Extending the analogy, what do the authorities do when they apprehend, say, a local gang member with known connections to the Mexican Mafia? They will try to induce him to turn state's evidence on criminals higher up the chain.
Too bad we can't do that with street-level progressives. It's not that they won't cooperate. It's just that they don't even know there's a hierarchy, and that they're being manipulated by a kingpin such as George Soros. These local pushers peddle his drugs without even knowing they're drugs or where they came from.
The even bigger question is, who is Soros' provider? Likewise academia: where are you getting your stuff?! Who's the supplier?!
But in the psycho-pneumatic world, this is like asking "what is your principle?" That is, what is the nonlocal principle from which you derive your criminal ideology? What makes you, Senator Warren, think you can use the power of the state to prosecute people with whom you disagree? From what principle do you draw the conclusion that we ought to defer to a mentally ill child in selecting a Secretary of Education?
We are entirely forthright about our ultimate principle; our penultimate principle is personhood, which is in turn grounded in the Trinity. Everything else is anchored in, or flows from, this principle. Certainly nothing may contradict it. To the extent something does (e.g., materialism, positivism, Marxism, logical atomism, et al), then we deem it untrue. To the extent that this untruth digs in its heels and persists, it takes on the contours of the Lie. It begins to look suspiciously diabolical.
Now, since our ultimate principle is personal -- an I AM -- we believe the ultimate anti-principle must also be a Who. Recall what John says of this personal anti-principle: he is a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Note how all the emboldened words are either personal pronouns or nouns that can only apply to persons (only persons can lie or murder).
Could this be true, Bob, or are you just being poetic?
No, we're being quite literal here. There is a -- the -- meta-cosmic person. Of this we are certain. Now, if you insist there isn't, this has no effect on his existence. It will, however, affect the mode of his existence in you. In this mode, denial of God becomes the affirmation of an anti-God. Importantly, this is not to set up a duality, since the anti-principle isn't any kind of equivalent power. Rather, it is wholly reactionary, always parasitic on the truth it denies (and implicitly knows).
Perhaps you watched some of the impeachment farce this week. If you did, you will have noticed how *skilled* is Adam Schiff in anchoring his attacks on the Constitution in fidelity to it. More generally, how can the left spend the last century attacking, undermining, and eroding the Constitution, only to spend the last week pretending to revere and defend it? The hypocrisy is breathtaking, in the sense that convulsive vomiting can leave one slightly breathless.
Sure, I'd like to arrest Schiff on charges of treason. But I have no interest per se in this bug-eyed lunatic, nor in his lowlife accomplices such as Nadler, Pelosi, or Schumer. I want, Mr. Big, the one who's really calling the shots.
However, as much as Dupree would like to conduct enhanced interrogation on these knaves, I don't think it would work, again, because they passionately believe the Lie, and have no idea as to its provenance. Solway:
The left will deploy an armamentarium of outright lies, dodgy statistics, and obscurantist dogma.... Of course, when any leftist spokesman is caught in a flagrant lie, the default position is to claim that the lie tells a greater truth. How often have we heard this canard? For the left, the lie has become a vestibule to the truth -- its truth.
Note that if they say something that happens to be true, they don't say it because it is true; conversely, if and when they lie, they do so because it reveals a Greater Truth. Likewise, if they defend the Constitution, they don't do so because they actually believe in it, or they would be the first to denounce people who wish to deny our natural rights protected by the first and second amendments, or who want to give special privileges to certain races, or who wish to abuse it to redefine natural institutions such as marriage.
And when they attack the Constitution, it is for a Deeper Truth. This attack began (at least explicitly) with Woodrow Wilson, who
"derided what he referred to as the 'Newtonian' underpinning of the Constitution.... Disputing the applicability of fixed laws (other than his own) to History, Wilson wound up opposing the concepts of limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances."
To quote myself, Wilson argued that
it was absurd to suggest that the Founders were dealing with universal truths and natural rights. Rather, they were just creatures of their times. We -- meaning state officials armed with Ivy League degrees and good intentions -- needed to toss aside the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, if we really wanted to get things done.
For Wilson, the separation of powers prevented the state from doing what it needed to do for your benefit, you ungrateful peasant. As he said, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface" -- you know, all that abstract stuff about life, liberty, and natural rights conferred by the Creator instead of the almighty state.
Speaking of the personal nature of things, Bob writes of
Madison's gag about how government -- or, let's say "political science" -- is "the greatest of all reflections on human nature." The reason this is so is that if we don't get human nature right, then our political system will be either stillborn or monstrous; and if we don't get our political system right, then it will produce stillborn or monstrous humans.
A bug-eyed monster tried to take out my president, and all I got is this lousy t-shirt.