Thank you, Your Grace!
It’s always nice when someone of such eminent ecclesiastical authority confirms from on high something which many of us long suspected: that the Establishment really just does not have a ‘tinker’s’ clue – and that that’s why we were so right to vote for Trump and Brexit.
If Welby had wanted to play a clever game, what he would have done in his speech to the General Synod is keep resolutely schtum about his position on contentious political matters.
Sure, many of us could have predicted where his politics probably lay: he is, after all, an Old Etonian and a former corporatist stooge (yes, oil industry – but most of them swing left, I’m afraid), evidently gifted with the emollience and the career-safe views which are the only way a churchman can climb up the greasy poll of the Church of England these days.
Writing in Bloomberg News today, Eli Lake comes to a similar conclusion and adds a good deal of background in a fine piece of reporting. Flynn, he concludes, was just the appetiser: the knives are now out for President Trump. The fake news media is in a feeding frenzy, including this attack on Kellyanne Conway and this bill of indictment of the Trump Administration from the Washington Post. Without full access to all of the facts one can’t evaluate the White House decision to let Flynn go, but the practical result of the decision will be to escalate attacks on the Trump White House, not reduce them. The Elitist Establishment, of the DNC, Beltway pundits and elements of the RNC, is a wounded beast fighting for its existence in the era of the ‘non-politician. This is a take-no-prisoners, no-quarter-asked-or-given war.
How come no-one is accusing NSA Director Michael Flynn of taking bribes from Turkey’s dictator Recep Erdogan? Not long ago, they did. Last November 18, Commentary Magazine’s Noah Rothman called Flynn a “dubious choice” for the National Security Council because his consulting company had a Turkish client, adding that Flynn’s views on Turkey raised a “conflict of interest.” Flynn had published an article in The Hill on Nov. 8 warning that America’s dalliance with the messianic Turkish Islamist and alleged coup plotter Fethullah Gulen might undermine the country’s relationship with NATO, at a time when Russia was giving Turkey the full-court press.
Progressive elites cling to their global brands against resurgent patriotism.
Those marching, rioting and denying free speech throughout the Western world see themselves as the revolutionary resistance to an oppressive establishment. They couldn’t be more mistaken, they are not revolutionaries, they are reactionaries.
The “resistance” is the outward manifestation of the ire of the progressive elites. Actors posturing at award ceremonies, billionaire internet entrepreneurs and investors, media moguls and business corporations; they are lashing out at the popular revolt against their rule and influence. The revolution has already happened, in June and November when the Brexit and Trump insurgents won. What we are witnessing is a reactionary counter-revolution.
Today’s protests are the reaction of an establishment which sees its power beginning to slip away and lashes out. The demographic most opposed to the people’s insurgency are the cultural elite who attempt to silence opposition and whip up their useful idiots by overwhelming media manipulation.
As Donald Trump’s new presidency surges across our politics, there is one element in his victory where most Australian politicians remain in ideological denial — the revolt against identity politics.
The Australian newspaper
During the Obama era the US underwent a cultural revolution. Fuelled by social activists on race, sex and gender issues and the decisive swing by younger people to social liberalism as a way of life, the Democratic Party embraced identity politics as a brand. It mirrored the values transformation that swept through many American institutions: the academy, media, arts, entertainment and much of the high income earning elite. But revolutions are only guaranteed to bring counter-revolutions in their wake.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In four respects, UNSCR 2334 undermines the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace and threatens what little regional stability is left. First, it could force Israel to fall back on its powerful legal position as the only existing legal inheritor of the British Mandate. Second, it compounds the error made by Obama’s transition team even before he came to power of ignoring a written commitment of a US president. Third, it has placed Sisi’s government in Egypt – a keystone of regional stability – in an untenable position. Fourth and most painfully, it will make it far more complicated – if not impossible – for the Palestinian leadership, enticed by the prospect of international coercion, to accept a reasonable compromise. The New Zealanders, do-gooders with a very dim understanding of what they have wrought, can be forgiven such folly. The Obama administration has no such excuses.
“Be careful what you wish for; you might get it” says the old adage, and sober elements among the Palestinian leadership may yet rue the day they managed to secure an American abstention leading to the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. The resolution condemns “settlement activity” anywhere, including East Jerusalem, and calls upon all members to distinguish in practice between Jews who live on one side of the Armistice Line of 1949 and those who live beyond it. It presumes to speak in the name of international law and to create the conditions for further progress towards peace in the interests of both Palestinians and “legitimate” Israelis. In fact, this poorly designed and atrociously timed diplomatic tool seems set to harm, if not entirely destroy, the very purposes it was designed to serve.