Some time ago a member of the Pentagon produced an article calling on CLOACA scholars (critical of the law of armed combat academy) within the specialization of the law of armed combat to be considered enemies given the assistance their activism provides for Jihadist. There is apparently a further paper regarding a coup which I have not been able to locate. I have read the article Traison des Professeurs, and I can only say that it is completely confused. His conclusion is correct, and a large number of the trends and groups he notes are correct, but the manner in which his entire posture is directed to defending the perversity and degeneracy of western society makes his entire analysis schizophrenic.
Bradford declares quite pointedly that “Islamists are winning because of CLOACA”(1) and that ““Guerrillas-with-tenure” claim the country must be defeated to eradicate racism, colonialism, militarism, Zionism, and capitalism.”(2) Further, Bradford makes a very strong criticism of the university system declaring:
“Liberals have staked out the academy as the prime site of cognitive transformation. Over the last half-century, universities, once “protectors of reasoned discourse” where “scholars [worked] in sylvan tranquility” to generate knowledge and develop critical thinking, have morphed into “hotbeds of radical[ism]” marked by “an aberrational form of political correctness [and] the abandonment of reliance on facts, common sense, and logic.” Social change, not rigorous search for truth, is the lodestar for academics dedicated to inculcating “correct” views. Leftist scholars do not cavil from “censor[ship] in the name of higher moralities” or excommuniting heretical students and faculty; those failing to address “appropriate” issues, ask proper questions, and reach approved conclusions have difficulty entering and remaining in the academy. In no field is this more deliberately orchestrated than law.” (3)
On the issue of law, Bradford is exceptional, yet due to his immersion in the liberal tradition he appears unable to escape the problem inherent in trying to uphold it, which comes through strongly when he observes the perniciousness of “jurisphillia”:
“Yet a rip current of “jurisphilia” holding law in fetishistic adoration and venerating it not as means but as goodness incarnate runs through the legal profession. Jurisphiles are disinterested in the consequences of law but “enchant[ed]” by a vision of it as an expression of “morality,” “virtue,” and “love . . . reflect[ing] God’s glory, will, and cosmic order.”The jurisphile sacralizes law and believes being legal is being right—period. Jurisphilia so pervades the legal academy that many scholars define morality as “a matter of following rules” and immorality as rule-deviation—however minor or necessary. CLOACA, “stand[ing] tall for the rule of law,” spies the sin of de-legalization in every method or means implicating LOAC. It scoffs when branded “pro-terrorist” yet issues gales of protest over U.S. detention, interrogation, targeting, and prosecution policies, convinced it is a faithful servant of LOAC, battling apostates for its restoration. If “the most powerful weapon against terrorists is our commitment to the rule of law,” and if the policies and personnel who design and implement them are antithetical to this commitment, it is clear why CLOACA fixates on these policies and personnel as the primary threats to the nation.(4)
This is furthered as he observes:
“The antidemocratic arrogance of the legal profession manifests not only in seizing exclusive power to “say what the law is” but also in a gambit to parlay procedural knowledge and technical superiority in making and interpreting rules into dominance over all U.S. institutions, organizations, and professions. Lawyers are “jack[s]-of-all-trades”” without non-legal experience or knowledge, yet because “[n]obody . . . knows where ‘law’ begins and ends,” every field of human endeavor and social development presents them an opportunity for aggrandizement. Having arrogated to themselves legal exclusivity, lawyers are indispensable agents within every discipline by virtue of their unique skill in protecting and promoting the legal interests of non-legal institutions, and this translates into power, prestige, and recompense in every field. Social dominance of lawyers, although a reinforcement to the rule of law, comes at a cost…. [the lawyers] Egos stroked by Supreme Court dictum frocking them as the “priests of our democracy” responsible for “mak[ing] responsible citizens,”(5) (my highlighting)
This characteristic of democracy being a paradise for lawyers was noted long ago by Tocqueville in his ‘Democracy in America’ as noted by Bradford (9), although unlike in Tocqueville’s time, the legal profession’s flouting of the will of the people is not to temper it, but to push matters into complete Sodom and Gomorah collapse. The popularity of lawyers in Tocqueville’s American compared their unpopularity now is also something worthy of note. (6)
Given the position of the legal profession in democracy, they are able to act with complete lack of care for the whole. In fact, as with all areas of the educational-media- civil service complex, the legal system is characterized by a reward system for attacking society for personal gain in reputation and influence and no requirement to take into account the ultimate consequences. This pattern of behavior is pretty much constant in leftism, liberalism and modernity. This makes Bradford’s observations on page 411 very accurate:
“CLOACA is just a domestic interest group attempting to leverage expertise and social capital to influence the policies that govern the war against Islamism. Yet because it can offer its condemnations with absolute immunity— legal, political, and reputational—CLOACA is free to exercise influence in a manner that too often imposes costs in American blood and treasure.”(7)
Bradford even makes the excellent and clear comparison of the manner in which the legal profession is operating in a similar to the way in which liberal-progressive aspects of society operated on a pro-Vietnam basis during the Vietnam war – but fails to establish why they operate as such. The constant framing of the liberal-progressive establishment as useful idiots and stooges does nothing to help his argument, as in reality they are not. Many of the progressives either really believe they are doing Gods work, or else do not care and are just acting in accordance to how society has laid out you should act to be successful. Humans after all are mimicking creatures and the vast majority are very poor at reasoning and do not possess the ability to act in an enlightened manner, however Bradford’s entire philosophical underpinning (being liberal) rejects this. Everything about the modern liberal right is utterly flawed and contradictory. Any connection to reality being an unprincipled exception based on common sense that must be evacuated by them as soon as it is approached by the left. Bradford seems to be screeching against the walls imposed by his liberal tradition, which results in him making clearly contradictory assertions such as “Those who gainsaid the detainee innocence and attorney heroism narrative were heretics against the U.S. rule-of-law religion”(8) followed by “The Western political tradition whereby the will of the demos translates more or less directly into the laws that govern it is under assault.”(10) – so which is it? Is rule of law a religious like adherence to rule by lawyers? Or is it a emanation of the “demos”? and when Bradford makes the assertion that “…if in time “the press and the public come to see the[m][CLOACA] as essentially no different from—except, perhaps, a little bit less honest than—Karl Rove and Jim Carville, [they] will come to regard [CLOACA] not as educators but . . . as . . . political operatives.” (12) the question must be asked – how is this to happen? Especially as he earlier in the essay singles out the GMAC.
Bradford is not stupid, and he obviously sees the manner in which American society is quite frankly in open conflict. The Red State (military/ middle America) is being attacked by the Blue State (GMAC, State Dept,) by what he labels the clerisy. The comparisons to Moldbug’s cathedral structure are not hard to discern in the GMAC ““government-media-academic complex” (“GMAC”) of public officials, media, and academics who mould mass opinion on legal and security issues” (11) this conception seemingly influenced by this article in the American Thinker. But what Bradford fails to fully grasp is the pernicious nature of the high-low battle that is being fought. He can spot it in action, but he cannot explain it. So while he may spot that the GMAC is built on Issue-entrepreneurship (13) with the “discovery of human rights [being] a growth industry”(14) and “That their “humanitarian politics” is not law but aggressive normative entrepreneurship directed against the integrity of the LOAC regime, state ownership of LOAC, and the prospects for Western victory over Islamism does not dissuade them from claiming theirs as the most authoritative interpretation of LOAC.”(15) he cannot really explain what is going on. That he cannot really explain it is demonstrated by section IV C, titled “Declare a Domestic Truce”(16) (as part of a chapter on neutralizing the fifth column of the clericy.)
Bradford’s proposition in section IV C is to literally declare a truce, the whole thing deserves reading:
“Americans must declare a truce insofar as those issues which destroy unity of purpose and introduce doubts as to their right and duty of self-defense. While such a truce does not imply agreement as to all moral and political disputes, it withdraws issues bearing on national survivability from the political arena. Absent American victory, arguments over lesser-order “social” or distributional issues of gay marriage, abortion, and the welfare state are moot. The Greatest Generation knew that a Nazi victory would radically remake post-war America in the image of the enemy, and thus in that total war domestic opposition to war entry, aims, and conduct shrank to the vanishing point. Political leaders rallied the people to fight and win, and the military “ran the war . . . the way the . . . people . . . wanted it run”—with precious few restraints. So, too, would Islamist victory supplant our way-of-life and impose Shari’a-based prescriptions inimical to the entire Left-Right spectrum, and so, too, must Americans cohere against this outcome. Admittedly, this truce will resolve, for the duration of this war, arguments over how to balance security and liberty in favor of security. While such a truce might be too much to ask were it broadened to include a general moral agreement as to what is “right and wrong,” confined to this set of issues it is not only reasonable but necessary, for it is not the external enemy but the Leftist proclivity to “impose liberal solutions in military affairs . . . [that] constitute[s] the gravest domestic threat to American security” and which can only be relieved “by the weakening of the security threat or the weakening of liberalism.”Because the Left sees the military as a danger to liberty, democracy, and peace, and because only the military and a militarized civil society can defeat the Islamist threat, the hostility of the Left to the means and methods of total war, as well as to the steps necessary to promote unity, moral certainty, and will to fight, must be attenuated. Recalling the nature of the United States as a rule-oflaw republic, and the effect on domestic political will of CLOACA assertions that the United States has been fighting an unlawful and unnecessary war with illegal methods and means, the critical issuearea that this truce, or internal compact, must resolve, or at the very least withdraw from cultural and political arenas, is LOAC. Three questions must be answered in ways that defend American political will, interdict and defeat Islamic attacks, and support the offensive battle against Islamism: (1) What does LOAC require and prohibit? What institution has primacy in creating, interpreting, and applying LOAC? And What are the roles, rights, and duties of LOACA in interpreting and applying LOAC?”(16)
The idea that a truce could be called with the GMAC/ CLOACA/ Liberal growth is to completely fail to understand the full scale of the problem. This cancerous growth is not able to reverse or engage in logical and organized action except in the destruction of order. This very destruction forming a spontaneous ordering point as noted with issue entrepreneurship. There is no one you can phone, petition or reason with to bring a “truce” into effect, and until that very simple premise is realized, the entire process will continue the plunge towards hell. The State Department and the entire GMAC/ Cathedral needs to be wiped from the Earth and the ground salted, anything short of this is a waste of time.
The Islamism- Progressive alliance is here to stay, and until the Red State understands that the high low tag team is inherent in Democracy, and accordingly alter their political understanding, they will continually to be fighting for the Blue State to turn their cities into black crime ridden hell holes as per Detroit, continue importing Muslim “refugees” to vote them in on a continual basis whilst covering up their crimes, and they will continue to attack and dismantle the military.
Bradford’s complaint that “Some may harbor concerns that this Article incites authoritarianism insofar as it counsels militarization, withdraws debates over the enemy from the political arena, vilifies those who fail to acknowledge a grave threat, punishes disloyalty, and takes up law as sword and shield to defend and destroy political will.” is wasted breath. Anything less then advocating for the most obscene left wing egalitarianism is now fascism, so what is the point in trying to dodge the bullet? No one is fooled. In addition, his assertion that “Slavish adherence to a dysfunctional rule-set is a suicide pact” fails to understand that this is the rule by law democracy he is advocating defending. (17)
(1) p433, William C. Bradford, Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column, 3 NAT’L SEC. L.J. 278 (2015).
(2) Ibid, p431
(3) Ibid, P425
(4) Ibid, P387-388
(5) Ibid, P407-408
(6) Chapter XVI , Democracy in America Chapter
(7) P411, William C. Bradford, Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column, 3 NAT’L SEC. L.J. 278 (2015).
(8) Ibid, P347-348
(9) Ibid, P299
(10) Ibid, P407
(11) Ibid, P294
(12) Ibid, P405
(13) Ibid, P394
(14) Ibid, P413
(15) Ibid, P414
(16) Ibid, P440
(17) Ibid, P457