It Has Been Confirmed: Jordan B. Peterson More Catholic Than Jorge Bergoglio…

Who would have thunk?

All those years ago, when this humble blogger first noticed a University of Toronto academic giving a Ted Talk, that that academic sounded very Catholic.

Since then, your humble blogger has been following Dr. Peterson and relating his “Catholic leanings” on the pages of this even more humble blog.

And now, we have come to a sort of Omega Point…

not that Omega Point.

But a real one!

On the pages of the Catholic Herald, an article appeared titled “Jordan Peterson’s Twitter spat with Pope Francis”, in which its author, one Gavin Ashenden comes to the same realization as yours truly did what… 8 years ago.

Below is a re-post from the Catholic Herald.


Jordan Peterson’s Twitter spat with Pope Francis

A few days ago there was a Twitter spat between Jordan Peterson (3.9 million followers) and Pope Francis (18.9 million followers, not including the 1 million assumed-to-be Latin Mass supporters who follow him on his Latin account). 

The news of this may fill you with delight or horror; or both. The Pope’s Twitter account usually contains a collection of short pieties which are intended to cheer the soul and not tax the mind. But on this occasion, Professor Peterson’s mind was not cheered (the jury is still out on his soul). He took issue with the Pope replacing piety with politics.

What had the Pope written to provoke the world’s most popular psychologist to lay down a Twitter challenge? 

“#socialjustice demands that we fight against the causes of poverty: inequality and the lack of labour, land, and lodging; against those who deny social and labour rights; and against the culture that leads to taking away the dignity of others.”

To which Professor Peterson (never short on self-confidence) replied: “There is nothing Christian about #socialjustice. Redemptive salvation is a matter of the individual soul.”

Not surprisingly, an agnostic professor of psychology lecturing the Pope on his faith produced a tidal wave of social media reaction. Those commentators who have not much interest in the Pope from day to day, but a great deal of animus towards Peterson, mocked him mercilessly for what they assumed to be hubris. How dare an agnostic pop-psych professor tell the Pope that he has got the faith wrong?

 A tweeter called “George” summed it up for the anti-Peterson brigade tweeting in confident riposte: “I don’t know what’s funnier, you trying to lecture the Pope on what Christianity is, or that you’re loudly proclaiming that acting like Jesus is wrong.”

Scoffing broke out all over; and the Twitter mob was very much with George.

But taking George at his word, and looking back of the actions and priorities of Jesus, there is prima facie evidence that Jesus was neither a socialist nor even much of a social justice warrior.  

In Matthew 26, when Jesus observes that “you will always have the poor with you”, it doesn’t lend itself to a slogan for social reform. His words “insofar as you did this for the least of these my brethren you did it unto me” were taken by the early Church to refer to solidarity with persecuted Christians suffering for their discipleship, rather than a motto encouraging the formation of a second century socialist league.

But beyond swapping Bible verses, is there any other evidence that the Pope’s endorsement of political movements that tilt against poverty, inequality and labour rights is problematic for Christianity?

Although Peterson is not yet a Christian, it looks increasingly like his rosary-praying wife is beginning to practice Catholicism. She may well have pointed him to some of Pope Francis’ predecessors who passionately denounced socialism as being incompatible with Catholicism. Despite the present Pope’s political preferences, the historic papal mind is not well-disposed towards left wing utopianism.

In his Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, Pope Leo 13th warned that socialism was planning the deliberate overthrow of the Church.

St Pius 10th  (1903-1914) foresaw the dystopias that socialism, wherever it would be imposed, would cause:  “But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce?”

Pope Pius 11th (1922-39) pointed towards the conceptual contradictions the premise of socialism were based on: “Socialism, if it remains truly socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”

And indeed, socialist governments have relentlessly pursued policies that undermined the concept of family. The left-leaning state invariably has growing ambitions to replace not only God, but also the family, while pursuing policies that undermine both traditional roles of motherhood and fatherhood.

On the other hand, Catholic Social Teaching has a long and intense history of interaction with the body politic, and a history of giving expression to a variety of different ways to give some political and social leverage to the injunction to “love thy neighbour”.

But why should Peterson bother to go head-to-head with the Pope over social justice? 

Although he has been accused by the Left of representing the “Alt-Right” (whatever that is), he has been careful to explain in public that the Left and Right need each other in a mature body politic; the Right to conserve, the Left to reform. These are not the observations of a partisan political allegiance. And he has been as excoriating with criticising the dangers of an unrestrained Right as he has that of the Left. 

But Peterson was propelled into the public square by his resistance to the ambitions of the new Left which were to impose trans pronouns and criminalise free speech.

Whereas in the second half of the twentieth century, when Pope Francis’ generation were caught up in a competition with the Left to express love of the neighbour, the totalitarian regimes the Left had created were hidden behind iron and bamboo curtains. The quest for equality had created the lethal ruthlessness of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and the 90 million casualties of Mao’s cultural revolution, but none of this impinged on the freedom of speech and action in the West.

Peterson has railed against the ignorance of history that seduces the idealistic young with the promises of social justice without their grasping that coercion always removes free thought, free speech and free action. 

But the main thrust of his critique of social justice has been to reinforce what the present Pope’s predecessors saw so clearly, which is that the aims of the Left are undeliverable and diverge from the priorities of the Church at the most critical points.

Equality sounds deeply desirable, but Peterson reminds us that the Pareto curve demonstrates that despite Marx’s idealism, equal effort and distribution are unachievable; the popular desire for equality of opportunity is never the same as the Left’s determination to achieve equality of outcome – by force when necessary.

Critics laughed at Peterson’s lobsters, but his point was more serious. Hierarchies (embodied in the most ancient of biological structures) look unattractive, but they deliver competence quite as much as they offer status, and without competence there is no defence against anarchy. 

Compelled speech and restrictions on what can be said prevent individuals from discovering what they believe as they frame experimental thoughts with words. Peterson insists we need the freedom to experiment with words without being silenced by thought crime imposed as hate speech. And no one needs freedom of speech more than a Church on fire with evangelisation. 

But perhaps the most serious point of divergence between Peterson and the present Pope was Peterson’s reminder that Jesus’ priorities were expressed in terms of salvation of the soul in the face of our impending judgement, and not the redistribution of wealth, opportunity, and the outlawing of slavery throughout the Roman empire. In case we should mistake the rights of the body for the pre-eminence of the soul, Luke reminds his gentile listeners that the “poor” in Hebrew thought is almost always shorthand for the “poor in spirit”.

One of the greatest theological errors of the last century was the seduction of Liberation Theology, an intellectual experiment driven pre-eminently by the Jesuits. Perhaps Peterson’s Twitter intervention with Pope Francis represents a reminder to the more elderly hierarchy of the Church today that a programme of social justice seldom comes free from a totalitarian price tag. 

When Peterson has been attacked by journalists irritated by his worldwide influence, Peterson points out the repeated conversations he has with people whose lives have been transformed by his influence and analysis. The numbers are enormous and constitute a genuine movement of societal renewal, with people saved from hopelessness and despair. This renewal movement began in the mind.

It would be strange if he did not try to remind the Church that if real personal and societal renewal can be ignited by a refreshed mind, it might be even more inspired by a renewed soul.

God’s people have often had to rely on eccentric sources to rediscover God’s better way. If Balaam could take advice from an opinionated ass, perhaps a pope can be helpfully informed by a loquacious pop psychologist.

Holy Ancestral Mother Gaia Batman, Jordan Peterson Reaches An Omega Point…

Greetings dear and loyal readers and I hope you had a great and Merry Christmas!

Moving on to the business at hand, your humble blogger has embedded a video at the top of this post that recently appeared on the youtube channel of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson.

In fact, there have been three recent videos posted by Dr. Jordan Peterson on his channel, videos which shared one overriding theme.

And that theme is…

… wait for it…

… still waiting…

… good.

This is how your humble blogger would define this overriding theme:

How to go about fixing that institution erected by Modernist Rome, the institution in which the Indefectible Catholic Church currently subsists.


After carefully listening to the dialog contained in the videos, it is becoming quite clear that Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s opinion (position ?) is that the Catholic Church needs to be restored to its proper function, position and structure if Western Civilization is to survive.

This “Catholic restoration” needs to start at the individual level, i.e. through the proper ordering of the creation to his Creator. Nota bene: “How to get His creation back into the church pews” is a common question posed to the Catholics throughout these videos. Once this proper “re-ordering” is established at the individual level, Dr Peterson thinks that this should lead to the improvement first in interpersonal relationships at the micro level (i.e. family), extending to the macro level (i.e. community) through to the improvement of relations between the individual and the society at large.

And why would any individual be interested in pursuing this path forward?

Well, it would appear that through this re-establishment of proper order between the Creator and His creation, the individual will at minimum be able to pull himself out of any “self-created hell” which he might find himself at present.

Sound familiar dear and loyal reader?

Well it should.

It would appear that the final “omega” point of Dr. Peterson’s journey (excuse the Modernist allusions) is in fact a state of being espoused in the Papal Encyclical Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI.

Who would have thunk?

Your humble blogger will end here since there is a lot of watching.

I will embed the other two videos below.

Have a great New Year!

Raping Interns In Oval Office IS NOT As Bad As “Policy Judgment Was Flawed”…

Shortly after the 2016 Presidential election, this humble blogger published a post titled NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ – The US Republic Has Been Saved… For Now!

It is with the utmost sadness that this humble has to face the reality that on the 15th of September 2021, our REPUBLIC has officially been lost.

And what is the reason why the REPUBLIC has been lost you ask?

Well, the answer is that the AMERICAN people, in a free and fair election in 2016, elected a President that posted tweets that certain people, in high positions of authority did not like.

Yes, folks!

That is the reason.

So what proof does this humble blogger provide for the above assertion?

Well, here is the citation via the White House press secretary Jen Psaki:

Update (1340ET): While many Republicans described the actions of Milley as treasonous if they indeed took place, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the president is backing Milley even if the calls did happen.

“The president believes he’s patriotic, his fidelity to our Constitution is unquestionable, and he has complete confidence in him,” Psaki said during a briefing in Washington.

Psaki claimed the context of when the calls allegedly took place was important, accusing Trump of “fomenting an insurrection,” referring to Jan. 6, and that “there was broad concern about many members of his national security team” in the wake of the U.S. Capitol breach.

“It’s the obligation of every chairman of the joint chiefs to follow constitutional order to prevent unlawful military action,” she also said.

There you have it folks.

According to the press secretary of the installed head of the US government, if the American people, in a free and fair election elect a President whose tweets they don’t like, the military is “obliged” to overthrow his administration.

What don’t you, dear and faithful reader, UNDERSTAND?


Via Zero Hedge

Trump SecDef Refutes Milley’s ‘Regular Comms’ Excuse, Calls For Immediate Resignation

Update (1800ET): While General Milley and The White House must be hoping that if they just keep pointing the finger at Trump’s behavior, this whole treasonous affair will go away judging from angry comments from Christopher Miller – who was Donald Trump’s acting Secretary of Defense at the time of the calls to China – this crisis is anything but over’s Susan Katz Keating reports that the former Pentagon chief said he did not authorize Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to directly contact China’s top military commander – contrary to Milley’s claims that his conversations with Beijing were approved by defense officials.

Miller said he “as secretary of defense, did not and would not ever authorize” the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to hold “secret” conversations with the Chinese defense chief.

In a statement to Fox News, Miller said the alleged calls were a “disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination.”

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking military officer whose sole role is providing military-specific advice to the president, and by law is prohibited from exercising executive authority to command forces,” Miller said.

“The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense, not through the Chairman.”

Miller added that if the story of Milley’s “histrionic outbursts and unsanctioned, anti-Constitutional involvement in foreign policy prove true, he must resign immediately or be fired by the Secretary of Defense to guarantee the sanctity of the officer corps.”

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said he cannot verify the claims in Woodward’s book but added he “see[s] nothing in what I’ve read that would cause any concern.”

*  *  *

Update (1340ET): While many Republicans described the actions of Milley as treasonous if they indeed took place, White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the president is backing Milley even if the calls did happen.

“The president believes he’s patriotic, his fidelity to our Constitution is unquestionable, and he has complete confidence in him,” Psaki said during a briefing in Washington.

Psaki claimed the context of when the calls allegedly took place was important, accusing Trump of “fomenting an insurrection,” referring to Jan. 6, and that “there was broad concern about many members of his national security team” in the wake of the U.S. Capitol breach.

“It’s the obligation of every chairman of the joint chiefs to follow constitutional order to prevent unlawful military action,” she also said.

Is anyone surprised?

*  *  *

Update (1245ET): As the backlash from Woodward’s expose of General Milley’s apparently treasonous actions grows, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has issued a damage control statement (h/t @JoshRogin) (emphasis ours)

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia.

These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict.

His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability.

All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.

Also in keeping with his responsibilities as senior military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, General Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues.

The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject.

General Milley continues to act and advise within his authority in the lawful tradition of civilian control of the military and his oath to the Constitution.

Quick reminder from 2015…

As @JackBeTrader so correctly noted:

 “if he doesn’t deny the conversation as it was reported, then it’s an admission.”

He didn’t deny it… QED.

With 4 star generals who call our enemies and promise not to follow the commander-in-chief’s orders, China doesn’t even need an illegitimate president compromised by bribes and blackmails.

And finally, you know it’s bad when…

It takes a traitor to know a traitor.

*  *  *

As’s Daniel Davis asked (and answered) should General Milley be relieve of duty?

The Washington Post published a bombshell report on Tuesday that claims the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, took it upon himself to reach out to our greatest potential rival, China, and offer to give them advance warning of U.S. military action directed against them. Though far from the only violation of Milley’s oath of office revealed in the article, that is enough to warrant the president immediately relieving Milley of duty.

The Post article provided excerpts ahead of the release of the upcoming book “Peril” by Bob Woodard and Robert Costa chronicling the final act of the Trump presidency and the first six months of the Biden Administration. The most explosive revelation from the excerpt was the claim that Milley bypassed the White House and took it on his own to engage with the commanding general of the Chinese military.

According to Woodward and Costa, Milley feared China might believe Trump would order the United States to attack. Instead of voicing concerns to the President, instead recommending actions that might assuage Beijing of such fears, Milley took matters into his own hands.

He called – without the knowledge of the president or Secretary of State – the commanding general of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. According to Woodward and Costa, Milley told his counterpart,

“General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

For those who don’t like Trump thought his policy judgment was flawed, Milley could come across as a hero, as one who protected the country from an awful fate.

That would be shortsighted, however, and miss the true danger of allowing generals to take such powers upon themselves.

First, to the point itself, there is no evidence presented that Trump intended, much less took action to engage in a war with China, only that Milley was afraid he might. Thus, the Chairman took action by talking to our chief adversary for something that would never have happened.

Secondly, once a precedent has been set whereby a general or senior ranking official can get away with going rogue in defiance of a president, there is no going back – and would not be limited to one political party. Take a scenario related to the issue of Taiwan, for example.

Within the U.S. military and foreign policy establishment, there are roughly two schools of thought on the possibility that China might make good on its threat to unify the island by force. One is that Washington should actually give security guarantees to Taipei and defend them at all costs if China attacks. The other argues that fighting China over Taiwan is foolish, that the U.S. likely couldn’t win a war near China’s borders, and that in a worst-case scenario, the war could turn nuclear, killing millions of Americans. If Beijing does the unthinkable and does attack, Biden would be faced with a horrible dilemma.

Make good on the implied commitment to defend Taiwan and risk a nuclear war, or allow China to successfully take Taiwan, giving some the impression of American weakness. Whichever choice Biden made, he would be guaranteed to have fierce opponents at the highest levels of the Pentagon to his decision.

Woodward and Costa claim that Milley took action because it was “a good-faith precaution,” to ensure there was, “no accidental war with China or others, and no use of nuclear weapons.”

If Biden chose to go to war with China over Taiwan, what is to prevent Milley – or any of the other high-ranking generals who have the same strongly-held views – from again acting on his “good faith” belief that he has to prevent war with China and actively subverts the president’s decision?

Chillingly, even that might not be the worst outcome.

The idea of a military coup in America has always been considered so improbable that few would ever take the threat seriously. But acts like these Milley has taken move us dangerously close to a place where some officers in the future might consider it. They would, no doubt, be acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the country, regarding the decisions of a civilian president as representing a danger to the nation, and seize control by removing the president from power.

We fool ourselves if we don’t think that could happen in America. If we allow this continued insubordination of our top military leaders against our duly elected civilian leaders – regardless of whether we agree or strongly oppose any given policy – to succeed, we run the risk of paralyzing our government in a moment of crisis or one day suffering a coup. To forestall that possibility, we need to stop this trend dead in its tracks now.

Milley must be relieved of duty. Today.

Surprise! The Modernists Can’t Be Trusted… (w/Update)


UPDATE 02:45 13 September 2021

And this below from Rorate Caeli by Dr. Joseph Shaw…

Note: This humble blogger does not engage in the “politics of personal destruction” of any voice which is attempting to “restore all things in Christ”.

The OFFICIAL position of this blog is that the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity is in charge of this one and we mortals do not know which instruments He has chosen at any given point in time, in this Most Holy of Missions.

When such unfortunate instances become OBSERVABLE, it is with great sadness that they are posted on the pages of this blog!

The Statement of the Superiors General (and Taylor Marshall)

Cross-posted on

The Superiors General of the Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and a number of other Superiors General of priestly institutes and religious communities attached to the Traditional Mass (including three communities of women), have issued a joint letter in response to Traditionis Custodes. Here it is, on the FSSP website. It is addressed to the Bishops of France, not, as some have assumed, to the Holy See.

As befits such a document, it is carefully worded. In principle, Traditionis Custodes creates an impossible situation for the signatories. They are founded on the charism of the Traditional liturgy, and the Letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes tells us that it is the intention of the document that in the longer term this liturgy should entirely disappear. Furthermore, the justification for this given in the Letter is that the clergy and faithful (who are not distinguished) are detached in some sense from the unity of the Church.

The argument which needs to be made to the Bishops of France at this point is thus a delicate one. Negatively, it should be obvious that to strike a defiant attitude, to threaten disobedience to Traditionis Custodes or the Bishops, or to suggest that they might go over to the Society of Pius X, would serve to confirm the purported justification of Traditionis Custodes. It would be directly counter-productive. 

On the other hand, to make a direct argument against Traditionis Custodes, to insist that it should be rescinded, is pointless, because the French Bishops do not have the power to do that. To make such an argument to the Holy See would be pointless in another way, because there is absolutely no chance that an important document such as this would be cancelled, or modified in a significant way, by the very Pope who promulgated it, so soon after its publication. 

Instead, the statement approaches the problem in two ways. First, it emphasises the key-hole of concession offered by Traditionis Custodes and the Letter, through which the Traditional Mass can continue to be celebrated: timeTraditionis Custodes gives the French Bishops (like all bishops) the right to permit the Traditional Mass now. It is now that it needs to be permitted if the spiritual life of the Traditional Institutes, and of Traditional laity, is to continue as before. No limit to this time is set by the documents. The first thing to secure, then, is that the Traditional Mass will continue.

The second approach is to draw attention to a very serious problem created by Traditionis Custodes. In confirming the establishment of the Institutes and communities represented by this statement, the Holy See has over the years since 1988 allowed and encouraged men and women to commit themselves by vows to lives of a particular character: as do all priests and religious. A fundamental aspect of this character for these particular religious associations is the Traditional liturgy. If this liturgy is to be abolished, the vows and commitments made to these associations would become impossible to fulfill.

The implications of this fact are not drawn out. It is for the French Bishops to ponder the problem as they apply Traditionis Custodes. They must implement the legislation with regard to the good of souls: as when they apply any aspect of the law of the Church. For those bishops inclined to be sympathetic, this consideration will be a powerful one.

To summarise, what this statement does is to try to create a space in which the French Bishops may, without disobedience, make possible in practice the continuation of the life the of the Priestly Institutes and communities and of lay Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass. The Latin Mass Society did the same thing, in a some different way, when we issued our Canonical Guidance on Traditionis Custodes.


Taylor Marshall, a man I usually ignore, has insulted the signatories of this statement, as lacking the “brave and bold” spirit which, he claims, animated the late Archbishop Lefebvre. He is, in a video far too tedious to link to, claiming that they are cowards.

This is a contemptible accusation, which reveals Marshall to be, as I expressed it on Twitter, an ignorant fool. I stand by that judgement, and I call on Marshall to apologise to these good men and women, who have a fearful responsibility both to their professed members, and also, in most cases, to the lay faithful for whom they have pastoral care.

Marshall appears to imagine that the Superiors General should react to their complex situation with the subtlety of some Hollywood action-hero: an attitude, in fact, completely at odds with the historical reality of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What, Marshall seems to be asking, would Rambo do? What would be the reaction of some knuckle-headed character played by Mel Gibson? Well, if he wants to base his understanding of ecclesial politics on Braveheart, he should remember the advice given by Argyle (in the 1995 film) to the young William Wallace: “First learn to use this” (pointing to his head), “and then I will teach you to use this” (lifting his sword).

It is an interesting fact about social media that some people who witnessed Marshall’s insult of the Superiors General, and my own criticism of Marshall for making this insult, concluded that I was the one to be blamed for dividing Traditional Catholics. This is an attitude completely detached from reality. The restoration of the Church is carried out through the sacraments offered by Traditional priests, and through the lives of prayer and sacrifice represented by the Traditional Institutes and communities, not by monetised social-media clicks. We need to show solidarity, in this moment of crisis, with the Superiors General, not with the man who likes to remind his viewers “I’m just a dad with a webcam”.

To the Superiors General, I say: genuine Traditional Catholics have your back. If this separates me from Taylor Marshall and his more deranged fans, so much the better.

By Joseph Shaw at 9/09/2021 12:14:00 PM

Post-Democracy America – Rule of the 30… Make That 27 Tyrants Up Next (?) …

… Tucker Carlson 20 August 2021 program, if you dear and loyal reader can find it.

Anyone following current events most likely has noticed something has changed.

Tucker Carlson has…

From this humble blogger’s perspective, that “change” has to do with the overt admission that the problem with the current administration and wider Washington bureaucracy is their utter and all pervasive INCOMPETENCE.

If you dear and loyal reader listens closely, you will notice that the word INCOMPETENCE is being heard everywhere these days and on all the #fakenews legacy media platforms.

It’s as if all the #fakenews media has started reading this most of humble blogs… (just kidding.)

Now for you dear and loyal reader who has been following the pages of this blog, you will know that the essence of the war on Western Civilization is in fact the WAR ON COMPETENCE.

So the question now becomes, is this INCOMPETENCE a FLAW of the system, or is it a FEATURE?

While not being in a position to definitively state whether this INCOMPETENCE is a strategic element of that which we are witnessing at present, it can safely be stated that not everyone in higher positions of authority are INCOMPETENT.

This is not possible…

The reason this is not possible is that COMPETENCE is a sub-component of one of the FIVE MAJOR PERSONALITY TRAITS of the individual person – TRAIT CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. Therefore, it is statistically impossible that all individuals who occupy these higher positions of authority have low levels of TRAIT CONSCIENTIOUSNESS.

Moreover, people who occupy high positions of authority also have one a personal interest which they have to protect, namely their financial interest.

Case in point: If you dear and loyal reader followed the trials and tribulations of one Andrew McCabe, the person who occupied the second highest position in the FBI in 2016-2017, you will recall that even after it was known that Mr McCabe committed offenses which were criminal in nature, the head of the FBI tried not to fire him because he was several months short of qualifying for his retirement benefits.

In other words, if the US economy collapses and the Federal government does not receive the tax receipts which are due, those individuals who occupy and who have occupied (retired) those same higher positions of authority will not get paid.

If the above is a reasonable HYPOTHESIS, and this humble blogger suspects that it is, what we are seeing unfold is a divergent of interests within what can be collectively termed THE RULING CLASS.

So you dear and loyal reader might ask: What is you EVIDENCE for this divergence of interest that you mention?

Well, I will revert to Mr Tom Luongo to provide some direct EVIDENCE that it is just this DIVERGENCE OF INTERESTS that is taking place.

As you might have observed, these pages have been hosting posts by Mr. Luongo quite frequently of late. This is because your humble blogger is OBSERVING and INTERPRETING that which is transpiring in the financial markets in a very similar manner. Mr. Luongo in turn is not only “reading the situation” similarly, but is also chronicling it on his website, the Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog.

And naturally, if we follow the money (as the law enforcement agencies do when they enter into any and all investigations), we can see the FOG OF WAR lifting and begin to understand the nature of the OBJECTIVE REALITY in which we are functioning in these times.

So just to outline the HYPOTHESIS: What we are dealing with is a concerted effort to create a NEW WORLD ORDER in which the US is not the major superpower, but just another “nation” which is ruled by a new oligarchy comprised of “Thirty Tyrants”. In turn, various interests within the RULLING CLASS are realizing that this concerted effort is contrary to their financial well being, and are rebelling.

Hence, Tucker Carlson’s observation in the above embedded video…

The rule of the Thirty… Make That 27 Tyrants in the title of this post, is a reference to the post-democratic government of ancient Athens after its loss in the Peloponnesian War of 404 BC.

Hint: Please reference the public relations efforts around the “rehabilitation” of Bill Gates.

So back to the below post. What Mr. Luongo is seeing is that the financial elites in the US are realizing that their position of power, not to mention their wealth and station in life is becoming threatened. In turn, they are identifying the “alternative structure” that is being readied to replace them, i.e. the European Union.

And just to make light of the historic irony of this development, the EU can quite easily be described as the “rule of 27”, i.e. 27 Member States. Now please recall that the EU is governed by a Council that is not elected. It is appointed by the Member States and the one Member State that has the most to say in who gets appointed is Germany. As to the political situation in Germany, please recall that for the last decade, Germany is ruled by a “governing coalition” made up of the two major political parties. So effectively, Germany is a one party state. So the analogy to the Athenian “rule of the Thirty Tyrants” is quite a propos.

I will end here.

Below is the Tom Luongo post via the Zero Hedge website…

PS … and more “INCOMPETENT” sightings!

Luongo Warns “What Leverage Giveth On The Way Up, It Takes Away 10x Faster On The Way Down”

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

The Fed Says, “Let Me Squeeze Your Dollars…5 Basis Points at a Time”

I still maintain no one will mark June 16th, 2021 as the day the world changed. Watching the dollar surge into this weekend thanks to a breakdown in the euro only validates that conclusion in my mind.

Remember, on June 16th Presidents Biden and Putin met for a summit which altered the course of geopolitics forever, agreeing to disagree about Nordstream 2 and reversing the worst of U.S./Russian relations among other things.

While that was happening the FOMC met and reversed the flow of dollars globally.

I told my Patrons something was up on June 18th. Then I did 2 hours worth of podcasts on it (herehere, and here) after thinking it through. Finally, after fully digesting it I wrapped it all up in a lengthy post on July 3rd.

The Fed’s decision to pay 5 basis point on Reverse Repos was the subtlest but most effective way to taper without tapering, tighten without tightening and undermine the WEF’s Great Reset while seemingly still supporting it.

I can hear the howls from the gallery who think otherwise so I’ll address them first.

Yes, normie macro-guys, the bond market has been screaming at the Fed that inflation is soaring and they need to raise rates.

Yes, first year domestic policy students, the Fed looks like it is putting pressure on Republicans to cave to Nancy Pelosi’s hardball over the Infrastructure, Budget and Debt Ceiling deadlock, so far to no avail.

Yes, second year geopolitics students, the Fed is forcing China to respond to soaring commodity prices while simultaneously trying to defend the yuan.

Yes, these are all effects of the Fed’s move in June.

From Wall St. With Love

But none of them are the real reason why the Fed did this. Because the real reasons are still hidden behind the veil of Jerome Powell’s seemingly incoherent Fedspeak on inflation.

Remember, everything in the U.S. politically today is meant to look like the country to a person is incompetent. Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan is the latest example. The fight over spending on Capitol Hill is another. The multiple diplomatic gaffes by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his diversity hires are yet another.

It’s all there to reinforce the failing confidence we in Financial Crank-Space like to think ourselves so smart and insouciant to see.

It’s become the norm rather than the exception when a prominent U.S. official acts like a blithering idiot.

So, you can be forgiven if you just thought Powell’s publicly retarded comments about inflation felt like that to you as well.

But this, like so many other things we see, is also part of the psy-op. Because the first rule of Fed Watching is to never listen to what they say, that’s for the algorithms and the momo-monkeys chasing nickels in front of the freight train do.

Smart observers watch what they actually do. And with those 5 basis points the Fed defended itself and the dollar.

Because the Fed, as I’ve said multiple times now, works for Wall St. if it works for anyone other than itself.

So, it scans, strategically, that anything which jeopardizes the Fed’s hegemony over capital markets globally will be ruthlessly opposed by the FOMC when push comes to shove. I’m laying aside for now what the Fed’s longer-term goals are.

What I see, for the first time since Nixon closed the gold window fifty years ago, the Fed was getting hemmed in by outside forces looking to throw its favored sons, Wall St., to the wolves.

And that will not stand.

The world has been begging the Fed for more dollars for 2 months now. Please sir, I want MOAR heroin to feed my addiction. We can’t survive The COVID-9/11 or The Climate Change without them!

Powell, for his part, two weeks before he raised the RRP rate (see chart above) told ECB President Christine Lagarde, “Um. No,” in about that many words and things have progressed from there.

The Euro, has been in freefall ever since. For the past few weeks the ECB has tried desperately to defend the late March $1.1703 low. It failed again this week to hold that low, despite a post-European close ramp to paint the weekly tape during Friday’s late trading.

The result of this has been the predictable explosion of the use of Reverse Repos by domestic counterparties. It jumped a few hundred billion in the aftermath of June 16th’s announcement. The RRP facility is there to push U.S. Treasuries, of which there is a shortage for use as bank collateral, back into the domestic banks.

Go Big or Go Broke

With the breakdown in the Congress over the Budget and Infrastructure Bills, thanks to Kyrsten Sinema and others the stage was set for the Fed’s next big move at the July 28th FOMC meeting. I outlined it when I talked about us entering the eye of the storm Davos has made for all of us.

I ask you to think again about the last two Fed meetings.

First, {Powell} drained overseas markets of dollars by raising the Reverse Repo Rate to 0.05% {on June 16th}. This week he created a standing Repo Facility for foreign counterparties to hand them back those dollars. They’ll do this only because they are now desperate for them but it will drain them of their high-quality Repo collateral, i.e. US. Treasuries.

Since the Fed knows there will be no new U.S. Treasuries issued for the next few months thanks to the debt ceiling kerfluffle being unresolved, they need a supply of them to hand back to the banks they know are going to be in need of them.

And the result was just as predictable. RRP facility usage soared to more than $1.16 trillion. It let a little pressure off the euro for a couple of days (see euro chart above) but not enough to change the direction of things. The Fed is still draining foreign markets of dollars.

Nothing the Fed has said since then has materially changed this position. In fact, the Foreign Repo Facility is just another tool to repatriate U.S. Treasuries to insulate U.S. banks and corporates from the very financial storm the Fed is actively fighting not just to save itself but to bankrupt Europe in the process.

This week James Bullard talked about tapering QE as early as September and begin raising rates in 2022. Powell mentioned he may have to raise the limits on the Reverse Repo Facility above $80 billion per counterparty just like he did when he first raised it from $50 billion earlier in the year before then actually raising the rate.

These are all technical moves which signal the Fed is preparing for another RRP rate rise. They are actively defending Wall St. and leaving the Biden Administration out to hang, not helping it achieve its goals, destroy the United States.

Because Biden all work for foreign powers, be they China, Davos or both.

Davos is trying to destroy confidence in the U.S. at every level, especially the dollar, to make Europe the destination for capital fleeing U.S. insanity.

The Fed is reminding everyone who the big boy on the block is and it only takes a measly 5 basis points to get reinforce this. Moreover, has anyone noticed it’s Wall St.’s biggest suckups in Congress sticking monkey wrenches in all this legislative bickering over a measly $4.7 trillion?

Those thinking the Fed is making a policy mistake to allow the dollar to strengthen simply doesn’t understand the rules of the game. The Fed is inviting a crash. It’s inviting a revolt against the insane commies and traitors currently running the U.S. government.

And why would the Fed do this when it stands to gain a tremendous amount of power? Well, to protect itself from inbred and feckless Eurotrash and be the one institution left standing after the dust settles.

I didn’t say that the Fed was being magnanimous here, just loyal to its own interests and that, for now, is enough to derail Davos.

Again, I can hear the gallery chattering on my shoulder saying that the Fed has to do this.

Yes. I agree.

When short term money market rates were pegged at zero percent the Fed had to do something to raise them lest the market believe the Fed was okay with negative nominal yields in U.S. money markets.

Today 1 month U.S. paper is trading at 0.04%, below the RRP rate, so pressure is building again. Demand is rising and we’re likely headed back towards the zero-bound unless the Fed does what? Raise RRP again.

So, do we expect the Fed to give Europe what it wants; validation of their insane negative interest rate policy?

No. Of course we shouldn’t.

A Hole in One

With Jackson Hole coming up next weekend Powell and the FOMC will tell the world they are staying the course, if not intent on raising RRP to a whopping 10 basis points if conditions warrant. They will still tell the beautiful lie that inflation is ‘transitory’ while giving off the impression that they are on top of things…. because in truth, they are.

What do you think happens to the euro then?

Because once $1.17 and $1.16 (See chart again) fall on a weekly closing basis, there’s nothing to suggest it will be a slow, steady move lower. If the ECB was okay with this they wouldn’t be fighting a falling euro so hard. With Lagarde at the helm real incompetence is on display, not the Muppet show Powell puts on.

Thinking this through, once $1.16 falls with the European bond market trading at these nosebleed prices, how much of a move in the euro will it take to unwind all of these newly-minted carry trades, rate swaps and the like put on during this rush into European sovereign debt which pushed the German 3 year bund to a recent low of -0.856%?

Remember, what leverage giveth on the way up it takes away ten times as fast on the way down. At these yields the Europan bond market is over-leveraged to the point where it makes the stupid shit we see people do on Binance during a Bitcoin mania look like prudent financial risk management.

The mother of all safe-haven trades is what is emerging quickly here. The Dow keeps pushing higher, while European stocks have broken down. The Dollar is breaking out of a multi-year downtrend, gold is holding it’s ground, cryptocurrencies (Wall St.’s latest darling) are exploding, and there are trillions of euros worth of capital that are scared to death of what Powell says next week in Wyoming.

So, a cascading series of defaults and blow-ups is in Europe’s future if Powell and the Fed do what I expect them to do.

Davos may love chaos as an opportunity to take power, but as we’ve seen since the operation to humiliate the U.S. in Afghanistan is proving, they were caught flat-footed by the speed with which the Taliban ran the table.

This is chaos they didn’t plan for, because well, it’s fucking chaos. *sigh*

The same thing is on the horizon in Europe politically and financially. There is a political price to pay for denying people food over a vaccine against the something as dangerous as the annual flu.

Just like there is a financial one to pay for taking a shot at the king and missing.

After all, it’s just… five … little…. points.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you don’t like exploding


BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
WAVES: 3PF58yzAghxPJad5rM44ZpH5fUZJug4kBSa
ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc
DGB: SXygreEdaAWESbgW6mG15dgfH6qVUE5FSE

The New World Order Starting To Unravel…

… stolen elections have their consequences.

This from Tom Luongo via the Zero Hedge website…

Luongo: What If Afghanistan Is More Than Just A Failed War?

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

The U.S. Empire is in freefall. Good. Afghanistan has reverted to nativist control as expected. The ‘goat-herders’ there remain unconquered. The speed of the Taliban’s takeover doesn’t surprise me because the groundwork for it has been in process for years.

Only the U.S. State Department under both Mike Pompeo and now Antony Blinken opposed this. If you’re angry this morning you can thank Russian diplomats who started this process in December 2016 by opening up the dialogue between the Taliban and the Asian powers with Pakistan leading the talks.

I can’t say I’m shedding any tears here except for all the losses on both sides. War is never righteous.

So, while I’m happy to see this end I am also sad to also see this end for what it is, a planned act of geopolitical vandalism by the Biden Obama Administration to ensure a complete collapse of the U.S. political system.

We are being liquidated by The Davos Crowd at the precise moment when their Great Reset is at its most vulnerable.

20 Years a Slave to War

For 20 years we libertarians warned this day would come and now it’s here. Is it a case of better late than never?

I think that question is irrelevant. The costs are incalculable. They always are.

You’ll hear a lot of utilitarian nonsense about $2.2 trillion etc. but that’s just the price tag you see. What you don’t see, as Harry Hazlitt reminds us, is where the real costs are — the lost opportunities, the Afghan and American lives spent, the bureaucracy empowered, the capital diverted from productive work — that come with prosecuting endless war for impossible democracy.

Before Afghanistan was there a Dept. of Homeland Security? The Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act? A Global War on Terror?

Are those part of that $2.2 trillion? No. They aren’t. And yet we paid them anyway.

It wasn’t like America wasn’t already fighting a slew of unwinnable wars of ideology (Drugs, Poverty, Democracy, Individualism) in the pursuit of the neocon/neoliberal ideal of ‘exceptionalism’ which was sold to too many of us as a path to a world without sin. Sadly, too many believed this out of loyalty to a government which cannot do anything except lie.

Those sins are reflected in the generation of men and women who fought the wrong war for the right reasons, serving their country and their families. Everyone’s heart should ache at the enormity of everyone’s losses.

We are all poorer today in body, mind and spirit because of this war.

The late Justin Raimondo spent a lifetime warning us about this:

Raimondo taught me to understand that foreign policy is just war by other means, and it was the most important part of our national policy. The foreign policy orthodoxy can never be challenged in the public sphere.

It is verboten.

Because it is that which drives the Empire and all the perks that come with that for those in charge of it.

For a generation we’ve sent young men and women into a meat grinder for no real-world reason other than to protect the CIA’s opium trade and have troops ready to attack Iran if the right circumstances arose.

And those who did so have proven they have no right to speak on this ever again. They are the villains here.

Every time I take my shoes off and get porno-scanned at the airport I’m reminded of this abject failure, not of policy, but of basic governing philosophy. We Americans (yes even libertarians who warned everyone about this) are culpable for the failures not only in Afghanistan but every other place we use to pressure Iran and, by extension, Russia into submission.

For what? An outdated geopolitical theory about the world –Makinder Heartland Theory — which those in power cling to like Linus’ blanket to justify their naked bloodlust and avarice?

It’s time to put away these childish things and return to our own centers, our homes.

I welcome the mimetic collapse for millions in the center of the U.S. political spectrum. They are asking the right question, “What in “G”od’s name was this all for in the end?”

The anti-interventionist crowd I’m proud to be a part of are getting their schadenfreude on right now but this is the exact wrong time for gloating.

This is their moment to prove you empathize with our losses so that no one should have to die again for such an ignoble cause as a pipeline or democracy. That the urge to fight for your family, your country is noble but that nobility ends at the shoreline. The message now is we want what you want, to rebuild the bonds of civil society these villains bombed without remorse and threw your children onto the altar of their evil, gutted and threw away.

You can start by remembering these 2 minutes from Ron Paul in 2009.

The Return of the Tribal King

This is the first lesson from this failure in Afghanistan that has everyone in a state of shock.

Humans are loyal to their tribes.

We spent 20 years building a government and military occupation through destruction, bombing and bribery with the goal of undermining Afghanistan’s tribal structure.

Not one whit of it remains. And yet, after 20 years of propaganda saying it was working, we’re shocked the moment we announce we’re leaving those same people, who never loved us, reverted to their tribal roots?

No amount of violence creates that. In fact, it only hardens that which is there. Vague notions of democracy and women’s rights are not compelling.

If what we offered Afghanistan’s people wanted, it wouldn’t have taken 20 years to build it. As always, the neocons were wrong. The proof is in the 72 hour collapse of the entire edifice.

The morons in power didn’t believe the goat herders wouldn’t read the tea leaves and pledge allegiance to the next most powerful group, the Taliban?

This is why I wasn’t surprised by the speed of the collapse of the Afghan government and its 300,000 strong army.

They took our money and used it to survive the occupation.

History is replete with examples of quickly deposed Viceroys after their rule breaks down.

I hope the Taliban are as good as their word to the Russians per the Moscow talks in July. If so, the chaotic period will be as brief as it possibly could be. The further bloodshed minimized and something close to order can emerge. We should all cheer for that.

When you push a people to the brink of extinction, when you force them back to their basic units of community, in Afghanistan’s example, their tribal identity, you find the limit to which they will retreat.

Having lost everything else they will always, and without fail, fight for their families to the death. Why would you expect anything else? Wouldn’t you? Nothing else matters if not your family.

This is why everyone who has gone into Afghanistan over the past 150 years has failed. Only hubris and the kind of solipsism that comes from unlimited perceived power sings a different tune.

The people who made up Afghanistan’s ‘army’ were faced with a real choice, fight for something they had no loyalty to or submit to the Taliban who now see this as the ultimate victory over the West.

The Road Back from Serfdom

That same choice is rapidly being put in front of us here in America, if not the entire West. We are ruled by stateless and foreign occupiers. There is a viceroy sporifying in the White House. There are looters and vandals running wild on Main Street, K Street and Wall Street.

They have the courts running scared, destroying the rule of law, while Congress has run out of money to bribe us with.

And it feels like we have precious few friends or even temporary allies. But we have also seen a massive wave of counter moves by those that still believe in such quaint notions as family, community and, yes, tribe.

In my last article I said it was time to strike at the root of confidence. Not the confidence of the values of our institutions but our confidence in those that rule us.

The collapse of our Afghanistan adventure is supposed to deeply shame us and humiliate us. The vandals in D.C. are chuckling in their version of Collapsitarian.

It has done that.

The media that has been their stenographers and our enemies have been stunned into a rare silence, some even imploring us to self-censor images of their failures.

The anger over this collapse is just settling in for millions of people now.

But, we have to move past that shame quickly. Now we must take that humility, which used to be the ethos of pre-empire America, and realize who the architects of this were and remove them from the public discourse. They no longer get to speak in hallowed halls and drone incantations of death and destruction, dressing it up as a righteous cause.

They no longer get to bamboozle with prepared talking points which are as pathetic as they are deceitful.

Because if we do that then those who enforce the viceroy’s chaos will also face a stark choice. I ask them openly, “Is this order?”

Is this what you are willing to die to protect?

Change is coming. You can be a part of it or run for the airports with your mask on and your vaccine QR code at the ready. Davos has tried to break our spirit by breaking our families and our tribes.

They have us fighting among ourselves while they try to run the table over the flu shot. We think ourselves superior to those Afghan goat-herders. But they still have their identities.

And now they have their country back.

I’ve herded goats, it’s a tough job. Far tougher than the work most Americans do today. So, stow the exceptionalism, back away from the shadows projected on the cave wall and reconnect with the light of reality.

Two weeks ago I implored law enforcement to see things as they were and remind themselves who it is they protect and serve.

Now is your opportunity to prove to us, in our time of need, that you are our friends and not the enemies of civil society. You have the opportunity to help restore real order. Don’t make the mistakes our soldiers and their families made, sacrificing your lives for people who despise you.

Wars of all forms are rackets.

Because the big reveal in Afghanistan is that what happened there can happen here, quickly. Those goat-herders just showed us how to defeat an Empire abroad. Now it’s time to defeat the empire within.

*  *  *

Warm, Warmer… Very Warm…

Hope all my loyal readers are having a great summer.

Today, another post appeared pertaining to a subject matter which this humble blogger thinks is the preeminent issue of our time, namely the WAR ON COMPETENCE.

This latest piece is written by Victor Davis Hanson and is in line with that OBSERVATION which Dr. Jordan Peterson made in a recent podcast. This podcast we featured in the post titled The Cat’s Out Of The Bag… (see here)

Back to the Davis Hanson post, and in the opinion of this humble blogger, one element is missing. This element is what can be described as the driving element. That driving element is what is known as the “”shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” rule “- meaning that wealth gained in one generation will be lost by the third”. (see here)

In our case, we just need to replace the term “wealth” with “status”, and we are home.

Therefore, what we can posit is that the present cultural war, which manifests itself as a WAR ON COMPENTENCE is in fact nothing more than a mechanism which is being implemented by individuals who have attained a position of status (i.e. money at the end of the chain) through non-meritorious means and are now trying to find a MEANS by which they can carry it forward inter-generationally.

Case in point, the 2019 college admissins bribery scandal... (see here)

… and and the granddaddy of them all… (see here)


Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via Summit News,

Politically correct ideology is masking and contributing to the widespread failure of our institutions…

We know the nature of mass hysterias in history, and how they can overwhelm and paralyze what seem to be stable societies.  

We know the roots and origins of the cult of wokeness.  

And we know, too, how such insanity—from the Salem witch trials to Jacobinism to McCarthyism—can spread, despite alienating most of the population, through fear and the threat of personal ruin or worse. These are the dark sides of the tulip, hula-hoop, and pet-rock fads, the mass obsessions so suited to past affluent Western societies.  

But does wokeism serve another purpose as well? Specifically, does it either hide preexisting incompetence or fuel it?  

In the last 18 months, we have seen most of our major institutions go woke and spend considerable amounts of time, capital, and labor on what might be called “commissarism.” Yet in their zeal to rectify society in general and sermonize, virtue signal, pontificate, and perform to the public, many institutions are increasingly failing at what they were established to do. 

Of course, public servants have long suffered the “Bloomberg effect”—focusing on misdemeanors to virtue signal competence as penance for failing to solve the existential crises. If you cannot clear New York City of snow in a timely manner, then lecture the trapped on everything from global warming to the dangers of super-sized soft drinks. Yet wokeism is a bit different since it now pervades our societies as a pandemic of its own.

Take Delta Airline CEO Ed Bastian. He earns $17 million in annual compensation, and lectures the state of Georgia and the nation at large on our supposedly racist voting laws. The issue at hand is mostly a requirement to show a valid ID to vote—in the manner one must present identification to enter the boarding area of Bastian’s planes. Surely if one should vote without an ID, why not then be allowed to board a Delta flight?

I also suggest the public try to call Delta’s consumer helplines to fix the airline’s post-quarantine screw-ups with credits, refunds, rebooking, and recalibrating charges. Just try it—but expect several hours of wait time on the phone. We know now Delta is woke, but what we don’t know is whether one’s past purchase of a ticket will ensure a spot on a Delta flight, or whether prior money or mileage credited will ever be returned or applied to future travel.  

A cynical observer might suggest that if Ed Bastian cannot ensure adequate consumer service, it won’t matter since he weighs in on voting laws. (Or is it worse than that? Because he pontificates on voting laws and other assorted woke issues, he thinks he can simply worry less about his own consumer services?) 

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker is woke, too. He has denounced a new Texas voting law likewise requiring tougher ID usage—although he later  admitted that he had never read the new statute before virtue signaling its illiberality.  

I suggest Parker might first ensure that his airline has not become a Third-World carrier before he seeks to enlighten Americans on their supposed backwardness. I just took a flight on one of Parker’s American Airlines flights from central California to Dallas, Texas. But right before boarding the full flight, passengers were apprised that American did not have enough gas in the plane to make it to Dallas—and couldn’t find any in Fresno. So it was “stopping off” on the way in San Francisco to “fill up”—180 miles away and in the exact opposite direction of its eventual destination. I’ve only twice been on a plane without enough fuel to reach its destination and in need of a detour to find gas somewhere— once 15 years ago in Mexico and the other in 1974 in Egypt.  

We’ve seen an epidemic of well-compensated professional (and Olympic) athletes lecture the country on its various sins of racism, sexism, and the usual affiliated -isms and -ologies. Like the now passé Colin Kaepernick, they devote enormous time to what in normal times would be called extraneous efforts or even distractions from their business at hand. 

Is there a connection between their wokeness and the general lack of interest in the NBA, Major League Baseball, NFL, and the Tokyo Olympics? Is the public sense not just that they do not wish to be talked down to by such privileged and spoiled 20- and 30-somethings, but also that the level of play of professional and amateur sports seems on the decline as well? Or is it that these woke, young athletes can handle sports or social hectoring, but not both—and it shows in their performances and in the lack of mass appeal?

Hollywood is the worst offender. Almost daily a mega-star joins the outrage twitter chorus to remind us of her exemplary virtue or his singular outrage over “social injustice.” They belong to this strange collection of celebrity-obsessed multi-millionaires whose homes, lifestyles, modes of transportation, and fashion are Versailles-like—yet whose daily lives never quite match their sanctimonious barking.  

The real travesty is that Hollywood simply makes poor movies, or rather mostly remakes them ad nauseam, ensuring only that they are “diverse” and proportionally—or now reparationally—representative of “the other.” Two genres tend to dominate the current movies: computer-enhanced comic-book films (sometimes apparently white-washed by progressive executives so as not to offend the racist 1.5 billion-viewer Chinese market), and “the hero versus the Man” movies.  

The latter usually pits an attractive and courageous young investigator, lawyer, journalist, whistleblower, or public servant against a malicious conspiratorial corporation whose racism, environmental desecration, sexism, and thievery must be exposed in gallant, lone-ranger fashion. Not only are these Maoist scripts boring and repetitive but they sprout from a self-indulgent, hyper-corporate Los Angeles capitalist culture that gave us the Hollywood-beloved, and woke-before-his-time Harvey Weinstein. 

Universities are the old-new woke bastion. We will probably never know the machinations used by our elite colleges and universities to warp race in favor of some, and against others, among this year’s first incoming class of the post-2020 riot era. 

Mostly wealthy, white bicoastal administrators and middle managers across all sectors send out communiques, on spec, attesting to their own superior virtue with vocabulary so trite and predictable that a computer programmer could institutionalize and improve on the boilerplate in a few hours. Their bogeyman target is the noxious white male heterosexual—of course, exempting the memo writers themselves, due to their superior morality.  

The woke have unleashed a veritable jihad to root out and banish those infected with “whiteness” among us. But aside from their main mission of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, can we say that woke universities—on the side—are turning out talented and educated graduates who will ensure American prosperity, freedom, preeminence, and the sort of lifestyle the young now assume as their birthright? To ask the question is to know the answer. What else could happen when there are more diversity, equity, and inclusion facilitators on elite campuses than there are history professors? 

Is the general knowledge of the college student superior to his counterpart of five, 10, or 20 years ago?  Did the great experiment with various “studies” courses (black studies, peace studies, environmental studies, equity studies, Asian studies, La Raza studies, etc.) result in better writers, thinkers, speakers, analysts, mathematicians, and scientists than what was produced by the old Shakespeare English course, or Western Civ highlights from Homer to Locke, or advanced calculus? Is the campus more tolerant than it was in 1980, more open to free speech, more determined to protect the constitutional rights of its students? 

The military is an especially good example of a major American institution whose woke credentials are now ostentatious, but whose performance in a cost-to-benefit analysis seems increasingly anemic. 

We know that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, is popular for the moment with the Left in Congress. As a result, like many of his predecessors, if he wishes, Milley can gravitate to lucrative defense contractor boards upon retirement—without a finger-pointing Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) castigating him as a get-rich, revolving-door apparatchik.  

Milley and others, such as Admiral Michael Gilday, have given spirited, if incoherent, defenses of why they want their enlistees to read Ibram X. Kendi’s texts on “antiracism”—or at least why they want the Washington elite to know they recommend them to their soldiers and sailors. We know that multimillionaire ex-Raytheon board member, consultant, and now defense secretary, General Lloyd Austin is auditing the ranks to weed out suspicious white male insurrectionaries, an investigation that so far seems to lack any actual data to justify said witch hunt. The chain of command, which can enact social change by fiat, is in this case beloved by the Left. And the officer corps has made the necessary adjustments to ensure their own rapid promotions. 

Thus, there is little protest about the military budget being slashed by the beloved Joe Biden, after it was markedly raised by the hated Donald Trump, who among his many other sins jawboned the NATO allies finally to pony much of their promised military contributions to the alliance. 

Milley’s earlier apologies for doing a photo-op with President Trump while the rascal supposedly cleared the environs with tear gas were mostly empty virtue signaling, given the inspector general of the Interior Department found no such presidential edict or any use of such an agent.  

Indeed, a dozen or so of our best and brightest retired four-stars had blasted their former commander-in-chief as fit for removal the “sooner, the better,” a veritable monster who employed Nazi-like tactics, emulated Mussolini, and took his immigration policy in part from Auschwitz.

But was such energy, rhetorical imagination, and refined conscience evident in our stellar victories in Afghanistan and Iraq? Was the Libyan intervention a model of military planning, on both the strategic and tactical levels? Have our innovative weaponry, training, and displays of strength deterred the Chinese military? Have our latest naval and aviation acquisitions proven to be models of brilliant cost-effective investments? In our woke age, do our soldiers die on the battlefield in proportion to their sex and race, in conformity with the new proportional representation gospel and in all other areas of military endeavors?

We could ask the same of the FBI and CIA, given the loud, recent wokeist careers of John Brennan, James Clapper, Kevin Clinesmith, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok. From such sanctimony we might assume the FBI had successfully ferreted out and preempted the Boston Marathon bombers, or the San Bernardino terrorists; or that we knew from the CIA the threats posed by the Phoenix-like reappearance of the “J.V.” ISIS killers in Iraq, the Spratly Island aggrandizement by China, the true nature of the Wuhan lab leak, the location of existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Syria, and the current status of the Iranian nuclear program. 

The point is not to berate our institutions, but to warn them.  Either their abilities to carry out their assigned tasks are becoming diminished by Nineteen Eighty-Four-like wokism, or they are using ideological camouflage simply to mask their unaccountability—and their increasing incompetence.