The Politics of Anarchy

Anarchy in Portland photo attrib. OregonLive.com

Whatever impulse for righteous protest propagated by the tragic death of George Floyd is long gone.

Around the world, in a very organized fashion,  protests presumptively positioned to speak for people who have been profiled and abused by police, have exploded into calculated anarchic violence. From Tulsa to Tel Aviv, groups of agitators and their willing legions have used the premise of racial animus to invade city centers, loot, burn, and create general havoc with the solitary purpose of revealing the representatives of civil society to be totally impotent.   Like all revolutions designed to overthrow the established order, the current actors show all the elements for a successful outcome.  First, the environment is stoked by an event that creates an initial sympathy for the expressed rage, by those who see themselves as fair minded and willing to interpret protests as positive mechanisms for exposing flaws in society.   Second, the actions are taken in rapidly progressive fashion identifying targets that are well beyond the scope of the original outrage and probe instead  foundational structures of civil discourse and rule of law.  Third, these actions are focused in cities where the local leaders believe that they are not only in sync with the agitators’ agenda but are convinced there is political advantage to be had in removing the population’s natural aversion to destruction and “managing ” the politics.  Last, the great secret sauce  is the financial and logistic support by wealthy elites who see great opportunity in using non-democratic means to more rapidly accomplish their objectives.

Any hope that legitimate reform would come out of the George Floyd arrest and similar events is now a forlorn prospect.  In the United States, all the elements of a perfect storm are present for a real crisis in the society’s hard won civility.  For three and a half years, the establishment elite opposition to the undisciplined and uncontrollable President Trump and his overturning of their unquestioned control  has been brutal, underhanded, and sustained.   The complete neophyte and flawed Trump was felt to be an easy target for a spectacular effort to undermine and hopefully overthrow, initially focused on an absurd piece of opposition party research blown up into a hoax of vast reach, implying the very security of the country was threatened by foreign powers using Trump as the Manchurian candidate.  The lie was retrofitted onto a media only too willing to believe the worst, turning ridiculous, unrelated tendrils of contact into a massive conspiracy that was blasted night after night to the public as if it was unquestioned fact.  Having failed miserably to produce a single actionable connection despite a special prosecution team built”not to fail”, rules of lawful behavior were thrown aside in an increasingly desperate effort to smear and hobble permanently their prey, the President.  Coming up empty handed required new means of destruction,  impeachment,  propagated by a Trumpian off hand comment delivered on  a secure phone call with the Ukrainian president, exposed by an internal spy positioned by the opposition to continue the deluge.  Finally, with the failed impeachment, the convenient calamity of the pandemic offered a weakened President and a restless public as perfect bait for the explosion waiting for the right event.  George Floyd was the unfortunate trigger, but events suggest any trigger would have provided the tinder radicals were looking for,  feasting upon a weakened target and generating renewed flames of chaos the establishment was needing to remove Trump.

It is no coincidence that lawlessness is the political weapon of choice selected by opponents to weaken the President to the point of defeat in November.  Attack on the rule of law has been the mechanism for decades, permitting establishment figures to skirt the law while regular citizens have often been made an example.  Lawlessness reveals foundational weakness, and forces either acquiescence or reactions that further stoke violent tendencies when actions are driven beyond the proportion required by the inciting event.  Democrat leaders look fondly at the chaos, for they see only two outcomes to allowing the continuing and growing violence, a president who looks weak by constitutionally  leaving local authorities to secure their jurisdictions, or monstrous, by escalating the reaction to local tulmult with a massive federal response.  The lives and property that will be the sacrifices to the violence are not of interest to Democrats righteous need to restore the natural order Trump radically threatened. The modern, increasingly radicalized Democrat Party remain extremely confident in their ability to maintain solidarity of the message of aggrievement, and the capacity to “call off the dogs” when they have been sufficiently restored to power.  For them, chaos has a potential expiration date, and it is November 4th, the day after Trump’s defeat.

The problem is of course, nobody is going to be able to control anarchists, as long as the flames of anarchy are allowed to proliferate.  Anarchy built on a demand for a profoundly new order of global overseers and complete eradication of capitalism  and traditional social order will not exactly be easily placed back in the bottle when success has been tantalizingly been placed in front of them.  It did not work for Kerensky against bolsheviks, Hindenberg against the Nazis, or Chiang Kai Shek against the Mao led communists , and Joseph Biden is no Kerensky, Hindenberg, or Chaing Kai Shek.   Joe Biden, so close to the prize that has eluded him for decades, finds himself almost a cognitively empty vessel at the very moment of triumph.  If handlers tell him his road to victory is paved with chaos, he will take the win, and let others handle the intellect and ruthlessness required to adjust after his long sought goal to ultimate political conquest.  Such confidence is misplaced when the agitators see Biden and his clique, the last appeasing  obstacle to their final triumph.

 

As Churchill once said so presciently, the appeasers feed the crocodiles, hoping they will eat them last.

10 Years Defending the Ramparts

Ten years ago, on July 4th, 2010, the Ramparts of Civilizatioblog came into being.   Ramparts was inspired by several internet blogs such as Power Line and Instapundit that were maintained by well read, thoughtful people with regular jobs who felt in their spare non-work  time they had something to say.   They proffered  a writing style that discussed compelling and entertaining topics of the day,  told succinctly and with lucidity  often absent from “professional writers”in mainstream media. Ramparts of Civilization hoped to emulate a little of their discourse, and strive to achieve at least a modicum of their quality.  Not for a minute did I consider the blog would remotely approach their longevity.

The blog internet at the time was a big, noisy, unstable platform for anyone with a few spare minutes and a desire to put forth an argument or a reflection.  Like many flashy, trendy restaurants, the great majority of blogs crashed against the reality of how much work is involved in sustaining a project once the initial enthusiasm wanes and the initial idea doesn’t seem so fresh.  What has saved the very best blogs is a foundation of  topics and considerations that don’t “time out”, preventing the stultifying propagation of the feared ‘writer’s block’  dooming the great majority of non-professional writers.  Additionally, enduring blog writing has to face the reality that often there are very few people selecting you out for what you might have to say in a universe of billions of words of content – it can get damn lonely trying to write quality only to please yourself – unless you are really interested in the subject matter.

Luckily, Ramparts of Civilization determined to have Western Civilization as its backdrop for conversation,  with the limitless interesting possibilities that several thousand years of creativity and evolved thinking offered.  One could look back at the first post and acknowledge that , the “vision” was the thing….

 

July 4th, 2010

Happy 4th of July. Welcome to Ramparts of Civilization.

            It is altogether fitting that on the 234th anniversary of the articulation of the principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that a blog defending and celebrating those immortal words finds birth and, hopefully, a long and fruitful existence.

            For some time I have felt a progressive dread that the clarity, beauty, and magnificence of the 2600 year journey of Western Civilization has been neglected by our current nature to the tenuous point of irrelevance.  All the hard learned lessons of the concept of individual freedom, creative expression, intellectual objectivity, and appreciation of the human spirit have been sublimated to a bland equivalence and desire to achieve a “soft landing” as a relic of history.

            Not so fast. On this blog, like minded individuals will man the ramparts and defend the concept of the Western Ideal, founded on the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, communicated through the ingenuity of the Roman engineer, unleashed through the miraculous words of a Nazarene carpenter, protected by the courage and literacy of the medieval monk, forged in the genius of the Renaissance,  released in the power of the Enlightenment, made available for all to participate by the miracle of the American Revolution, propagated through the Industrial Revolution, and defended by the brave warrior citizens when at times darkness threatened to descend and smother.

            And we will try to do this while having fun.

            I see this blog as the defender of the good and positive in history, politics, music, art, food, sport, science, technology and entertainment – and where my editorial expertise is lacking, through the musings and elaborations of those who know and love these cultural expressions more intimately than I.

            I look forward to learning, laughing, and illuminating.  To those owed so much who have defended before, and those who will pick up the lance, shield and standard, and defend ever after, welcome to the Ramparts.

Ten years later, some of the innocence but none of the passion of the vision has left these pages.  Although one could probably note similar reflections over previous decades, the past ten years in particular have seemingly brought about an especially organized and virulent assault on the notions of western civilization.  Reasoned thought and the creative impulse that have been the twin bedrocks of civilization, brought to full flower under the concept of individual liberty, have been  derisively thrown aside in favor of notions of communal guilt, victimization, and collective equality of outcome.  What Jefferson so beautifully framed as the pursuit of happiness has instead been treated by increasing numbers of so called  intellectuals as a tired, no longer pertinent quality to undergird modern life, in which the unique talents and achievements of some must not succeed at the expense of others and risk the collectives’ sense of esteem.  The accumulated contribution of individual forces to lift all boats and frankly make life more interesting and meaningful is being sacrificed at the altar of equal outcome.  Beyond the intense stupidity of promoting such actions, the transmission of power from those who create  to those who would determine outcome is the ultimate goal of our current “transformation” society overlords.

What other value proposition could we possibly see in the current trends of acquiescence in destruction of art, erosion of quality and demanding education for all who seek it, silencing of voices that provide contrary opinion, and demeaning of those who seek a meritocracy standard of ideas?

At ten years, Ramparts of Civilization has somehow fashioned a little place for itself with those who want to preserve the better angels of our nature, are willing to engage, and are not afraid of the past for what it tells us of our reason for being.  On these pages will be found, as long as the blog exists, a celebration and defense of the values and achievements of the many who have come before, and those who still against increasing reactionary pressure, shine.  For those of you who have sought this blog out for a little fortitude and reflection against the daily assaults of those who would seek to gaslight our past experiences and glories , welcome to your place at the Ramparts.

The light can only be extinguished, when there is no one left willing to keep the candle lit.

From this day to the ending of the world,  but we in it shall be remembered  – We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition.

And gentlemen in England now a-bed, shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s Day!

 Henry V , Shakespeare

Cultural Brutalism

 

Lycée Sainte Marie-Lyon | Lyon, France –                                                                                                                                                                                                    domus-18-roberto-conte-brutalismo.jpg.foto.rmedium

Slabs of irregular stained concrete, exposed metal framing on windows, and stacked geometries connected by sterile stairwells declining as much as elevating,  metastatically dominate the classic gabled tower, roofline and arches of the near by buildings in Lyon, France.  I suspect no citizen of Lyon was likely asked their opinion as to whether their vision of their city would be elevated by such a structure.  They were likely passive supplicants in an elite drive to “modernize” the society.  This brutal building, purposefully juxtaposed to obscure a classicist past with a post humanist future, was ironically constructed as a place of learning, a secondary school of education.  What it teaches us instead is how far we have lost our way in understanding the elements of our own humanity that would call out for reserving a place for learning at all.  The derision and displacement of the past is not an invention of our current societal strife as expressed through the seemingly disjointed and random nature of the current vandalizing and destruction of our monuments to the past.  It is part of a deep, primordial need to self-destruct rather than accept the challenges required by nature to evolve.  If anything, the self destructive drive appears to be gaining real traction.

Destruction of monuments is nothing new in human history.  Each succeeding regime has looked to replace the symbols of past glory with those of their own.  The Roman destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Visigoths’ looting of the Roman Forum, the Islamic conquest of Byzantium, the Spanish seizures of the American Indigenous Empires all resulted in replacement of older venerations with newer versions extolling the superiority of the conqueror’s virtues to that which preceded. Though birthed in violence, the new regimes often assumed  the virtues of the previous regime in that in doing so, the extent of the success was magnified and evolved.  The Romans took their architecture, philosophy and religion from the Greeks, and eventually from the monotheistic Jews.  The Visigoths and their descendants the Franks absorbed the Roman Empire and through the Roman’s recent conversion to Christianity, converted themselves and made their conquest  Holy Roman.  The Ottomans converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.  The Americans took from the defeated British Empire its rule of law and its legislative  structure.    Statues were toppled, but they were replaced like phoenixes out of the ashes with other statues and monuments  glorifying a  reverence of a more evolved and complete version of the ancient virtues-  heroism, prudence, courage, justice, and beauty.

With the French Revolution something broke.  A nihilism took over, not previously seen with such enthusiasm.  The reign of terror sought to eliminate the past without building upon it.  A year zero was declared and  prior history was to be rejected and erased.  The Cult of Reason threw out the acknowledgement of a Greater Being to emulate or aspire. Claiming a mandate of individual rights, the mob empowered justice soon became authoritarian and turned upon its own, treating other thought as heretical and the solution the guillotine of thousands.  It so consumed its own rationality for existence it became the prey for a usurper who could project competence and discipline, Napoleon Bonaparte.  The birth of Nihilism found root however, projecting in the 19th century through Nietzsche, Engels, and Marx.  The rejection of thousands of years of evolved human thought.  Virtues were a sign of weakness – the only beliefs acceptable were those that projected a truth that removed individual exceptionalism, an supported an intense drive for the collective and equality of outcome. The twentieth century brought the massive attempt at realization of such brutalistic themes in the flowering of Communism, Fascism, and the devastation of two world wide conflagrations consuming several hundred million lives.  A herculean effort was required to stop the destructive darkness,  but what appeared to be defeat in 1989 was only a brief respite.  The core need to destroy ancient virtues and thereby eliminate individuality has flamed in the suicidal nihilism of the Islamic terrorist, the drive toward globalist domination of elite authoritarians in promoting the climate apocalypse, and the recent need to decapitate the past through the un-education of a generation of youth by injecting  emotional “truth” and seeking the elimination of rational truth – the difference between the sexes, the sanctity of life, the pursuit of happiness through meritocratic accomplishment.

“You will smile here at the consistency of those democratists who, when they are not on their guard, treat the humbler part of the community with the greatest contempt, whilst, at the same time they pretend to make them the depositories of all power.”
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

The nihilists feel it is 1792 again, and the time is ripe for victory.  They are no longer happy with forcing the rest of society to accept a brutal building, destroying the beauty and the clarity of the surrounding architecture.  They won’t be satisfied with a grievance culture that brutally ignores the cataclysmic  statistics of ruined lives that are associated with their policies glorifying  grievance.  They are no longer satiated with screaming down rational conversation and attempts to solve problems through enlightenment.

They are again hungry for the brutal clarity of “truth” that is the guillotine.  They are practicing first on the statues.

 

The Coming Fall?

Ruins of the Roman Forum

Civilizations inevitably have a rise, a golden age, and a fall.  The most famous documented in literature is the story of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476, as Odoacer of the Goths determined to remove the last vestiges of the seats of power of the empire from its thousand year presence in the capital Rome.  Odoacer did not have to achieve a massive battle conquest; the empire’s rulers had fundamentally run out of people willing to die trying to defend its reason for being,   A vast core set of shared societal principles that had led to the dominance, greatness, and expanse of the empire over hundreds of years, and immunity to periods of unstable and incompetent leaders,  had eroded to a point of imperceptibility.   Citizens living among great citadels and shrines to the past had no residual perspective of how they came to be, or why they should be maintained.  It simply took a gentle but concerted push to turn the whole rotten edifice over.  We are left only with the fragile ruins and the distant echoes of what stood before the civilization grew tired of itself.

Perhaps our modern American civilization is in the initial stages of a similar coming collapse.  The last four years in America have presaged our current anarchy in the streets with a pattern of anarchic actions of our elite institutions against the very foundational principles of a representative democracy based upon their singular hatred of the uncouth ‘barbarian” elected to lead the country and the archaic reactionary impulses  he felt he was elected to enact.  The President has bludgeoned the elites usual means of dominance they have built up over decades  organized around coordinated communication of  prescribed narratives, bureaucratic indifference to the affected, closing of diversity of thought in the educational academy, and the instillment of conflict of interests between societal groups to best leverage their subservience.   The President has proved a particularly difficult opponent in that he uses no accumulated intellectual principles to respond.  Admittedly proud of having written more books than he has read, President Trump instead relies on  animalistic instincts based upon visual cues and gut reaction he gains from the crowds of supporters that embrace him.  It has left him exposed to the highest level of outrage and hatred from those whose righteousness can not accept someone so impervious to their pressures.  The result has been an unceasing effort to destroy Trump and the dangerous contrarian voices he energizes.  The war to destroy has been from the first moment he showed political traction, and the combined power of all the elite institutions have worked to crush him.

Taking advantage of his naive understanding of politics, his opposition, the Clinton campaign,  worked with the entrenched bureaucracy to inject a narrative of treasonous actions into the political bloodstream.  Working with allies in the press and higher ups in the Obama administration,  a false and ludicrous narrative was built through opposition research to suggest a Russian influence in the Trump campaign that wasn’t there, and then married it through to a nefarious and coordinated  campaign by the Obama administration, emboldened by concocted fraudulent FISA court documents, to spy upon multiple Trump  campaign officials, including likely, the candidate himself.  This criminal action sought to undermine a democratic election, and failing that, evolved into a doubled down process attacking every facet of the Trump administration through a false collusion narrative corruptly supported by the FBI, sustained doggedly by an adversarial press, injected with steroids by a two year special prosecutor farce, and finally, when that failed,  a final move in for the kill through a “whistleblower” linking routine Trump loose talk to a crash  impeachment and attempted removal.  To their stunned surprise, the Kraken remained standing, and, given the bountiful economy, an even more formidable opponent for the next election.

Then came the economic gift from the gods of retribution, the Wuhan virus.  Powerless to stop the worldwide pandemic, Trump panicked under enormous pressure from elite ‘experts’  and closed down the economy to prevent spread.  Cratering the recovery of the most wide spread distribution of individual economic success in the past sixty years in the world’s largest economy, the actions simultaneously allowed opposition leaders to strengthen and fortify the damage by top down arbitrary and ruthlessly efficient lock downs.  Month after month the definition of ‘non-essential’ was expanded to assure devastating destruction of private enterprise and enhance opportunities for further government and elite dependence on basic survival.  When the societal stresses grew great, the brew was ripe for an eruption, and the powder keg went off with the Minneapolis police arrest and obscene killing of a black male, viewed by the whole nation.  The perfect storm of a presumptive hate crime and a massively restless population from the lockdown led to mass looting and destruction.  The police, being the very symbol of oppression and societal  racial sin evidenced  in the crime, were powerless to respond, and their large city democrat bosses took advantage in stoking the flames of hatred and unrest.  Soon a coordinated effort to allow anarchists to stoke the chaos, feed by unseen hands of guidance and financial means, swept across the country and world, subsuming the initial protests’ righteous clarity and purpose, and injected a darker and more sustained streak of premeditated societal breakdown and chaos.

Here we stand.  Were Trump to somehow achieve a miraculous escape from the trap set for him and win the coming election, one most assuredly is looking at a logarithmic expansion of the virulent and violent response to his very existence as President.  If the democrats  succeed in the sustained effort to destroy Trump and are rewarded for their four year criminal and unprecedented effort to eliminate an opponent, their reward will be achieved on the backs of radical elements that seek to destroy the foundations of the republic and replace it with their own authoritarian vision.  Either way,  the seeds of civilizational collapse are deeply planted in the fallows.

Societies inevitably require a certain set of shared values, and this society is increasingly seeing such shared values rent asunder. The majority of people who understood the history of the republic, the challenges it faced, and the triumphant overcoming of its flaws time and time again predicated upon the tenets of its founding as the ultimate unifier, are rapidly being replaced with generations who orient opinions on feelings and emotions, not rationally objective principle and truth.  Are there enough of us to pull it all back from the abyss?

The ancient Romans who cared about civilization are reaching across the mists of time to say, sustain, sustain, or soon become the past.

 

Back To The Future : America Resumes Manned Flight

It’s not particularly a good time for assessing the legacy of President Barack Hussein Obama.  The ever developing story of his administration’s corruptive efforts to first prevent, and eventually, as they felt impelled to protect their legacy,  to disable the administration of his successor President Trump is not exactly going to shine historical  glory upon him or his crew.  Given the number of sleazy and potentially criminal acts, some in the inner circle are at risk of having to write their memoirs from a jail cell.  The mainstream press, that coated their devotion to President Obama beneath the absurd cover story that the administration was  “scandal free”, now labors to dismiss the actions and revealed facts that may point instead to the worst political scandal in American history, an attempt at an orchestrated coup.  Obama’s disdain for the populist Trump heralded a magnum opus in the Obama Administration’s repetitive pattern to use and abuse the power of multiple agencies to intimidate and subvert their opponents’ ability to resist or defeat Obama’s progressive agenda.  No amount of positives will overcome the negative effect on legacy this core corruption will reflect.

That said, one seemingly contrarian decision in 2010 by President Obama to eliminate monopolistic government control and the massively expensive and suffocating bureaucracy accompanying it is producing spectacular dividends and will likely project a positive American story for decades to come.  Reviewing the American space program,  President Obama cancelled the Constellation program, designed as a manned flight successor to the space shuttle, and determined to leave both the innovation and the risks of manned flight away from the bloated NASA agency and into the hands of fledgling private companies.  The decision was met with howls of derision from both within the NASA community and the halls of Congress, so intensely wedded to the distant successes of NASA and the myth that the challenges of manned flight were “too big” for private companies to take on.  It is not clear that President Obama recognized anything more than that the Constellation program would spend billions and billions over budget, and he had other more pressing uses for that money in other governmental bureaucracies.  Regardless of the motives, the decision by Obama to redirect space toward private enterprise has brought incredible results, innovation, and on May 27, 2020, the first attempt since the last shuttle flight in 2011 to return Americans to space on a bonafide American craft.  If all goes according to plan, Space X’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, propelled atop the Falcon 9 reusable rocket, will transport Astronauts Robert Behnken and Doug Hurley on a mission to the International Space Station, safely deliver them, then autonomously return to Earth.  So will begin the return of America to manned space flight, and this time, with multiple private enterprise competitors and massive projected commercial interest, a permanent and uninterrupted place in space travel.

The commercial angle is of course at the heart of the future permanence of space flight.   The enormous success of the American Apollo program to develop a reproducible craft for Moon exploration held the publics’ attention, and their support for the massive public expenditure, right up to the point where it was proven feasible and subsequently reproducible.  Public interest waned rapidly as six successful moon landings took place, separated by one spectacular failure in Apollo 13 that still showed the “can do” spirit.  The subsequent Spacelab, Apollo Soyuz Rendezvous in Space, or the incredibly sophisticated Space Shuttles,  eventually interacting with the International Space Station could hold public interest for only so long.  The ominous danger of manned flight in space always lurked, and with the deaths of 14 astronauts in the Challenger and Columbia accidents, the willingness to publicly  invest in the cost of linking people and spacecraft seemed unreasonable and without purpose.  With  the July, 2011 Atlantis Space Shuttle mission completed, America, the one time undisputed pre-eminent champion of innovation in space travel, was required to sit back and watch the Chinese develop a successful manned program aiming for the moon, and to perpetually rent at exorbitant prices, seats on the Russian Soyuz for their astronauts.

May 27, 2020 will be back to the future through the vision of an immigrant American named Elon Musk.   This quirky but brilliant engineer has retrograde engineered visions of seemingly impossible concepts into multiple companies that produce plausible and potentially economically viable realities.  Tesla is the realization of a mass produced reliable electric vehicle designed to outperform the gasoline engine.  The Boring Company seeks to reduce urban traffic congestion while maintaining the concept and empowering freedom of individual transportation, while Hyperloop seeks to apply the speed of air travel to ground transportation.  Neuralink boldly looks to cure brain injury, and with it begin an evolutionary synergy between humans and artificial intelligence.  Space X was founded in 2002 by Musk to a life long existential vision of his to create a spacefaring civilization and extend humanity beyond Earth to Mars.  The first challenge, the ability for a company with little means and no real experience to build an economically viable rocket, seemed impossible given the massive expenditures required for a single launch to project any reasonably sized payload into space, much less Musk’s vision for manned interplanetary flight.  The then current manned platform, the Space Shuttle averaged 450 million dollars a launch.  Such spectacular costs and the even more spectacular expenditures to innovate a rocket from scratch seemed beyond a private enterprise, much less most countries.

Musk is not wired to accept reality as the only option.  Allowing innovation and creativity to intermingle with failure, Musk and the Space X team progressed from rocket blowouts to reusable rocket assemblies in fifteen short years, reducing the cost of transporting thousands of pounds of payload into orbit, at a 10 fold reduction in launch costs for each flight.  Suddenly Space X had become a profitable enterprise and an attractive option for satellite launch.  Other commercial enterprises are soon to follow, but nobody has backed up vision with success as has Elon Musk’s Space X.   The United States, accepting a private enterprise  competition more likely to accomplish a return to manned flight then a reliance on government budgets for their own inconsistent and exorbitantly expensive attempts, challenged Boeing and Space X to deliver on development of  a safe manned space travel vehicle.  Boeing, the once giant in manned space exploration, has thus far failed to deliver on a crew capsule riding atop an already available rocket.  Space X has engineered a completely unique rocket assembly and crew cabin capable of reusability and autonomous flight unlike any in the world.  On May 27, 2020, a successful flight will secure Space X as the new leader in mankind’s future in space.

Musk is not prepared to stop at low earth orbit.  His original dream is establishment of a colony on Mars, and a safe and reproducible means of delivering economically thousands of pioneers to the planet in a yet to be developed super craft named Starship capable of transporting 100 people at a time.  NASA’s directive is at least to achieve a return to the moon by 2024, and is developing its own monster rocket, the SLS, to achieve the gravitational escape velocities required to deliver people and cargo to the moon.  The likelihood of a government project accomplishing this goal in any where near the timetable or remotely within budget has proven time and again beyond all realities.  Currently, with a successful  flight on May 27, don’t be shocked if NASA piggy backs on their new space partner to get things done.  Using the magic dust of American private enterprise and know how, Space X is predicated on an old American concept, freedom to fail and ultimately prevail without someone constantly telling you, it can’t be done.

Thank you President Obama.  You got something right after all.

 

Distant Peals of Freedom: “The British Are Coming – The War for America Lexington to Princeton 1775-1777”

The current crisis and its restrictions on day to day mundane activities permits a silver lining, consistent time for reading and thinking.  The coordinated marriage of the two, concerted reading that leads to thinking about what you have read, is perhaps a neglected skill that deserves reinvigoration.  For those of us who love the study of history as a window and perspective into present turmoils, a deep dive into the struggle for independence of the American colonies from the British Empire is just such a marriage.  Personal freedom, the right to pursuit of life, liberty, and personal happiness,  is up front in the current conflict between the juxtaposed goals of safety and security and personal freedoms delineated in my previous essay.   Superficial feelings of safety give one initially a sense of comfort, but riskier personal actions that ultimately preserve liberties give long term awareness and recognition of the ultimate meaning of life as something more than a simple state of being.   Rick Atkinson, a multi-Pulitzer Prize winning author of military history , has begun spectacularly on another American trilogy, a narrative on the American War for Independence 1775-1783, the first volume currently published, that looks ultimately into the concept of risky personal actions under incredible hardships, individual sacrifice, and daunting odds, that were taken by Americans to win that most immeasurable of gifts, freedom to live one’s own destiny.

War is the violent rejection of the possible compromises of politics.  Limited war seeks improved political advantage;  all out war presents as the clash of outcomes – as Lincoln stated in his House Divided speech regarding the union of states,  “I do expect it will  cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”  Atkinson relates a narrative that suggests the power of the concept of personal freedom guiding one’s destiny,  from the individual soldier to the highest of Generals,  made incalculable individual sacrifices for an ideal an acceptable determination.  The initial sense by the British of a minority rabble led local insurrection ballooned rapidly into a transcontinental conflagration fought by hundreds of thousands over 8 years of conflict,  linked by the single philosophical sense that a life worth living could only exist under one unalterable outcome,  freedom from living under a dictated destiny.  There is little else to explain the willingness of average people to give up all thoughts of security, family, and property, and advance headlong into an unpredictable, extremely ruthless, and unlimited sacrifice against daunting odds of survival, on the minuscule chance that the birth of an idea would survive to the next generation.  As he did so brilliantly in his previous war trilogy, the Allied armies battle for  Europe in World War II,  Atkinson brings a modern intimacy to individual participants , as they ride through the whirlwind of events and actions that are fatefully decided for them, and by which they have no control or perception of outcome.

The first book in the trilogy centers on the first three years of organized aggression, from the events leading to the first stand at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts on April 18th, 1775 to the spectacular Christmas time mobile attack orchestrated by George Washington against Trenton and Princeton, December 1776- January 1777 that salvaged an almost inexorable sense of impending defeat permeating the colonies.  The events and personalities are stitched into the fragment of the American birth saga – Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Quebec, New York and Trenton; Paul Revere, Charles Putnam and Henry Knox, Benedict Arnold, and George Washington himself.  Equally vivid in Atkinson’s tale are the formidable British opponents, The Howe brothers, Guy Carleton, Henry Clinton, George Cornwallis, and King George III.  Interwoven are the colors of detail that make the distant conflict come to life – particularly the insufferable effects of weather and disease that brought conditions for the average combatant.  The ravages of Small Pox a particularly catastrophic enemy of men in bivouac, a virus with a 15-60%mortality rate did more to destroy the American effort against royal Canada than the bullets of the defenders – poor nutrition, miserable camp hygiene, and the close quarters against the cold – made the men particularly susceptible to the human to human transmission of the virus.  A hundred thousand deaths from small pox across the colonies from 1775 to 1781 would severely impede the fighting spirit and contribution of the colonies populations to the war.  Another equally stark discovery in Atkinson’s book is the rapid acceleration of ruthless “total war actions” by both sides as the seriousness and extent of the conflict became obvious.  As Atkinson so poetically  states, ” The wolf had risen in the heart.”  Thousands of Continental troops died in captivity in naval prison vessels in the most appalling conditions with little concern from their former British countrymen.   Violence and ruthlessness traditionally reserved for troops extended quickly out to innocents in towns and villages across the continent.  Atkinson describes in detail such an example of inhumanity in the actions of British and mercenary Hessian soldiers through the New Jersey countryside:

In the Raritan valley, 650 houses- the homes of about a third of the families in Middlesex County- would be ransacked or burned, along with mills, churches, and other structures. A Presbyterian minister wrote that Newark ‘looked more like a scene of ruin then a pleasant well-cultivated village….Their plundering is so universal, their robberies so atrocious, I cannot fully describe their conduct.’  Other testimonials accumulated as county justices, clergymen, and the governors of New Jersey and New York investigated further, identifying victims as young as ten and as old as seventy, in what the historian David Hackett Fischer described as ‘an epidemic of rape’.”

The deadly intensity and costs of the struggle no doubt surprised greatly the British leaders.  Bunker Hill , the famous battle for Boston fought June 17, 1775, stunned both King and Parliament when the news of the outcome reached London.  Atkinson frames the epic conflict that made it clear to Britain that a simple expression of might by the greatest military force in the world at that time would not be sufficient to cower the rebellious Americans:

The rebels waited, now killing mad…A stupendous volley ripped into the British ranks blowing the fusiliers from their feet. Gun smoke rolled down a beach upholstered with dying regulars as their comrades stepped over them only to also be shot down. ..’It was like pushing a wax candle against a red-hot plate’  historian Christopher Ward would write. ” the head of the column simply melted away.’ …. 

Gage’s army had regained roughly a square mile of territory at the expense of over a thousand casualties…Over 40% of the stacking force had been killed or wounded, including 226 dead; … Nineteen officers had also been killed.  Of all the king’s officers who would die in battle during the long battle war against the Americans, more than one out of every eight had perished in the four hours on a June afternoon above Charlestown.

The extent of the ferocity never wavered over the years of the war.  The British Empire swollen to a position of world dominance by their victory in the world war with France culminating with the winning of the near entire expanse of the North American continent, was led by King George III , a highly intelligent monarch who nonetheless  could not fathom tolerating the loss of such a huge colonial expanse only 12 short years after securing it, nor the implied threat to his sovereignty.   The British effort to retain the colonies and subdue and destroy the rebellion was enormous, and enormously costly.   The extent of the commitment was highlighted in the battle for New York  July-August of 1776, almost immediately following the declaration of independence of the colonies on July 4th.  Britain amassed the largest amphibious force in the history of warfare prior to Normandy transporting 35000 fighting soldiers and over 200 naval ships the 3000 miles across the ocean to take the critical city from the rebels and nearly entirely decimate Washington’s Continental army in one epic battle.  They came within an eye-blink of success, routing Washington and forcing him out of the city and on the run across New Jersey.  The victory set the stage for one of the more amazing turnabouts in military history, when the dominant British forces and their Hessian allies suffered two calamitous defeats from Washington’s supposedly destroyed army assumed to be harboring in Pennsylvania and left in the cold to disappear.  A spectacular return across the Delaware River on Christmas Day, 1776 of Washington’s nearly entire force stunned the Hessian troops at Trenton and subsequently the British troops at Princeton, ending forever the British hope that conquering and securing the large cities would be sufficient to finally starve the rebellion.  Washington managed the impossible from his bedraggled and starving troops by appealing to the core  foundation of their sacrifice. It was tactic he had used previously at times of great risk:

The hour is fast approaching on which the honor and success of this army and the safety of our bleeding country depend.  Remember, officers and soldiers, that you are freemen, fighting for the blessings of liberty

George Washington, General Orders, August 23, 1776

The stories of heroism and sacrifice, cowardice  and treachery abound across the fantastic scape of Atkinson’s prose as the book positions the reader for long turmoil to come.  At the conclusion of the first book of the trilogy, the Americans have pushed back at the periphery, but the general state of the effort for independence is hanging by a thread.  The overwhelming British presence and military capacity has recaptured Canada and is positioning to drive down the Hudson and split the new country in half.  A massive second British army dominates America’s most important supply port at New York, and a third army is positioning to drive the American southern colonies out of the war.  There is little to suggest that the brief American experiment to create a new world predicated on liberty and individual destiny has any hope of survival.  We know the twists and turns to come, but Atkinson’s prose reads as intensely as a mystery novel packed with surprises.

I can hardly wait for the second act.

Recently,  the Governor of New Jersey , when confronted with the concern that restrictions he was mandating  in response to the Covid pandemic violated the Bill of Rights,  was quoted as saying “That’s above my pay grade.  I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.”  As one considers those decisions currently considered to roll back freedoms in the guise of protecting us against ourselves, one must remind one selves of a time when the very thought of liberty drove men to suffer and risk death to preserve those principles.

Rick Atkinson’s wonderful book tells us that, to a man in revolutionary America,  inalienable rights were at the very forefront of their pay grade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom in the Age of Covid

 

photo   Getty Image

Like a tsunami wave, the current Corona virus pandemic has swept unimpeded across countries, oceans, and continents upending the comfortable cultural patterns of civilization and pointing dead center at the world’s economic stability.  The pace and severity of the virus spread has placed many countries under siege, and the public willingness to accede to previously unheard of governmental restrictions in both personal and economic activity threaten the long cherished concepts and dictums of individual liberty.  The core document of the United States, its Constitution, with its associated first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, has   been the underpinning of protecting our citizens’ free will and access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The current crisis is like no other; it is neither the devastating but locally focused  effect of a weather  disaster or terrorist incident, nor an extended war taxing the country’s resources and perseverance . In a unique way, it is the toxic mixture of both.  It is uniquely positioned to convert us rapidly and without prudential review into a brave new world progressively alien to respect for traditional freedom.  At the same time, counterintuitively, it has destabilized long held assertions that an ever shrinking world due to technology requires   universal acceptance of new “freedoms” of unimpeded travel, blurring of borders, and uninhibited trade, with a supranational governance to assure the protection of these “rights”.

President Trump has been accused of being slow in recognition of the impending pandemic, but he was, in late January, against much criticism, the first to restrict international travel to and from China.   Wuhan, China was the epicenter of the virus’s origin and spread and the Chinese government did everything it could to squelch early recognition of the new disease and any effect on its world position or economy.  The United States position on flight restriction was termed “racist”, but the lack of restrictions in  two countries tightly linked to China’s Belt and Road strategy to increase world economic reliance on China resulted in unimpeded numbers of infected Chinese workers into Tehran, Iran, and subsequently Iranians and Chinese into Milan, Italy. The result was a delay in the propagation of the virus in the United States and a dramatic explosion in Iran and Italy.  The spread of the virus has now extended to 177 countries, effectively , the whole globe.

The ideal of easy and ever faster and efficient international travel seems a bulwark of liberty, allowing the individual inexpensive and unrestricted access to new markets and new opportunities.  Jet travel after World War II made the concept of difficult and expensive ocean travel obsolete .  Increasing international familiarity and responsibilities brought about by the conclusion of the war made global perception more and more attractive.  For fifty years, ever more integrated travel, trade, and markets made possible by  associated technological advances brought increased attraction to the idea that national borders and citizenship restrictions stood in the way of progress.  The positive effects of trade on improving global standard of living brought with it the ever more aggressive attitudes of extra-national governance on national sovereignty, economic “fairness”, and climate disguised as “improving” the global human condition.

The Brexit movement and the subsequent election of Trump were the first such indications that not everybody felt that losing their ability to control their   citizenship privileges and freedom to choose their destiny was a good idea.  Fierce debates and media driven civil wars broke out in both countries particularly focused on restrictions to unimpeded immigration and the importance of borders to a nation’s identity. Massive dissonance led to a delay in implementation of Brexit in Britain, and 3 year long effort to destroy Trump, culminating in a failed Impeachment effort.    The virus brought sudden clarity to border and immigration issues.  Specifically, Trump’s long standing disdain for unrestricted immigration and its effect on American sovereignty and economic health, suddenly seemed prescient.  The borders argument is now front and center  to control of the  virus spread, to the extent that Mexico is now closing its borders to Americans, and states to other states.  The other globalization arguments are close behind, with more concern about unabated free trade and its affects on local populations survival and the country’s reliance on unfriendly global powers for critical economic resources.

Internal to most countries, the virus has resulted in a secondary assault on personal freedom of action and dramatic governmental decisional primacy on society.  As the virus’s spread progressively required principles of isolation and quarantine,  governments assumed control over decisions regarding civil liberties long ago secured through hard won societal efforts.  The resistance to “social distancing” became increasingly an anti-societal act, until governments advanced even to “stay at home” declarations, and arbitrarily determined which businesses were “essential” and could remain functional and which were deemed “non essential” and had to close, no matter the economic damage.  The entrepreneurial core of America and main driver of employment , the small business, was crushed in the wake.  Within weeks of draconian health care decisions for country wide soft quarantine in place, the massive economy of the U.S., 25% of the world’s economic capacity, teeters toward a path risking a depression.

Loss of freedom in individual health and economic decision making, warranted or not, with resultant effects to the economy, has led to a second wave of massive governmental intrusion.  A 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, 10% of the the country’s entire GDP, was pushed through Congress within a week and signed by the President, securing company bailouts, checks to individuals, loans to businesses, and massive unemployment support.  Given the dire consequences of an extended economic shutdown, it is understandable the government felt the need to act in a dire fashion.  The long term effects of such a massive federal intrusion on economic activity and the resultant massive effect on the debt being passed to future generations, has untold potential effects on personal freedom.  To bring the perspective of scale to such an intrusion, consider the perception of the otherwise unfathomable scale of a trillion –  a million seconds of time  take over 11 days to complete – a trillion seconds, over thirty one thousand years.  The society is now committed to massive debt that will bind personal choice and tax policy to a forever anchor on choice.   It will take downstream perspective as to whether such massive government intrusion was worthy, and the massive suppression of personal initiative by governments reversible.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”  

                                                                                                                                                                                   – Ronald  Reagan     

Extraordinary times often take extraordinary measures – that is fully understandable in the uncertainty of the times.  The worry is that the instinctual  concepts of personal freedom and free once so deeply woven into the fabric of society has sustained significant damage from decades of casual acceptance of security and comfort over risk and reward.  The corrosion is creeping into how we react and respond to, how innately we feel, the progressive conceptual loss of our freedoms, and what we are willing to do to protect them.  The consent of the governed is the key to the whole decision tree.  Think long and hard about where we are at, and where we are going.  Once the dust has cleared, you will see, there’s quite a bit on the line.

 

Impeachment Circus

On February 24th, 1868, after three years of open conflict with a President of the United States they universally detested, the House of Representatives of the United States passed 11 articles of Impeachment against President Andrew Johnson. The accidental President Johnson, brought to the position of the Presidency through the tragic assassination of President Lincoln, was from the first day of his oath a mistake the victorious Republican radicals of congress hoped to cleanse. Lincoln had determined at a difficult time in his reelection bid to remove the competent Hannibal Hamlin of Maine as his running mate in 1864, and replace him with Johnson, the Governor of Tennessee who was a pro Union Democrat. Lincoln, always the strategic thinker, sought to invigorate the necessary unifying forces that would help bring the nation somehow together after the bloody conflict of the Civil War. He saw the new Vice President as symbolic of the steps needed to begin binding the nation’s wounds, not remotely as a substitute for himself in the treacherous post war world that ultimately would come. The assassin Boothe would decide differently.

By 1868, Johnson and the Republican Congress were so at odds that both sought to bend the Constitution to subvert the other. Radical Republicans in Congress passed Amendments to the Constitution that would forever end slavery and provide all men with voting rights. Johnson, a Southerner and strict States Rights advocate, saw such laws as unjust with the southern states yet to be formerly represented in the post war congress. He vetoed their actions, and Congress overrode his veto. These laws, like all laws, required executive cooperation in their actualization, and Secretary of War Stanton, a Lincoln holdover and Radical Republican, took Congress’s direction over the President’s. The Congress, to prevent Johnson from removing Stanton, passed the Tenure In Office Law that demanded Congress would have last say on removal of Cabinet Ministers, a highly dubious extra-constitutional act. Johnson waited until Congress was in recess, and removed Stanton, and all hell broke loose.

For the first time, the mechanism of checks and balances put in place by the framers of the Constitution came into stark relief, as one branch, the legislative, determined to remove the Chief Executive of another branch.

The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

—Article II, Section 2
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

—Article II, Section 4

The 11 articles of Impeachment passed by the House of Representatives against President Johnson included two that referred to the House’s disdain for the rough language the President was renowned for using. The other nine referred to Johnson’s determination to remove Stanton, which very likely was his Constitutional prerogative. The key to the first effort to impeach a President of the United States foundered on the rocks of the vagaries expressed in Article II, Section 4 – what exactly are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

As bad as Congress detested Johnson, many recognized the action of removal was an extreme act for overturning an election, and on May 16,1868, the initial article was voted upon, and fell one vote short of the two thirds necessary to acquit, including 10 of the 45 Republicans voting with the minority Democrats. A ten day recess was requested in hopes of swaying at least one more vote. Rumors of bribes offered to the nay sayers were rife, but to no avail. All three votes taken were 35-19, and President Johnson kept his job.

Later years have brought at least two close calls. President Nixon resigned in August of 1973 before imminent articles of impeachment were voted upon by the House, and in 1998 William Clinton was impeached but easily survived the Senate trial falling a full 17 votes short of the article intimating Obstruction of Justice.

At the heart of each prior impeachment, there has been the intimation of a suspected crime, failure to uphold the laws of the United States by Johnson, a coverup of crimes by Nixon, and Perjury by Clinton.

And that brings us to 2020, where we find ourselves in another impeachment process again brought by an opposition House that detests the President, and dumped into a Senate that wants little to do with the political hit job . Particularly galling with this attempt – the absence of any premised much less actual crime. The House flipped to Democrat leadership in 2018, and has been on a mission to “dump Trump” for the temerity of having beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016 and sticking his thumb in the Obama legacy ever since.

The first attempt at emasculation was the two year Mueller investigation to try to connect Trump somehow to the election result through “Russian collusion”. As the facts arrived, the dirt seemed to fall dramatically more upon the attacking Democrats, with the faint stench of a possible internal “coup” attempt laced with grossly inappropriate spying and warrants around the naive Trump team entirely based upon clumsy and dirty opposition research paid for and provided by the opposition Clinton team. When that fell through, the party immediately latched upon a so called “whistleblower” , using that designation for given credence to bringing forward a private interaction between the President and a foreign leader. As with the previous attempt the dirt attached to the Ukraine story appears to have even more to say regarding Democrat actions than Trumpian misdeeds. When all is said and done, the evidence of accepting bribes, paid for influence, and corrupt action may well end Democrat candidate for President Joe Biden’s career rather than Trump.

But first, the circus must go on. Impeachment, designed by the founders as a particularly rare and necessarily nonpartisan identification of dramatic malfeasance requiring the upset of the balance powers through a mechanism other than election, has once again fallen far short of the mark. Two articles proffered by the House of Representatives , neither defining a crime, a treason or a bribe, have been submitted for the single intent to sufficiently damage Trump to prevent his re-election. Once again, the disqualification falls more upon those who would attempt to disqualify. For all his personality flaws, Donald John Trump has led an unprecedented expansion of the economy, obliteration of unemployment, restoration of some trade balance, dramatic reduction in regulations, securing of the country’s border, and restoration of the concept of deference in a dangerous world.

Hating his guts will prove to be a lousy logic for impeachment, and an even lousier one for defeating him in an election. As Lyman Trumball of Illinois, one of the Republican Senators who voted for the acquittal of President Johnson sagely reflected, the freedom to disagree with Congress has to be upheld if checks and balances of the Constitution are to be maintained. For self righteous people stoked with irrational anger, blowing up the Constitution seems to be a necessary sacrifice to make them feel vindicated. The lesson Trump is about to deliver is going to be a particularly nasty wakeup call indeed.

Once More Unto the Breach…

Great Britain House of Commons Election 2019
photo collage attrib. news.sky .com

For the third time since 2015, the electorate of the four nations that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain came together on Thursday December 12, 2019 to form a governing legislative body. A process of parliament formation normally designed essentially to occur on five year intervals, the populous staggered toward this premature repeat performance based on a wrenchingly conflicted public perception as to whether a House of Commons still determined the destiny of the nation, or sensing the concept of nation having grown tired to the point of making the formation of a House of Commons a quant relic of the past, passively adjusting to a future decided ultimately by others. Parliamentary systems allow for individuals to identify with others who hold in common very specific views of life and destiny, ultimately leading to much fragmentation and the need for unstable coalitions for governance.

As in much of the rest of the world the issue became one of basically two life views, one which seeks security and outcome equality, and one which favors personal freedom and equal opportunity. Poorly defined as Left or Right, Progressive or Conservative, the democratic electorates of the world have aligned themselves in one camp or the other, and thus the outcomes of elections have become ever more polar. It becomes increasingly harder to imagine oneself in the universe of the other party, influenced or compromising with it, or reflecting a conversion of one’s ideals by actually voting for the opposite view.

Then, an idea like Brexit comes into being and the traditional boundaries are awash on the shoals. The British public found themselves in 2016 voting across party lines in a referendum vigorously unsupported by the party leadership of both the left and the right, in a stunning win for the concept of national destiny over supranational security. This fundamental issue subsumed all others to the point where arguing about taxes, health care, immigration, education and other polar issues of the left and right had become subservient to the destiny issue. The result was a schism in almost all parties along the Leave or Remain fault line, to the horror of the all the standard politicians who have lived in the realm pandering to like minded people who once loyally shared their universe. Suddenly, the Progressives were finding support in the landed gentry, and the Conservatives were sifting through the Midlands, Wales, and Scotland to seek industrial laboring commoners who would not normally give them the time of day.

BBC graphic regarding electoral issues

The night of December 12th brought clarity to this schism, at least as defined by the voting public of Great Britain, if not attaching broader implications to other democracies. The left in Britain, found itself calamitously anchored on the seizing electoral deck to Jeremy Corbyn, a caricature of a sixties counterculture communista, promoting failed socialism of the 1970s and tolerating vailed anti-Semitic threats from the darker radical elements of his party, and counting on a supposed burgeoning emotional vote of youthful victimaholics and virtue signalers. Corbyn, like his party, remained paralyzed by the Brexit impulse. Traditional socialism would require release from many of the state capitalism tenets of the European Union, but the very youth he was counting on to drive his vote were generationally opposed to standing athwart the collective global impulses of a European superstate that sought to make obsolete quant national notions of unfettered destiny and individual freedom of action.

The Conservative Tories were equally conflicted. The Tory elite had assumed the attachment to the superstate a permanent reality, and stunned by the initial 2016 vote they had overconfidently reasoned would remove any notions that the nation would go its own path, were left in shambolic hypocrisy of delaying and deferring the Brexit date as many times as possible, in hopes the public would simply become exhausted by it and relent to staying. The David Camerons, Theresa Mays, and cadre of front bencher elites always saw themselves diminished by not being included in the EU club of elites, and couldn’t imagine an alternative world where the hobnobbing would have to be limited to crass Australians, Indians, or worse, Americans.

To this dysfunctional party came one Boris Johnson. A politician labelled as grossly undisciplined, disconnected to traditions of party, and borderline randy-ish, Johnson had almost uniquely positioned himself to be Prime Minister after the Brexit referendum of 2016 by being the solitary Brexiteer of the 2016 party establishment, only to clumsily flub his opportunity and provide the stunned elite to recover their senses and wedge their way back into the driver’s seat. This time however, Johnson showed the capacity to learn from his lack of discipline and took two massive risks that initially appearing foolhardy paid off as an electoral quinella. First, he declared for an immediate winter election that risked his fragile coalition and his position as prime minister while removing standing for all MPs that were anti-Brexit, and stated unequivocally that the primary impact of a Tory victory would be an immediate Brexit undertaking – no more delays come what may. Johnson saw intuitively that his clarity would confound the other parties, so afraid of the Brexit mentality straining the party base support on all other societal issues, while equally unwilling to come out as supporters of the EU, which they secretly and most assuredly were.

December 12th, 2019 brought clarity all right. It brought a smashing victory for Boris Johnson’ instincts and final vindication for the twenty five year struggle of Nigel Farage, the patron saint of Brexit. Farage’s self sacrificing gambit to “trust” Johnson’s commitment to Brexit, avoid safe Tory seats, and concentrate on Labour strongholds where Brexit wistfulness was high, was a dramatic contributor to Labour losing a spectacular 59 seats and Tory MP’s sweeping in to pick up the collateral. Almost alone over 25 years, Farage had brazenly driven the Brexit concept when it was laughed at by all elites and media sages – one can suggest now it is Farage who can have the last laugh.

attrib. to ABCNEWS.Go.Com

Now the political leaderships on both sides of the pond are led by raffish, and sometimes buffoonish ubercharacters that seem to have an animal instinct as to the core impulses of their nations. We have been told for years that the science is settled, that new generations are interested only in their self reflection and their global need to blend in to truly feel secure. We have been fed this line by a compliant media that wishes it were true, and will do whatever it can to establish the ideal as a reality. Yet, time after time, the outcomes don’t fit the narrative, and free people keep upsetting the idea of inevitability. Boris Johnson now has his triumph. We will see if he can close the deal. In America, his doppelgänger is under massive attack by his own elite and media, that seeks to overturn what they are convinced was an immature spasm of the voting public in 2016 that brought the contrarian political Trump to stunning life. They are furious that in democracies, the clarity of righteousness is not always appreciated by a public that doesn’t always seem to understand the arc of history as they do.

If Trump survives, I suspect we will see a similar electoral thumping of the elites very well may be in the cards. Then, between Johnson and Trump, and the nascent Johnsons and Trumps watching with great interest in other democracies, things could really get interesting. Maybe freedom and its twin destiny are not quant relics of the past after all.

Once more into the breach, my friends, once more into the breach.

The Crack in the Wall

November , 1989

On a cold night in February, 1989, a twenty year old waiter at a local restaurant in East Berlin determined with a friend of his to engage a hasty plan to try and change their lives for good. They considered their odds somewhat better than the hundreds who had come before them, though there had been no particularly strong reason for their optimism. Since 1961, a progressively fortified barrier to any such motivations had loomed over the dividing line of East and West Berlin separating the Communist East from the free West, and a ruthless regiment of armed guards, vehicle obstacles, and razor sharp wire secured the bizarro world of a wall designed to keep the people in, like a prison, rather than constructed to hold people out. The waiter, Chris Gueffroy, and his friend, Christian Guadian, could no longer stand the stultifying life of oppression facing them on the east side of the wall, and telling no one, just before midnight february 5th, 1989, made their attempt at freedom. They successfully scaled the initial 10 foot high Hinterlandmauer and had crossed the open zone to the signal fence. It was here that their luck ran out. One of the two set off a motion alarm and the zone was flooded in lights. Desparately they sought to climb the final barrier to freedom, when border guards took aim and fired. Christian took several shots and was seriously injured.

Chris Gueffroy never found his freedom, as a bullet found his heart and struck it, killing him instantly. In an irony that often defies explanation, his failed effort at anonymous escape led a type of immortality. Chris Gueffroy became the last known victim, the final mortality, of the Berlin Wall.

We are now thirty years from the series of events that irreparably cracked the iron wall that separated conquered peoples of Eastern Europe lorded by the Russian empire from the free peoples of Western Europe. With collapse of the German war machine at the end of World War II, a ruthless but rational dividing line was agreed to by allied powers to prevent the massive armies of the Russian East and the Allied West from contacting violently and setting into motion the seeds of a new world conflict out of the disaster of the old. With conquered Berlin itself entirely within the Soviet Zone of occupation, the allies insisted upon a microcosm of the the division of Europe within the city itself, allowing the Russians to secure the eastern half of the city, and the allied English, American and French, the western remnant. The dividing line was at the Brandenburg Gate, and transport both into Berlin from the West, and West Berlin to East Berlin almost immediately became difficult and progressively restricted. The victorious Soviet dictator Stalin had no intention to cede any of the conquered territory that would provide an impenetrable buttress between the west and the Soviet Union, which had suffered most catastrophically from the German Nazi military onslaught. Additionally firm in his conviction as a Communist, of the inevitable victory of the proletariat, he determined to secure in all of the conquered territory a rigid adherence to Communist principles and unquestioned fealty to the overlords from Moscow.

The prescient Winston Churchill had unsuccessfully attempted to convince the Americans of a harder line at the end of the war, and strongly spoke out against the ever coiling and strengthening grip of the Soviet domination as the post war realities descended. At a Fulton College speech in 1946 he coined the dark dilemma and dangerous challenge for a generation:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.

One by one the ancient kingdoms and republics behind the Iron Curtain were subjugated to the will of the Communist elite. From Poland to Hungary, from Czechoslovakia to Romania, the Baltic Republics to Bulgaria – all fell under the dark oppressive shadow of a unified Soviet communist empire. To little surprise, the most oppressive and reactionary government was reserved for the remnant of Germany that formed the East German “Democratic Republic”. Here the severest orthodoxy was injected, and the secret police, the Stazi, resembled closely their antecedents the Gestapo.

Over the decades, a battle of wills took place between the subjugated peoples and the overwhelming might of the communist dictators, with occasional brief cracks, such as the German workers revolt of 1953, the Hungarian Revolt of 1956, and the Czech Spring of 1968, ruthlessly put down. Untold numbers of political objectors and common people were harassed, imprisoned, or murdered. The occasional uprisings only seemed to speak to the permanency of the dark world that had unfolded.

It would prove to be the unlikely cooperation of a President, a Prime Minister, and a Pope that would uncover the secret sauce that achieved the inconceivable outcome of a essentially violence free destruction of the Communist empire. The slowly growing torrents that quietly but steadily undermined the Communist behemoth started with the new lines of protest opened up by the Helsinki Accords of 1975, the formation of the worker’s movement in Poland in 1980 fronted by a nondescript Gdansk dock worker named Lech Walesa and fueled by the intellectual and spiritual power of the first Polish Pope, Karol Wojtyla, the writings of the Czech political prisoner Vaclav Havel, and the indominable will of the twin towers of anti-communist western leadership, Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan. All came to bear on a seemingly impervious Russian communist Soviet state, secretly more corroded and weakened than anyone had the temerity to hope. Suddenly, by 1985, the Soviets were forced to confront their collapsing economic infrastructure and put forth Mikhail Gorbachev, who as a modern Communist, could neither support the continuing failures of the traditional collective economy nor throw communist dogma away in favor of free markets. The ineffectual twin programs of Glasnost and Perestroika only underscored the emptiness of answers under communism for the crumbling empire.

The cracks, initially so minuscule, were indisputably foundational, and once the propagations started, proved impossible to suppress. The signal for toppling the whole rotten edifice was ignited by the speech in 1987 President Reagan gave at the the very epicenter of the iron curtain, the Berlin Wall at the Brandenburg Gate:

The cracks suddenly propagated in 1989 with such force that the decrepit Soviet overlords found the momentum, and the multiple cracks, impossible to stop, or simply lost the will to slaughter their own people. The Elections in Poland swept out the Communist party from the sham legislature in the spring of 1989, leaving the weakened President to realize his own ability to influence events markedly diminished, and eventually impossible. This was rapidly followed by Hungary, who outmaneuvered East Germany by opening their border with Austria, resulting in a massive flow of desperate East Germans out of the Soviet state to the West, without having to deal with the terrible wall. In a short time, hundreds of thousands moved to get into the west through Hungary, and East Germany was in danger of literally emptying out. East Germany had been the ground zero of the entire Cold War, and it was assumed its dictator Eric Honecker, an old time Stalinist, would not go down without a fight. Crowds, however, started swelling in Leipzig, Berlin, and other East German cities and Honecker, looking for permission to crack down from his Soviet overlord Gorbachev, found Gorbachev distracted by his own burgeoning crisis at home. There would be no crack down. On October 17, 1989, Honnecker lost control of his own Politburo, who voted unanimously that he resign. He was replaced by Egon Krenz, who found himself helpless to effect any action by his security forces. At 10:45 pm November 9th, 1989, the border guards on Bornholmerstrasse gate opened the gates and allowed people to pass without permits. And the Wall forever came down.

For those of you who might be too young to remember this unbelievable event in real time, its hard to express the surge of emotions that went through tens of millions of people that day and the days that followed. The epic tragedy of World War II for tens of millions of people was to have the ultimate victory wrenched from their psyche by the almost immediate oppression of the Soviet superstate and the tremendous threat it posed to free will and individual freedom. The Cold War had dominated everyone for the next forty years and no one, except perhaps Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan , could possibly imagine such an spectacular, peaceful, and abrupt outcome of the fall of the communist hegemony.

Yet there it was . The impervious Wall, both physical and psychological, that had stood as the ultimate symbol of the permanence of the communist version of humanity, in a single night collapsed under the weight of the millions who wanted freedom, and could wait no longer to breathe it.

We are now thirty years from the epic moments of the world celebrating on the wall, tearing it down, cheering in unison, crying to the finale of Beethoven’s Ninth witnessed by millions at the wall and hundreds of millions on television. The years that passed saw the unification of Germany, the maturing of democracies in eastern Europe, and within two years, the ultimate, the collapse of the seventy year experiment in communist oppression with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The events of that night in November, 1989 however remain seared in my memory as the greatest shared moment of human achievement and ultimate expression of humanity in my own life.

We are far from that time, and pulled down by our own crises of freedom given away by those who have no real memory of a time when people like Chris Gueffroy died at the wall, so desperate to breath freedom that he was willing to risk it all on the infinitesimal chance that he would be one of the the very few who could experience an individual triumph over the oppressor.

Freedom so precious that the release of death was preferable to a life of oppression and despair. Thirty years along, Chris Gueffroy reaches across the mists of time to ask us to ever remember, and never give in. Long live freedom.