From a world perspective, the war between Russia and the Ukraine is the most significant challenge to the US technocratic class and their junior partners in Europe – because it represents a direct challenge to Washington’s hegemony in Europe. Hence the extent which hysteria against Russia and for the US puppet regime in Kiev drives coverage of the event on both sides of the aisle.

The roots of the conflict originate in the US backed Euromaidan coup against Ukranian prime minister Yanukovych for entering a trade agreement with Russia, a move which had the legal authority to do, but which the US and the EU took objection to. This coup was itself a rerun of the 2005 “Orange Revolution” which was likewise engineered against a government that was too friendly with Russia for Washington’s taste.

Yanukovych’s government is challenged by US backed dissidents. Unrest reaches a point where the government agrees, as part of is peace terms with these dissidents, that the prime minister will resign and early elections will be called. No sooner does the ink dry than this ruling clique tears up the agreement, ousts the president of the Ukraine and drives him into exile. A government of this nature could not be trusted to respect Russia treaty rights to access to Sevastopol or Crimea’s constitutionally guaranteed autonomy, so upon the vote of the Crimean parliament to secede, Russian troops move to secure the area. The population of the eastern areas of the Ukraine rise in revolt, and again, in violation of its own constitution, the Ukraine sends the army in an unsuccessful attempt fight whom those whom the claim as their own citizens, slaughtering thousands.

The situation remained more or less unchanged until last February, when the Kremlin, for reasons still unknown to us, chose to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics and sent in troops to protect their autonomy. So the fighting continues until a peace treaty is declared and the new Russian-Ukranian borders are drawn. The establishment press portrays the invasion as “unprovoked” as if the Ukrainians were simply minding their own business when the Russians out of nowhere decided to attack. But this fuse been smoldering for many years, and is not about to go out any time soon. I take no pleasure in saying this, as the war is a zero-sum game for both Russia and the Ukraine as long as it lasts. But lasting peace is not going to come until Kiev agrees that a lasting peace has to be based on existing political realities, which are not those of thirty years ago. With a regime so implacably hostile to Russia, that prospect seems remote.

Far from being a return to the “normalcy” that so many in the chattering classes were anticipating, the past year since the departure of Trump from the White House has seen further decay of the political which that presidency threatened. The factors facilitating this trend are multifaceted.

The first factor, of course, was the figurehead chosen to fill the Presidency. After some squabbling among the major rivals, the Democratic Party establishment ultimately settled on a senile old guard politician who had not shown himself capable of putting two coherent sentences together when he gets off the teleprompter. Thus, he lacks initiative of his own; he is hollow inside and is filled with the contents of his environment. He operates under the directions of subordinates whose faces are rarely if ever shown to the public, the same ones that his predecessor constantly fought with. Though he acts under their direction, he necessarily does so in a clumsy manner.

Another issue is the rigidity of the political class, demanded by its ideology and sense of moral superiority. The savvy flexibility of, for example, the Clinton administration has departed from Washington. The state is now not only particular about what it will do, but how and when to do it, regardless of how that plays out according to the facts of the moment. Of course, Biden issued a flurry of executive orders upon taking office for seemingly no other purpose than undoing the policies of his predecessor, but most notable was his ham-fisted actions to open up the border. Of course, a showdown on immigration was inevitable, but to go into the fray so early and make such a mess on the border deeply harmed his political standing, and in some cases got him on the wrong side of the courts. However, he had no choice. His handlers regarded Trump’s immigration policies to be such an abomination morally that they couldn’t be let alone for one day after he left office. They couldn’t help themselves. This is their great weakness – once one sees the patterns, their behavior is entirely predictable. They simply cannot help themselves.

Ultimately, with an inability to adapt to the objective realities of the political lands comes an inability to read, and hence to influence, public opinion. We observe this in both political candidates and media outlets continuing to press forward in matters that are sinking them politically. It’s a bit of a puzzle as to whether they have really misread public opinion so badly or they just don’t care about it. The sense seems to be that their moral rightness assures their political success. The old Christian Right of the 1980’s and 1990’s could have told them how well that worked out.

It goes to show, then, that what promised to be a time of normalcy has in fact become a time of great weirdness. Statements and policies put out are not merely wrong, they make no sense if taken at face value. It shows a genuine political weakness, which is a hopeful sign where people of this mentality are concerned. Unfortunately, it also shown a widespread systemic insanity.

2020 has shown itself to be the most turbulent year since 1968, for seemingly diverse reasons that all have a common underlying factor. The viral epidemic originating in Wuhan, China. The resulting lockdowns which have in turn resulted in an economic crash. The civil unrest in the cities and states feeble, or lack of response to them.

The rapid spread of the coronavirus around the world following the Chinese New Year was due in large part to the lack of any efforts on the part of Peking to contain the virus within the country. A globalized world economy with so many of the supply lines beginning in China had already set the stage for rapid transmission of the infection. For precisely the same reason, so many prominent figures ran interference for China, ever determined to play down the virus’s origin. It was declared “racist” to suggest that the virus originate in the county or city that it did in fact originate.

The ensuing lockdown that most countries put in place were purportedly for the purpose of slowing the spread of the infection. The notion behind this was to “flatten the curve”, that is to say to ensure that everybody doesn’t get sick all at once and overwhelm the hospitals. After the number of new cases fell and the curve was flattened, however, the rationale changed. That is, if it can be said to be called a rationale at all. It took a hysterical tone that if the economy were opened up again, everybody would die. Those who question the effectiveness of the lockdowns were met the with the sort of moral condemnation that the technocracy typically hurls towards those who disagree with it. Because they did not control the presidency, however, in the US they were only able to keep the lockdowns in place in the areas of the country where they had a firm grip on the state governments.

Later that year, under the pretense of protesting police misconduct, cities cross the US were allowed to burn while police were ordered to stand down. This wasn’t new; it had occurred in a number of different cities sporadically during the later years of the Obama administration. But in those case it was localized where incidents with the police occurred. This year it occurred simultaneously in cities across the country, and in some cases the mobs mobilizing for weeks or months. While the police are typically absent in the the face of these riots, they are able to arrest and prosecute citizens who defend themselves against the mobs.

Superficially, we see the government reacting in diametrically opposite ways in these two situations. In reality these two actions serve the same purpose – the suppression of the middle class. Small business have a measure of economic independence, and provided unwanted competition for, the major companies that are in league with the ruling class. Major corporations, due to their financial resources, are far more resilient than small businesses in the face of these artificial disasters. This is why these BLM rallies are never criticized for potentially spearing the virus.

These factors along with increased efforts by major companies to remove any speech from their platforms that contradicts their decided political line, is an effort by the managerial class to stifle political dissent that in earlier years they would have tolerated, because it was not then seen as a threat. This is the soft totalitarianism manifesting itself beyond isolate cases into general policy. It is more based on feminine relational aggression than the masculine physical aggression employed by the totalitarianism of old, but no less a smothering of the people’s liberty.

During the interwar period, the increased sophistication of industrial economies led to the replacement of the original capitalist class that led the Industrial Revolution by the managerial class.  The particulars as to how these class revolutions came about varied from country to county, but in terms of class power the result was the same in each.

As aptly explained in George Orwell’s 1984:

“The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards.”

This fundamental change in the class nature of governments occurred not only in the what were called the totalitarian states, but also the Western democracies.  As those class interests became more entrenched, the state institutions became more and more structured around them.  This applied not only to established political parties and the elected officials that represented them, but just as much to the appointed bureaucracies, the judiciary, academia, and the press.

Since those in these positions tended to retain them, regardless of the outcome of elections, they could wield political influence that was unaccountable to popular vote.  This influence was most readily apparent in the judiciary, from the time of the Warren court onward, to invalidate laws and political initiative that the managerial class opposed.  Until recently, the press had managed to manipulate public opinion to prevent existential challenges from materializing.  In the fateful year of 2016, however, two shockwaves appeared that the establishment could not ignore – Brexit and the election of Trump to the presidency.

It is one of history’s great ironies that the grip of the technocracy began to slip precisely where it seemed to be most firmly entrenched.  However, years of relentless campaigning on the issue of EU membership by UKIP, and to a lesser extent, the BNP, compelled Prime Minister David Cameron to promise a referendum on the matter if he were elected.  The polls were predicting another hung Parliament and a continuation of the Conservative Party’s coalition with the strongly pro-EU Liberal Democrats, which would never have agreed to such a referendum.  Cameron, however, became a victim of his own success.  The Conservatives over-performed the polls and won an absolute majority.  He was left without an excuse to keep his promise.  No matter, he never expected the British people would actually vote to leave…

The British political class did not take results well at all.  They began to articulate an open contempt for public opinion not seen in the country since Victorian times.  Westminster’s half-hearted negotiating and Brussels’ refusal to compromise, have after over three years failed to produce a deal, and because Parliament refuses to leave without one, Brexit has been postponed multiple times.  With the anti-Brexit MPs expelled from the Conservative Party, and yesterday’s parliamentary elections securing the Tories an absolute majority, there seems to be little means of stopping Brexit now.  But the cat is out of the bag.  The technocrats are naked, and have exposed themselves for who they are.

Across the Atlantic, in the belly of the technocratic beast, the results proved even more dramatic.  We all remember the public reaction of the prominent media personalities in the United States after the results of the last presidential election.  The thousands taking to the streets, even rioting, to protest – the election results.  There was talk of his impeachment before the President was even inaugurated.  It was not simply a matter of Trump being in the White House – the results of the elections were unacceptable and a systematic effort was undertaken to delegitimize them.

As a result, Trump’s presidency was hamstrung from the beginning.  He faced an uncooperative Congress and a hostile federal judiciary, but those are challenges have been faced by many presidents before him.  What is unprecedented is a federal bureaucracy, or “deep state” determined to sabotage his policies at every turn, often simply disregarding his directives.

The efforts to remove Trump from office, starting with the Mueller investigation and culminating in the current impeachment hearings, are indicative of growing discontent with the ruling managerial class.  That the President is up for reelection next year does not matter, possibly owing to a lack of confidence in the ability to defeat him at the polls, but as last time, Trump’s reelection does not seem to be prospect they are willing to entertain.  What it most likely comes down to is the view that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, she shouldn’t have lost, and that’s a wrong that needs to be righted.  If they can’t erase the last three years of history, at least they can blacken them with whatever charges they can throw at sitting president from that time.  They will not respond the concerns of the voters who elected him – to change strategy at all would be tantamount to admitting that Trump beat Clinton fair and square.  So they rage, and the mask is falls off as any pretense of neutrality vanishes.  Trump has simply broken their brains.

This month the President announced the withdrawal of US troops from Syria and a significant reduction in US troop levels in Afghanistan.  From a military angle, this is hardly news; there will be little effect on battlefield.  Politically, on the other hand, it is a significant turning point indeed.  The government is finally responding to public opinion’s distaste for perpetual imperial adventure.

This process really began with the failure – if an operation without any concrete aim can even be said to be a failure – of the Bush administration’s occupation of Iraq.  Public opinion began to turn against that war as early as 2006, as evidenced by the results of the midterm elections.  This shift in public opinion was bolstered by the election of a President who based his campaign on a promise withdraw US troops from foreign entanglements – in three consecutive presidential elections.

While Obama can be credited for keeping to the withdrawal schedule agreed to by Bush in his lame duck term – I have grave doubts that McCain would have done so, his administration was plagued by tremendous political inertia in over Afghanistan.  During the entire eight years of his presidency, he was never able to find an appropriate time to leave, largely due his listening to deep state advisers who kept telling him “now is not the time”, and so the time never came.  Worse still, he was sold on intervention in Syria, an intervention without even the pretense of congressional authorization.

For a time it seemed that Trump would follow the same path.  He even went as far as to authorize attacks on Syrian government forces which could not be classified as anything other than naked aggression.  For reasons not fully understood at this time, which may prove to be rather personal, Trump has followed his instincts that were correct all along, rather than the deep state operatives who call themselves experts and begin withdrawal, winding down the overseas deployments that have worn the country down.

Such is a long overdue step away the post-World War II Pax Americana mission of the United States and toward a more multipolar world order.  Nowhere is this trend more evident than in the reaction of the political class of the US.  It is being pillored as a win for Russia, Iran the Syrian government and all those political players that are supposedly enemies of America, but in reality only enemies of the hegemonist agenda of Washington.  Syrian intervention was sold to the American people as a fight against ISIS and not as a proxy was against Russia and Iran, but now Washington is admitting that’s what it really was.  Paradoxically, it is being called a victory for ISIS, even though the three aforementioned powers all fought against ISIS.  There are lamentations about the supposed betrayal of our Kurdish allies to Turkey, whose government allegedly intends to exterminate the Kurds.  The fact that Turkey, as a member of NATO, actually is a US ally is conveniently overlooked.

It is too soon to say how fast this trend will move, but we see finally the US backing of from its self-appointed role as the world exporter of liberalism.

The new government in Italy, a coalition two populist parties with a considerable degree of ideological convergence, has been a the major story in Europe today, and a major focus of attention for those not completely distracted by the latest doings of the Donald.  There was turbulence from the beginning, most notably from the Italian president rejecting a proposed finance minster simply because he was an opponent of the single currency.  Especially ironic considering hostility toward the EU was one of the few things the two ruling parties shared in common.

Most notable, however, was the new stance on immigration.  Under Matteo Salvini, leader of the Northern League and now interior minister and deputy prime minister.  He has formally closed Italian ports to the African boat people who have thrown themselves out into the Mediterranean in overloaded and unseaworthy vessels for so many years.  It was never anything more than a question of having the political will, and it has finally happened.  A Trump, rather than a Clinton or Bush administration, has ensured the absence of US pressure to let them in.

Ultimately, they ended up docking in Spain, a country where such sanity has yet to take root.  The significance of what we are seeing, however, is a major Western European country asserting the sovereignty of its borders, which is historically as significant as Brexit.

It was 500 years ago this day that a German theologian named Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg cathedral. This event kicked off the process that opened the Scriptures to the faithful of the church, and the preaching of the Gospel to Europe. The Bible, the cornerstone of the faith, which had previously been kept from the people, a light hidden under a bushel (Matt 5:15) was made available to all. From this light was revealed the truth that the Christian was not what he was because of what he had done for the faith, but by the state of his soul – what the Lord had done for him.

The time of this great Reformation was the time of the West’s greatest cultural generativity, and that was true on the spiritual plane as well, indeed especially there.

Sola Scriptura!
Sola Fide!
Sola Gratia!
Solo Christo!
Soli Deo Gloria!