After the last post, I might as well draw up the cinch with a big sigh and explain myself better, though to some a mere hint in these matters is unwelcome.
I have now, over a period of six months, discussed three reasons why we—or the vast, out-of-the-loop majority of us—should consider ourselves justified in suspecting that we have been designated expendable, if not slated for the slaughterhouse.
Item One: I’m sorry… but, yes, the first of these is related to the UFO phenomenon. Scoff if you like. A good nineteen out of twenty sightings that claim to identify something otherworldly in the skies are misperceptions or hoaxes, and the info-tainment industry has liberally stirred both mis- and dis-information into the pot. None of that alters the reality of certain events like the Phoenix Lights in 1997: a series of sightings reported by hundreds, videotaped by dozens, witnessed by a personal contact of mine with a security clearance, and observed even by Arizona Governor (at the time) Fife Symington. Though the Governor would conclude his brief researching of the incident with a lame attempt at mockery in a press conference a day later, for that one day he was as alarmed as his fellow citizens; and he has since confessed (without offering details) that the smirking dismissal of the reports was more or less ordered by Them Who Must Not Be Refused.
These silently and impossibly hovering, silently and impossibly accelerating craft could have been the result of only one of the following: an extraterrestrial visit, a military project in which extraterrestrial vehicles were reverse-engineered, or a purely terrestrial project the principles of whose engineering sophistication have been kept entirely off the academic grid. Take your pick. If you wish to join the coerced Symington in smirking at our collective phobia of little green men, then Option Three is clearly your choice… and is it really more consoling than the the notion that wide-eyed dwarves are cruising our skies? Why is the physics behind this celestial parade wholly unknown at Rice and MIT? Security? But if secrets of such depth and consequence are routinely withheld from us, then what assurance have we that they will consistently be used to our benefit in the future? How does a democratic society process such paternalistic “protection”?
And more immediately to the evidence of the incident… why the Phoenix Lights? Why the in-your-face display of miraculous engineering over a major American metropolis? Did the fleet simply veer off course? If you’ve ever smirked in your life, this would be the time. My own creeping suspicion is that the event was a kind of probe on the part of the covert designers to study public reaction. That would mean… well, what else could that mean, but that powers within our state have not only developed technology of a science-fictional sophistication, but that that they—or some few high-ranking string-pullers among them—have also developed an interest in how the vast American mass would respond to an open show of miracle-machines?
So what game is being played when strings are thus pulled? At what point do we—the great unwashed, the profane uninitiated—get to find out?
Item Two: the insecure power grid. It is simply inconceivable to me that our nation would have blazed a path well into the twenty-first century without insulating our electricity-dependent way of life from surges of electromagnetic radiation. These could be maliciously generated by the low-level technology of a second-rate terrorist nation like North Korea, or they could occur naturally (through solar flares). In either event, a significant Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) could leave most of us without lighting, heating, refrigeration, phone or television service, operative automobiles, restocked grocery stores, functional hospitals, and other essentials of daily living so numerous that about nine of every ten Americans would die within a year (since our generators are not domestically produced and cannot be quickly replaced). This is a virtual “On the Beach” scenario. And the United States Congress, during the same two decades that saw a bankrupt Russia and a bureaucracy-heavy China secure their grids, did… precisely nothing.
Now, one must not underestimate the role of irresponsible, egotistical exuberance that overtakes the lives of our representatives when they arrive in Washington. A kind of childishness descends upon many that, in specific cases, often mimics the influence of outright stupidity. I do not believe that Barack Obama, for instance, had joined an evil cabal to destroy 90 percent of the nation when he ignored every single recommendation of the EMP Commission. (As Peter Pry explained to Mark Levin, Obama probably saw the securing of our grid as a bad-faith gesture before those traditional adversaries whose favor he was courting—apparently having skipped the briefing about solar flares in that manner for which he became famous within the Beltway.) Yet this is always the Washington fashion, it would seem. The people’s choices wine and dine and posture and hold court insouciantly above major issues like a foolish child skating on thin ice unless and until some firebrand forces the impending disaster into their faces. Our forty-fourth president had his face lifted too high in the air for very many issues to achieve a direct impact with it.
Nevertheless, somebody should have blown a whistle loudly, especially in the wake of 9/11. It is incredible that no one did, and that virtually no one has. (President Trump has in fact taken initial steps toward EMP defense, which may reach completion by about 2020.) Why is it that we find no dearth of representatives mashing the red button because sea levels appear to creep up around the Chesapeake and the hurricane season has grown testy—yet not a one of them for years has manifested the least interest in a possible extinction event whose occurrence is as inexorable as a major California quake or an eruption of Kilauea? Can every one of these people have been asleep at the switch for so long?
Or could it be, instead, that the general slumber and stupor prevalent in our nation’s capital have been nursed along by a few insiders? Are there those in very high places (not necessarily elected positions, but with significant influence over the elected) to whom a “thinning” of our population by 90 percent wouldn’t be such a very bad thing, in the grand scheme of things? Would not this 90 percent in the “fatality zone” include 100 percent of those who had and have no inkling as to the truth behind the Phoenix Lights? Is indifference to unimpeachable reports of bizarre craft overhead not fully compatible with further indifference to unimpeachable reports of national calamity just waiting for a solar flare? In other words, hasn’t our “cluelessness” been checked out, duly noted, and integrated into further calculation? And wouldn’t it be—to these designers of the grand scheme—a very convenient thing to have the power of zapping your enemies with death rays from flying saucers, but also the freedom of devoting every resource to “progress” rather than paying well over half of the GDP to unemployed rabble and senile vegetables?
Item Three: Now I return to my overly cryptic comments about my high school alma mater’s elaborate newsletter. I used that text to launch into a Sunday sermon about how the new “suave” and “urbane” for the socially ambitious is leftist progressivism. This is neither surprising nor unnatural as a broad tendency. The cutthroat nouveau riche have long been known to endure a mellowing period during which they slip their lion and elephant trophies into storage and buy Picassos for display. They may even affect certain radical convictions (having gouged the public to amass their own fortune) in a perverse combination of penitence and victory-dance. The Rockefellers and the Carnegies become passionate philanthropists. Bill Gates becomes something like the Dalai Lama for forward-thinking people. Frugality and caution are so crass, you know, darling!
Yeah, I get all that. And I understand, too—better than most—that a pater familias might wish to advertise his arrival into the highest echelon by sending his kid to a college which actively vilifies wealth acquisition while instructing its young charges in how to change condoms rather than light bulbs. But… but I simply can’t comprehend how the greater population of concerned donors would continuously bankroll such a meltdown in morale. For every J.P. Morgan showing off his new social consciousness, there must still be a hundred CEO’s of small companies around. Are they all that afraid of being “Papa Johned” by the popular press for not supporting the University’s de-gendering of restrooms?
Why have college presidents, for that matter, allowed their English programs to fizzle out, year after year, in course offerings on transgender playwrights of the Fin de Siècle and symposia on female-empowering sex toys? Yes—again, I recognize that their fear of being branded uncouth in the Chronicle of Higher Education is precisely analogous to the D.C. politician’s fear of wearing the racist tag because he supports secure borders. In both cases, the will of the enterprise’s true constituency is ignored in favor of placating a few effete opinion-makers. But… really? Not a single college president has been willing in four decades to utter these words?—“Sorry, but you’re no longer chair. This is a conservative area with socially mainstream alumni, and our English program will continue to teach Shakespeare and Milton—without torching the Christian faith at every turn.”
My suggestion is that, with all the other influences discussed ad nauseam by the radio and Internet commentariat, the leftward slant of education has been fashioned with a certain conspiratorial complicity on the part of what should be conservative exponents. At a very high and embedded level in specific cases—and at a fully subconscious level, no doubt, in subordinate cases—conservative cultural beacons have decided that it’s okay to let the restless masses wander down corridors inevitably leading to destruction. The intelligentsia want to reject heterosexuality and parenthood? Fine. Their toxic effect will be dead in a generation. The chattering class and the secular Christian-lite clergy want to practice charity by allowing the Third World to flood society unchecked and unvetted? Fine. Chaos will ensue, basic rights will be suspended, dictatorial powers will be bestowed… and then the only issue to be settled will be whether the ruling elite veers communist or monarchist. A non-issue, really: the stronger always prevail. A Stalin trumps a Trotsky every time, and Cesar Chavez always becomes Hugo Chavez.
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity can inveigh against Saul Alinsky’s or Cloward and Piven’s revolutionary manual all they like. The force that most frightens me, as a career academic, is the one I can’t see—the one that should be present in measurable quantities and, instead, shows up as statistical zero. That force should be coming from the Right. It’s not. Like the designer of some diabolically brilliant computer virus, an elite few with incalculable influence have chosen at some previous stage of our cultural debacle to settle back, lace their fingers, and let the worm run through the system. I can’t name a single one of them, and I can’t see their shadow… but I feel it, cold over my shoulder. I wonder if they begin to comprehend what a deep place in Hell they’ve reserved for their souls by making this bid to “bail out” civilization?