fixing’ the broken Obamacare. I understand that healthcare expenses are troublesome. I get people ‘feel’ as if the government ought to do something. Austrian economics indicates it is all broken because the government did too much of something in the first place with Medicare, Medicaid and monkeying with price controls in pharmaceuticals. More government intervention never solves the problem of government intervention. Go study the British economy in WWII and the effects of intervention that still exist there today. Good intentions, terrible ideas.

If you want to talk about completely failing to understand the nature of our Republic and original intent, consider the above. If this occurs, major cities and metropolitan areas will forever lord over and rule all the rest of the country. That was never the intent, and it would be a horrible outcome. The Framers understood the importance of place and community. This would be tryanny for the minority.

Lastly – none of these great ideas (let’s be honest based upon humanist idealism) are fully disclosed. By that I mean, a public choice economics analysis would demand a full accounting of the costs of the various (and massive) programs that the entire group above advocate for in one way or another. Such disclosure is lacking. Greats ‘idea’ but these all violate a principle we ought to hold dear – the government is not God and government is pretty poor at actually solving problems and generally only makes them worse.

So?

If you are a Christian, the first point above ought to be enough to stop the notion of entertaining any of these people. If you are a conservative and an American of a traditional mind, the second two cements the deal. It is not even a question.

But Trump you say.

Yes, he is ill-mannered, often embarrassing, sometimes spastic in his actions and likely someone none of us would invite him to dinner.

However, he is a pretty good speed-bump to slow further damage until maybe, perhaps, hopefully, and prayerfully, we find a way to coalesce around something solid.

He did appoint a couple of OK supreme court justices – not perfect, but not two more RBG types either. When he gets another chance he will likely nominate Amy Coney Barrett, that would be a pretty good win all by itself.

His speech at the National Right to Life March was the best of his career and sounded sincere. He has done nothing while in office to make it seem disingenuous and has taken steps to act out on his words.

He has taken steps to support Religious Liberty, as Christianity enters a minority phase, RL will become increasingly important.

His foreign policy appears spastic, but at times it has demonstrated the touch of realist genius. It is certainly no worse than what we generally see in this regard.

I can already hear your next argument. I am suggesting one hold their nose and vote for the lesser of all these evils. Yes, yes I am. Do you remember how much damage Bill Clinton did to the culture? DODT, etc. What about Obama? Surely you remember all the cultural foundations that were eradicated in his two terms. Neither of those guys held any of the views expressed by the above so openly. Yet, look at their wake.

There is no choice. Hold your nose and vote for Trump. Or Vote for one of the above, and carry the moral cost or don’t vote at all and allow your failure to do what we must be your shame and burden. Not even a choice.

I do not like this any more than you do. I suppose we could get it over and all vote Bernie, you know just burn the house down all at once – voting for one of the other Democrats is really just burning it room by room. But hey, if you want to give up they why not just feel the Bern all at once?

If we want to fix this long term, we need to figure out a way to break the establishment GOP and find a way to elect Americans of principles that respect people, property and tradition.

Love y’all, mean it.