By Charlie Johnston
There’s an old saying that the man who keeps the coolest head in the midst of crisis will ultimately prevail. The waggish modern corollary argues that the man who keeps the coolest head in the midst of crisis doesn’t really understand how big the problem is. I suspect that both aphorisms are applicable to our current situation.
Things have spun out of control in a way that is so volatile, that it probably can’t last for more than a few months. The absurdity coming from federal officials and the establishment media would beggar the most outlandish satires of the 1960s. When the daily news (or narrative) begins to make an episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus look like a documentary, you know we are traveling in uncharted waters.
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked if the U.S. Government had assassinated Ashli Babbitt. He went on to say the U.S. has no business criticizing him when it currently holds over 400 political prisoners in Washington, D.C. and is clearly gearing up to arrest more people for the crime of disagreeing with the left. Certainly, jailed participants from the Jan. 6 demonstration in Washington that got out of hand are being treated like the man in the iron mask, while Antifa and BLM rioters who actually destroyed things and killed people are getting a pass. U.S. Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland insists that “white supremacists” are the greatest threat to American security. For crying out loud! They’re not even a serious threat. I would be surprised if there were as many as a thousand bona fide white supremacists in the entire country. But it is typical of authoritarian regimes to re-define terms to justify jailing their political opponents. The current regime in Washington has redefined any dissent to be a manifestation of “white supremacism.” The old Soviet Union defined dissidents as either saboteurs or mentally ill to justify locking them up. Now we are under the occupation of a completely illegitimate authoritarian regime that is hell-bent on holding onto power by any and all means to transform this country into a third-world hellhole. The new National Strategy for Combatting Domestic Terrorism is a document that would make China proud: basically, if you are conservative or Christian you are likely an embryonic domestic terrorist. For a man of my age, it is startling and embarrassing to see that Russia has become freer and more tolerant of dissent than my country – and that the Russian leader boldly calls that out. Garland haplessly says that he is focused on threats, not ideology, but insists that disappointed QAnon supporters are very likely now to start fomenting violent attacks against the government. What hogwash!
It is very clear to me that federal officials are now trying desperately to come up with justifications to arrest their opponents. With all the revelations – that the whole Covid thing was likely released from the lab in Wujan, after Anthony Fauci helped finance the creation of it; the looming likely revelation that the election was entirely fraudulent and Trump did win; that like the Capitol Police on Jan. 6, courts and legislatures around the country stepped aside to invite the fraudsters in; that the FBI, Justice Dept., Homeland Security and intelligence agencies are no longer protecting the American people, but targeting them; that may be the last hope for the fraudsters to hold onto power – their “precious.”
I long ago concluded that the FBI, once the world’s premier law enforcement agency, had abdicated its mission and has, instead, replaced the Ku Klux Klan as the paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party. Even so, the revelation that the FBI may have participated in organizing the Jan. 6 incursion into the Capitol disturbed me. It was not that I didn’t believe the modern FBI is capable of such mendacity; rather, it was the sloppiness of the original Revolver story that got this narrative started. It connected a lot of dots by assuming the only possible explanation was a mendacious one, while frankly ignoring – and even pretending – that alternate possibilities did not exist. I don’t doubt that the FBI and Justice Dept. acted mendaciously. They are doing it in plain sight every day – and have been for over five years. The sloppiness of the story, though, gives the bad guys opportunity to argue against the veracity of the whole thing and what we are seeing every day. For crying out loud, at a time when the left sloppily makes it up as they go along, this is no time to imitate their sloppiness. People are struggling to know what to believe and who to trust. Whenever we are sloppy and undisciplined, we do NOT undermine the left, but give their lies oxygen for a little longer. We can only emerge as trustworthy if what we promote usually proves out. We will make mistakes; that is inevitable. But sloppy, unforced errors give a tactical toe-hold to those who lie routinely.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Obamacare without looking at the Constitutionality of it, but simply on standing, saying that the 18 states which sued had none. This has become the favored method of the Court in dealing with controversial political issues – to refuse to examine the question, but simply rule that the entity which sued had no right to do so. It is a ‘go along to get along’ stance that the court thinks will shield it from controversy and protect its institutional standing. It is the same method the Court used to avoid weighing in at all on the last election. But now as evidence they would not look at reaches critical mass, the go along method will soon be seen as not a method to preserve the institution, but to break it – and the country in the process. This is something the American Catholic Bishops ought to keep in their minds as they debate whether to issue any standards of Eucharistic coherence. Those who oppose it do so on the basis of maintaining unity among the Bishops. Unity in refusing to take Christ and the original Apostles at their word is not worth a bucket of warm spit. What a unifying cry: we stand for nothing in particular! For what it’s worth, I don’t think the advocates of empty unity are going to prevail this time. More and more of their colleagues are becoming ‘woke’ to the danger to doctrinal incoherence. The high-water mark of the dissident Bishops may well have already reached its high-water mark.
Futurist Lew Rockwell believes the Biden administration has only a few months left to go because of the big false narratives it is based on that are now being proven to be false. If we were in anything resembling normal times, I would probably agree with him. It seems to me, though, that battle lines are being drawn dramatically, people are being forced to choose sides, and a mighty clash is eminent. I could not describe the details of the clash, only that I think that before the summer is out, we are going to be living in a dramatically different world than we are now. The old is passing away before our eyes, and that right quickly.
That is why I have come to regard our conference in South Dakota next week as a pregame tailgate party. Understanding that my weakest point has always been timing, things have shaped up in such a dramatic way that pure temporal analysis suggests the collision is near. I pray that enough states are committed to protecting the basic fundamental liberties, the unalienable rights, of their people, that we will have adequate safe havens from a descent into open bureaucratic dictatorship and from which to organize to give America a new birth of freedom. But the way I see it is not always the way it happens. What I know is that God will give us a way forward to our decisive return to Him. It will probably not be easy; it will likely be startling and unexpected in many ways – and the only reliable guide we have on our pilgrim journey back to a Godly world is to acknowledge Him, take the next right step, and be a sign of hope to each other. As we reach this point, it is good that we should get together and break bread with each other. There is still time to reserve a spot if you can come join us.
Daniel O’Connor posted a new article in which he more clearly defined how he regards the concept of “prophetic consensus.” It is much more prescribed than what I regarded it to be in a recent post. While I remain dubious about the concept, he clearly has some standards he applies before he will add something to the mix he considers. More importantly, perhaps, when I reached out to let him know I would include his definition in my next post, he noted that it was not necessary – that good faith disagreements don’t phase him. It is, once again, the attitude of someone who wants to get it right – and I appreciate it greatly. I deeply value the friends with whom I can have good faith and informed disagreements. It helps hone my own thinking well. And thus, as I value getting it right, too, I give you Daniel’s definition of how he arrives at prophetic consensus.
Our communications committee asked me to remind all of you who have short-wave radios to bring them with you to the conference. It will help you understand the demonstrations on the system more clearly.