The Hubris Syndrome :: by Matt Ward

There is an intoxication that comes with power. History is replete with men and women who have fallen deep within its spell, sometimes with terrifying consequences.

The ancient Greeks recognized this phenomenon and developed the notion of “hubris” to account for it. Power has always been a potent drug and often in history it has led those wielding it, to become puffed up with pride and self-confidence. It has led those caught in its throes to commit horrors.

In more recent times psychologists have been able to establish and clinically identify the links between those who hold high office and certain forms of mental illness. Many individuals who come to hold very high office—especially for prolonged periods of time, seem to begin to exhibit patterns of behavior that indicate they are mentally ill.

Commentators and professionals who have studied this condition characterize those in its grip as being people who are highly narcissistic; men and women who view the world as their own private arena. To these individuals the world is a stage which exists primarily to glorify themselves and their own achievements.

They are individuals with a predisposition toward action that paints them in a favorable light, doing things specifically to enhance their image. These individuals are sometimes even messianic in the way they talk about themselves and in developed cases of hubris, these individuals seem to regard themselves and whatever they lead as one and the same.

As a result of this, these types of people talk about themselves in the third person or use “we” a lot when they really just mean them alone. Often they have an exaggerated self-belief that ultimately—history will vindicate them for their actions. Given enough time, they often lose contact with reality all together.

This “hubris syndrome” becomes more entrenched the longer these individuals cling to power. It is one of the great paradoxes of real power; that those who hold it often become entirely ill-suited to it over time.

Examples of hubris can certainly be found in politicians in every country and especially in a number of relatively recent U.S. presidents. It was plain stupidity, for example, that led Richard Nixon to order the Watergate break-ins, but it was hubris that led him to attempt a cover-up after the fact, and then think he would get away with it.

Ronald Reagan sending arms to Iran in order to secure the release of U.S. hostages, in direct contravention of U.S. law, wasn’t smart; it was hubris. Bill Clinton leaving his family upstairs in the Presidential Suite of the White House whilst he galloped downstairs to the Oval Office to conduct his sordid affairs with Monica Lewinski. That was immoral and plain stupid. What was sheer hubris was the notion that in the goldfish bowl of the Oval Office surrounded by so many people all of the time, he thought he would get away with it.

Barack Obama has displayed a breathtaking hubris during his eight years in power. He has been reckless, fickle and petulant. He has picked selectively which laws he would uphold, and which he would disregard, like deciding not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act.

Obama now effectively legislates from the Oval Office, often in direct defiance of congressional will. He even openly acknowledges and jokes about this “…I have a telephone and I have a pen…”

There have been many moments over the last eight years when even the more considered spectators stood back and wondered what really was going on in Obama’s mind. Like in 2013, shortly after the Boston marathon bombing, there was to be a moment’s silence to commemorate the tragic victims of the blast.

Except this presidential moment of silence would be different. Barack Obama would hold his minutes of silence at the White House, on his own, with no other White House staff present. (Except his official photographer who would capture the event for posterity.)

Obama has an almost messianic self-belief that ultimately history will vindicate him for his actions, embodied in statements such as, “I’m going to act because it’s the right thing for the country.” This particular quote related to allowing open door illegal immigration into the U.S.

On critical issues such as gun control, Obama is often heard stating that he is going to again “do the right thing for the country,” irrespective of the views of most American citizens. He is going to “do the right thing” because in his mind, he knows better than the people he is to represent.

America was originally founded as a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Yet Obama, as his presidency has progressed through a second term—has increasingly presumed an attitude where he alone has become the sole arbiter of what is “right” or “good,” not what the people think is right or good.

Obama is not a leader, he is a narcissistic controller, just like his protégé in November’s upcoming elections, Hillary Clinton. If ever there was person who displayed hubris in all its developed forms—it is Hillary Clinton. She is arrogant, narcissistic to an extreme, a habitual liar and someone who has been around the very top levels of power, in various forms—for nearly thirty years.

Many believe this constant access to power over such a long time has increasingly corrupted her, and even warped her sense of reality.

This is a person who used the horror of 9/11 to justify her links to Wall Street even though it is demonstrably clear that those ties go back much further than 2001. This is a woman who famously claimed in an interview that she had left the White House “dead broke” in 2001, when that could not be further from the truth.

Hillary Clinton has lied about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia in the 1990s, and about having four grandparents who were “all” immigrants when in reality only one was. And she has claimed, falsely, that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, in honor his famous mountain climbing feat. Hillary Clinton was six years old when Edmund Hillary reached the summit of Mount Everest.

After all this, the lies and the deception, and her utter hubris, start to become sinister.

Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state was using a personal email account to conduct official government business. She did this rather than use an official transparent and recordable government account. This is a direct violation of Federal Law. Her response from the beginning has been breathtakingly blasé, despite the growing acceptance that both Russia and China have hacked these accounts accessing some of the most sensitive and compromising information available on the United States.

Then we come to Benghazi, the most reprehensible example of all. Benghazi more than anything else highlights Clinton’s sheer and unabashed hubris. On September 12, 2011 Islamist rebels attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, butchering U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other brave Americans.

It subsequently was revealed that the State Department, which she led, hadrepeatedly rejected urgent requests for additional security at Benghazi. Hillary Clinton was aware of the dangers and did nothing even though she knew the dangers these men were facing. She then, lied to the relatives of the fallen America heroes claiming that the motive for the attack was an obscure video when she knew full well that this was untrue. To make matters worse, when a grieving mother later criticized her for this falsehood, Hillary Clinton responded cruelly by questioning her mental health.

Donald Trump can be offensive, but Hillary Clinton is outright dangerous; hubris in a national leader is not just obnoxious, it can lead to imperiousness in governance. That she may realistically be the next president of the United States is a truly terrifying prospect.

Hillary Clinton is a genuine threat to religious liberty in the United States. If you are a Christian and she becomes president of the United States of America, Hillary Clinton will declare war on you. Be forewarned.

She supports the horrors of late term abortion and has publically stated that Christianity needs to change to accommodate this abomination. Hillary Clinton could not be clearer on this issue when she has said, “…deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed to provide reproductive health care for all women.”

Christianity is not a deep seated cultural code or merely a religious belief, Mrs. Clinton. It is a way of life and redemption, offering a salvation so costly that the Son of God Himself had to die for it,

“…it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16)

Yet ultimately, even Hillary Clinton will pail into absolute insignificance next to the man (Antichrist) who is soon going to step forward and assume control of this failing world system. He will display a hubris unlike any—since the beginning of time. His arrogance will be without limit, just like his father—Lucifer, who presumed to lift his throne above the stars of heaven,

“I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.” (Isaiah 14:13)

This man who is prophesied to come will speak unheard of things and exalt himself over and above all men and all that is worshipped by mankind:

“The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.” (Daniel 11:36)

Yet before that day comes—as it soon will, America faces a day of decision unlike any before. Take a chance on Donald Trump who loves America or go with the woman President Obama (Hillary Clinton) who has declared she would see Barack Hussein Obama’s godless agenda through to the very end.

It is momentous decision and the whole world is watching.

Power has always been a potent drug and often in history it has led those wielding it, who are caught in its throes, to commit horrors. If Hillary Clinton does become the 45th president of the United States of America, I think she will be as good as her word when it comes to opposing Christianity, promoting late term abortion, upholding and furthering LGBTQ rights and in ensuring the subordination of United States sovereignty to Transnational organizations like the United Nations.

Ominously, I also believe she will be true to her word when she talks of aggressively challenging Russia and Vladimir Putin. I shudder when she talks of “punishing” the Russians, because that may mean war.

A unique day of decision approaches for America. If Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States of America I am sure that America, and even the rest of the world, will look completely different in just four short years, or even sooner.

 

wardmatt1977@gmail.com

Superpower Showdown :: by Matt Ward

While the United States and the rest of the world are distracted by the ongoing machinations of an approaching U.S. election, Russia and America are edging ever closer to a direct military confrontation in Syria. With the brutal offensive in Eastern Aleppo as the backdrop, the potential for confrontation between these two old enemies is no longer a fantasy.

In the corridors of Moscow and the Pentagon there is a growing sense that just such a military showdown between the two Cold War super powers is an inevitability at this point.

The ramifications of such a confrontation, obviously, are huge. Up until now the United States and Russia have been actively opposing each other in Syria only through proxy groups, but that is now changing. Aleppo, the raging crux of dispute between Russia and the United States, is proving to be a tinder box that neither side can ignore.

The road to this showdown began on September 17th, when American A-10 aircraft attacked and destroyed a Syrian army position, killing scores of Syrian soldiers. The U.S. attack on the Syrian position, at Jebel Tudar in the Deir ez-Zour region of eastern Syria is now widely seen by all parties as being intentional, despite initial U.S. claims that it was accidental.

Immediately after this attack, President Barack Obama ordered a review of the decision making process so as to ascertain exactly from whom and where the order to initiate the strike had come. This action alone reveals that somewhere high up in the decision making structure there was a break down in the chain of command.

Somebody in the Pentagon or the CIA ordered this strike without direct presidential authorization or command oversight.

What is now widely accepted by all governments in the Middle East is that this strike was intentional, and was likely ordered to usurp the recently signed U.S.-Russian military cooperation deal. This deal, highly contentious and unpopular amongst both the upper echelons of the U.S. military and the CIA, is widely seen as a sell out to Russia.

The terms of the deal would allow for significant intelligence sharing between Russia and America, thereby revealing key, and up to this point secret intelligence gathering methods and assets to an enemy state, Russia. This, it is believed, would jeopardize the ongoing and future national security of the United States.

Thus somebody ordered the strike to scupper the deal.

Russian retribution for the U.S. attack was swift. Two days later, on September 19th, the Russian air force annihilated a UN aid convoy on their way to deliver aid to besieged Aleppo. Many aid workers and civilians were either killed or critically injured in this attack. Russia, of course, denied all responsibility.

Parallel to this attack, Russia, with renewed vigor and aggression, then launched an all-out attack on Aleppo with the aim of bringing the rebellion there finally to its knees. In the process war crimes have certainly been committed. The Russian bombing of Aleppo is without mercy and makes no distinction between rebel targets and innocent civilians. The Russians are crushing Aleppo to the ground.

Barbarity reigns in southern Syria. John Kerry, so incensed by the indiscriminate nature of the bombings, has threatened to cut all bilateral U.S. – Russian ties unless the bombing stops immediately and a humanitarian corridor is opened up.

This request has fallen on deaf ears because Russia are not listening to America anymore.

The reasons why Putin has stopped listening to America are many and complicated, but fundamentally they boil down to two things; influence and prestige. Vladimir Putin seeks legitimacy for Russia as a great power once again. Putin also seeks to reestablish Russia as a great power with a truly global reach that could realistically challenge the U.S. dominated world order. Russian actions should be seen in this light.

Maintaining the rule of Bashir al-Assad in Syria is intrinsic to Russian aims for the region and it would now seem that Russia have finally made the decision that it is more important to their long term strategic interests to crush the last vestiges of rebellion against Assad’s rule in the larger cities, such as Aleppo, than it is to talk or listen to the United States.

Russia will now settle for nothing less than a decisive victory in Syria, even if that means carpet bombing densely populated cities or obliterating hospitals in order to achieve it. All else is secondary to bringing this rebellion to its knees.

This is a test for the United States and presents Barack Obama with a very difficult decision; effectively he can do only one of two things. He can acquiesce and let Russia and the Syrian air force bomb Aleppo and other cities back into the Stone Age (which would thereby give Syria to the Russian-Syria-Iranian axis) or he can oppose them.

Obama and John Kerry have already been attempting, “to raise the costs for Assad and Moscow,” at the United Nations. It has had no effect.

Now other “non-diplomatic” options are being considered. These might take the form of more weapons deliveries to the moderate rebels with long-range artillery, which would then potentially be used against Syrian or Russian targets, or even direct U.S. strikes with cruise missiles against the regime’s air assets and airfields.

Any such actions, by definition would involve a direct face off with Russia and would come   with considerable risk. Russia would likely try to intercept and shoot down any such U.S. missile strikes using its sophisticated and world leading S-300 or S-400 rocket interception platforms.

From here it becomes entirely unpredictable; it is highly likely a rapid military escalation would take place. Putin himself seems to actively want a confrontation with America; he is seeking just such a show down. Such a standoff would be highly beneficial for Putin because  it would legitimize him and establish his country once again as a leading member of the international community of nations and give him, at the very least, direct parity with America.

However, there is more at stake here than merely Syria. The outcome of this showdown will determine the future of the not just the Middle East region, but will also provide an indicator for potential future Russian territorial expansion or invasions, in places like Ukraine.

Or Israel.

If Russia can decisively push United States influence out from the Middle East through a direct confrontation such as this, then in the eyes of Vladimir Putin, the last check and balance on his wider Russian territorial ambitions will have finally been removed. There will simply be no one to oppose him.

Perhaps it will be then that he will turn his attention to the “land of Israel.”

“And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord God, that my fury shall come up in my face” (Ezekiel 38:18).

wardmatt1977@gmail.com