The past couple of weeks have been a bumpy ride for 'The Cathedral' - a term coined by Curtis Yarvin to describe the unholy alliance between the mainstream press, academia and the bureaucratic institutions of the State - in essence the Progressive Establishment acting in concert with each other to dictate the narrative of the day.
For far too long, The Cathedral has been slyly nudging the masses towards its vision of establishing a "thinly veiled fundamentalist religion dedicated to egalitarian principles intent on totalitarian world domination via globalist hegemony" as Michael Malice very brilliantly puts it in his seminal work 'The New Right'.
This form of totalitarianism is a very different kind of totalitarianism that we are customarily accustomed to seeing and hearing about - the kind of brute force totalitarianism that was commonplace in the 20th century. No. This kind of totalitarianism is far more deceptive and insidious. Instead of utilizing heavy-handed tactics to subjugate the masses, The Cathedral uses academic institutions and the corporate press to bend the minds of its subjects.
Curtis Yarvin expands on this in an ongoing series of essays that he has put out titled 'The Clear Pill', and in Part 2, he provides a clear explanation on his theory of "distributed despotism" - the term he uses to describe the kind of totalitarianism we see today:
"One regime bans newspapers it doesn’t like; another subsidizes newspapers it does like. One represses thought; another seduces thought. The former is uglier; the latter, more deceptive. The outcome is the same: every thought that can serve power does."
The Cathedral believes itself to be a mighty Cthulu-like entity far too powerful to be challenged or opposed since it operates in the shadows. If you don't tow the line and agree with the narrative put forward, you are a bigot, racist, white supremacist, or a "deplorable". You aren't allowed to think for yourself, in other words. Just recently, a rapper who calls himself YG admonished a fan and kicked him out of his concert for refusing to insult Trump. This is the world we live in today. Media personalities, celebrities, Hollywood stars, news reporters, and even professors, have become unwitting agents of the intelligentsia and help to stamp out any form of dissent. Character assassination is the new modus operandi; no longer the literal assassination of the past.
Fortunately, we have been seeing immense pushback against The Cathedral's skulduggery. In 2016, we saw Trump win the presidential election as well as the people of the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union in the Brexit referendum. These events fundamentally changed the landscape of politics across the globe. To further add salt to the wound, Jair Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil early this year, and a resurgence of successful Nationalist-leaning parties have popped up all over Europe to threaten the globalist agenda.
These events are indicative of a collective unrest brewing against the diktats of the Progressive Establishment. The Cathedral is starting to collapse under its own weight. It sees an ever-growing opposition to its machinations today, borne out of contempt for its "lofty" lecturing from the "moral" high ground it assumes to have.
This pushback hasn't waned in recent times. The Cathedral was dealt a humiliating blow last week when the Tories under Boris Johnson won with a landslide majority of 80 seats. The last time the Conservative Party won these many seats was under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.
I wrote in July when Boris Johnson became the leader of the Tories and Prime Minister that the fundamental question facing him as PM then was "To be or to do"
I stated in particular:
"... BoJo needs to call for a General Election if he wants to solidify a hold on the policies that he wishes to implement in the coming months. This begs the question: if BoJo were to really be self-serving and more engrossed in the limelight that comes along with being Prime Minister, he wouldn't be putting himself in this risky position where he could potentially lose his job in the coming months and looking terrible as a result would he?"
It turned out that Boris Johnson did call for a General Election, and thus answered the question above by becoming the "To do" Prime Minister.
As Augustus Howard, a research associate candidate from the University of Cambridge puts it:
"When Theresa May called the election of 2017, she did so from a position of relative strength. She had a working majority. No Brexit deal had yet been brought before Parliament, much less rejected. To many, her gambit seemed overly opportunistic; the Conservatives went on to lose their majority government. Johnson, however, appeared honorable by placing the position he so coveted on the line so quickly after attaining it. His call for an election seemed like a breath of fresh air. It was an act that instilled trust between leader and people."
Johnson was greatly rewarded for this, and this clearly shows us one thing - the individuals that The Cathedral tells to shun or to deride seem to be much more courageous, open and honest than the candidates they are trying to put into positions of power.
Jo Swinson, leader of the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps the most ardent Anti-Brexit voice that ran for the GE lost her seat. Jeremy Corbyn, an avowed Marxist, announced his intention to resign after the Labour party delivered one of their poorest showings in recent history.
I wrote in 2016 that even large segments of Labour supporters and the working class wanted Brexit to happen. This was fundamentally evident in how the Election panned out. As Sydney barrister Gray Connolly puts it:
"The result of December 12’s electoral rebellion is the Tories have breached the northern ‘Red Wall’ and captured seats in northern Wales and England that have, before now, never, or almost never, been represented other than by Labour. This was not just an election but a rebellion against a political establishment that had spent over three years trying to deny the Brexit that 17.4m Britons (of all classes and backgrounds) had supported with their votes."
Even Jeremy Corbyn was initially in favour of Brexit, but perhaps riding high on support from The Cathedral - he caved, sold his soul to the establishment, and ran as a candidate without any actual plans on how to deal with the Brexit fiasco. The Labour party thus became the "Remain" party in deed if not in word. Nothing would have been certain if Corbyn had been given the keys to No. 10, and the majority of the Brits were sick of more uncertainty looming over their heads, and thus voted for clearer plans that were promulgated by the Conservative party. Aside from Labour refusing to accede to the will of the people with regards to Brexit, Labour also alienated the working-class electorate by embracing SJW "wokeness" with Jeremy Corbyn declaring his preferred gender pronouns on Television. I don't imagine affable and hard-working construction workers to feel affected by such issues when they are more concerned with more pressing and immediate problems in their lives.
Now that the Tories have formed a majority government, Boris Johnson is able to steer the country towards actually leaving the EU. In fact, he has already taken steps to ensure that The Cathedral doesn't obstruct his plans by outlawing any more delay/extension to the January 31st deadline to leave the clutches of the European Union.
This is being celebrated by the silent majority - an increasing number of people fed up of being told they made the wrong choice on matters of public policy.
With regards to the UK General Election results, Michael Malice captured the situation beautifully on Twitter:
The Cathedral believed that the Brits didn't know what they were voting for when it came to Brexit, and that three years of training would force them to change their mind
— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) December 14, 2019
The unambiguous repudiation of this hypothesis is severely jarring because it speaks to a newfound impotence
Despite the repudiation of The Cathedral's ideological machinations by the masses being loud and clear, The Cathedral is unwilling to accept defeat - even when they lose through fair and democratic means. When they don't get their way, they try to subvert democracy or the will of the people by resorting to underhanded tactics. It's either Russiagate, or Fake News, or whatever it is they are willing to hammer out, so that they can avoid accountability and responsibility at all costs, and more importantly also because they are incapable of accepting that they can ever be wrong.
Across the pond in the United States - we see the exact same thing happening.
Just yesterday, President Donald Trump became the third president in the history of United States of America to be impeached. The House of Representatives (Democrat controlled) voted to charge Trump on two counts - one of 'Abuse of Power' and the other of 'Obstructing Congress' with a vote of 230-197 for the former, and 229-198 for the latter.
However, I'm not entirely sure what the Democrats hope to gain from this, because while impeachment proceedings begin in the House, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States of America Constitution grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments". Therefore, while the House can begin impeachment proceedings, it needs the Senate's support for these proceedings to actually get anywhere. With the Senate still controlled by the Republicans, this is extremely unlikely, and the Senate is most likely to acquit Trump.
Furthermore, the impeachment is based on completely bogus charges:
Initially, impeachment proceedings were supposed to revolve around Trump colluding with the Russians. $32 million later, the Mueller Investigation turned up zero evidence that Trump was complicit in any such collusion.
So then, the Democrats had to fall back on something. They got their hands on a whistleblower report of Trump asking Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate Joe Biden for abusing his position of power as Vice President of the United States during his tenure, or else aid would be held up.
The House of Representatives' charge under Article 1 regarding the Abuse of Power states:
"Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage."
The charge also hinges on the allegation that there was a "quid pro quo" arrangement. The argument put forward by Trump's persecutors is that Trump had threatened to withhold aid unless Zelensky investigated Biden.
Apart from the fact that Zelensky has denied the existence of a "quid pro quo" arrangement, the transcript involving the call between Trump and Zelensky mentions nothing about any sort of aid being held up. So what do they fall back on? Arguments that completely lack substance such as the "extreme likelihood" of knowing that aid was going to be held up.
Furthermore, Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden for engineering the firing of Prosecutor General then, Viktor Shokin, as he [Shokin] was investigating Burisma Holdings, a company that was mired in money laundering and corruption allegations in which Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a director of. Joe Biden had apparently threatened to withhold $1 billion in financial aid if Shokin was not fired. This is a serious allegation of bribery that ought to be investigated irrespective of politics.
As Commander in Chief, President Trump is also entitled to uphold truth and justice in all matters related to the nation. That he has been stripped of this right is ludicrous.
Anyone can recognize this is a partisan hit job. Not just Republicans, but also Democrats.
Democratic nominee for 2020, Tulsi Gabbard, asserted that this is a partisan ploy to oust the President and refused to vote "Yes" on the matter of impeachment, instead choosing to vote "Present".
While she is personally of the view that Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, she also stated:
"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,"
Perhaps the Democrats are under the erroneous belief that by launching impeachment proceedings against the President, this would hurt his reputation and affect his 2020 reelection chances. If this is what they think is going to happen, they've got another thing coming.
As this RT op-ed brilliantly states: Trump is going to come back stronger than ever. In fact, Trump's favourability rating has gone up by 6% according to a recent Gallup poll. The probability of winning reelection in 2020 has thus increased due to what many perceive to be a blatant and outright attempt to subvert democracy. Support for Trump's impeachment & removal has also gone from 52% to 46% according to CNN. It is fairly obvious, then, that majority of Americans are not in favour of Donald Trump being impeached.
This is only going to blow up in their faces - especially since the Republicans in the Senate have the ability to call their own witnesses *cough* Hunter Biden *cough*.
It seems that the Democrats are wary of this which is why Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to have any immediate plans to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Will there be a delay? Only time will tell. This chicanery on the other hand is further indication that the Progressive Establishment/The Cathedral has become desperate in their attempts to thwart Trump's reelection in 2020. They are stonewalling and resorting to all sorts of dirty tricks to get their way, and it's all going to come back and bite them in time to come.
