Thursday, February 22, 2018

February 22, 2018


The School Shooting “Publicity Fraud” and Gun-Banning Ideology: Establishment Conservatism’s AWOL Attitude


Two seemingly unrelated stories intersect this morning:

First, there is the very curious role of a student at that high school in Broward County, Florida, where the recent tragic shootings took place: one David Hogg. If you viewed any television after the massacre, you would have seen Hogg, eloquently describing the situation and appealing for strict gun control…and on CNN, bashing President Trump and staunchly defending the FBI for its handling of the Nikolas Cruz case.

But that wasn’t all. Come to find out that there was video footage of Hogg, prior to his on camera appearances on CNN and elsewhere, practicing his lines—and not just trying to remember what he was going to say (that many of us would do), but repeating exact wording and phrases, as if he had been instructed on what to repeat. As I watched that short video clip, instantly I thought: “He’s been coached—he’s acting. Look at his movements, the way he holds his head, how he practices placing emphasis on certain words and phrases…It’s like he’s preparing to go on stage in some theatrical production.”

The right wing Internet site Gateway Pundit thought so as well, and on Monday they placed the video clip online, and it “went viral,” as the current descriptive term is applied.

And then, all Hell broke loose.

Gateway Pundit, like other right wing and conservative organizations, had been scheduled to have a presence at the national meeting of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, currently happening in the Washington DC area. But on Wednesday, Gateway Pundit’s head, Jim Hoft, received news that his organization was “disinvited” to CPAC.

“We posted this article on Monday evening and received national headlines.

Chelsea Clinton disapproved of the post. And on Wednesday I learned that I was kicked out of CPAC [Conservative Political Conference, which is having its national meeting this week] because my writer Lucian Wintrich posted this article.

I must clear something up though. I actually know about the earlier discussions that were going on at CPAC. I know they did not want Gateway Pundit to participate in any panel at the conference. They believed some awful lies from GOP elites (and the liberal media) that The Gateway Pundit was a hate site that supported racism and white supremacism. I spoke directly with the person today who was helping to spread that lie.

I do think it is important to note once again, since the CPAC organizers have NO IDEA who we are, that the during election The Gateway Pundit was the fourth most influential conservative news source in America.

Following the 2016 election Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review funded research (with money from the Soros Open Society) to find out what happened to their dear Hillary. They discovered that our website packed a punch.

Since that time The Gateway Pundit has been shadow-banned, blocked, smeared, sued and abused by liberals as well as GOP elites. And our audience continues to grow despite the constant attacks. I was willing to share my story to CPAC panel but they did not want me to attend their annual convention.”

But by no means was that the end of it. The video was still “out there,” and the incriminating video evidence that might raise questions had been viewed by over 200,00o viewers on YouTube. Something had to be done…and, sure enough, the operators of YouTube (one more adjunct of the Deep State, no less) decided to pull the video and ban it [I am listing the Web site, but it may not be available now]. No need to raise uncomfortable questions and divert attention from the ongoing narrative that “guns must be banned” and “Trump is the devil incarnate.”

Here is how the Far Left AOL and The New York Daily News recounted this process of “protecting us” from information that might raise even the slightest questions or doubts about David Hogg or the spinning gun-control narrative []:

“A top trending video on YouTube suggesting an outspoken survivor of the Parkland school shooting is actually a “crisis actor” has been taken off the video platform. “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on harassment and bullying,” a note replacing the clip read Wednesday afternoon.  In the days after suspected gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire in the halls of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, David Hogg has demanded government officials consider stricter gun laws. The 17-year-old student’s candid critiques of the U.S. gun violence epidemic landed him at the center of a smear campaign, sparked in part by a YouTube video titled, “DAVID HOGG THE ACTOR”…. Still, conspiracy theorists held up the interview as well as clips of Hogg practicing lines for a television appearance to suggest the teen is a “crisis actor” — or a person who follows tragedies and high-profile situations as they happen.”

But in defending Hogg AOL and The Daily News were also forced to admit that this was not the first time that Hogg had been involved in “newsworthy publicity” events. There was an earlier situation when Hogg was interviewed after an incident on a California beach, a confrontation between a lifeguard and beachgoers. “We felt threatened,” Hogg said of their encounter with the lifeguard. “He seemed unpredictable.” And then, “The Eagle Eye [his high school newspaper] contains several mentions of the teen, who interviewed Rep. Ted Deutsch last month in his quest to become a professional journalist. He and [Emma] Gonzalez [who always seems to appear with him!] are also mentioned in an article from last December about a weather balloon project and both students have also served as leaders in several capacities at the Parkland school.”

And additionally, we find that Hogg’s father is…an FBI agent!

Here is how Gateway Pundit unraveled the account:

“Immediately, these students-turned-activists threw up some red flags.

In what was initially as an incredibly odd move for a high school student, Hogg vehemently defended the FBI and placed the blame squarely on the President’s shoulders…. before admitting that his father was in the FBI.

Two survivors of the Florida school shooting slam politicians' responses to the massacre, calling them "disgusting" and "pathetic" 

“I think it’s disgusting, personally. My father’s a retired FBI agent and the FBI are some of the hardest working individuals I have ever seen in my life,” proclaimed David Hogg to CNN. “It’s wrong that the president is blaming them for this.”

David Hogg, one of the acting students recruited by the same minds behind the anti-Trump Women's March, is having trouble reciting his lines:

— Lucian B. Wintrich (@lucianwintrich) February 21, 2018

Continuing, Hogg demonstrated his complete lack of American civics knowledge. A clueless Hogg appeared unaware of the fact that the President is not ‘in control’ of each department and branch of government, but must work and negotiate with them. Regardless, Hogg pushed the notion that Trump is in charge of the FBI.

“He can’t put that off on them. He is in charge of them and these people, what they love to do is push this off on bureaucracy and say it’s not them,” he said. “He is in charge of the FBI … the executive branch is supposed to enforce laws and as such, President Trump is in charge of that and the FBI.”

Anyone who has been following the news could tell you that many in the FBI have been working against the president from the start, with the most notable case involving collusion between the FBI, Obama Administration, and the Clinton campaign to push the false ‘verification’ of the junk Steele Dossier. It has also been widely reported that the FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.

The fault for this tragedy lies squarely on the shoulders of the FBI, who could have prevented this back in January.

Adding to the “credibility” of Hogg, in a recently uncovered early cut from one of his interviews it appears he was heavily coached on lines and is merely reciting a script. Frequently seen in the footage mouthing the lines he should be reciting. Hogg becomes flustered multiple times, is seen apologizing, and asking for re-takes.

Why would the child of an FBI agent be used as a pawn for anti-Trump rhetoric and anti-gun legislation? Because the FBI is only looking to curb YOUR Constitutional rights and INCREASE their power. We’ve seen similar moves by them many times over. This is just another disgusting example of it.”

And this is where our second item intersects with this first story. For although CPAC’s organizers have disinvited Gateway Pundit from attending—due to the unleashed insanity over “gun violence” and the frantic desire to “do something,” with thousands of traumatized and brain-corrupted (by their teachers and parental neglect or malfeasance) students marching in the streets, they did invite to the conference this year Nigel Farage, leader of the BREXIT effort in Great Britain (and former leader of the UK Independence Party) and Marion-Marechal Le Pen, niece of Marine Le Pen, who heads the anti-immigrant, anti-EU National Front Party in France.

Well, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for the Neoconservative National Review, in particular the pot-smoking, pot-bellied Jonah Goldberg, who thundered his disapproval in a series of messages to CPAC organizer, Matt Schlapp [ ]. And Goldberg was joined by others of the Establishment, “respectable” “conservative movement,” including various Fox pundits (e.g., former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen), who supported the socialist-statist-globalist Emmanual Macron during the last French presidential election.

The logic for Goldberg et al is so—so—very profound: “Those Le Pen women represent a political party, the National Front, that is…shudder!...nationalist, populist, anti-European Union, anti-immigrant and insufficiently ‘capitalist,’ and thus not ‘conservative,’ so, therefore, we reject it and supported the socialist globalist Macron in the last French election!”

Does it not remind you of the same kind of “reasoning” that Never Trumpers Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, and David French (all at the pseudo-conservative National Review) vomited up in the lead up to the 2016 elections? And that were echoed by The Weekly Standard, various GOP “establishment” slime creatures, and others, anxious to maintain their seats at the Deep State table and sucking at the Deep State hind tits?

This is the kind of ersatz “conservatism” that is being passed off today (by the dominant Neocons) as “conservative gospel” but that only confirms the power of the Potomac swamp. I’ve written about this previously, and my good friend Paul Gottfried has authored three significant volumes which examine the subject in detail (i.e., After Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, and The Strange Death of Marxism), and above all, Conservatism in America (2007)…and I should mention other scholarly offerings, including studies by Drs. Claes Ryn and Gary Dorrien.

CPAC director Matt Schlapp’s defense of inviting Le Pen, fascinatingly, was rather tepid. Unwilling to actually defend the revival of a truly traditionalist and nationalist “conservatism” in France (as exemplified by the National Front), he was compelled to dissimulate and declare that Marion Le Pen was a “fresh neo-liberal voice” that CPAC needed to hear—an obvious dodge, an attempt to stave off furious establishment Neocons like Goldberg, still licking their wounds over the rejection of the flaccid and intellectually corrupt and the ever-sliding-to-the-left “conservative movement” in the 2016 primaries. (Goldberg, by the way, embraces same sex marriage, transgenderism, etc., but is presented as one of “America’s leading conservative voices.”)

And that brings us back again to the first story. CPAC is, apparently, trying—as it has done in the past—to steer something of a “middle course,” a trajectory to not upset (most of) its donor base, mostly fat cat GOP-types who favor open borders and don’t give a hoot about who marries whom, as long as the dollars and cheap labor keep flowing in—while not scaring off newer, more Trumpian folks whom it hopes to inveigle in its web.

Inviting “nationalist conservatives” like Le Pen and Farage is okay, as long as their appearances are pitched—disguised, if you will—as “broadening CPAC’s reach.”

But that “broadening” has limits…and questioning the actors—like David Hogg—in the current gun hysteria goes too far for them.

The “conservative movement,” as we see it and know it today, is rotten to its core. Four decades of infiltration into the movement by those ex-Trotskyite Marxists, the Neoconservatives (who brought with them a Trotskyite praxis and intellectual framework on “equality,” “racism,” and “feminism”), and who displaced an earlier genuinely traditional, anti-egalitarian Right wing (with figures like my mentor, Russell Kirk; Southern conservative Mel Bradford; sociologist Robert Nisbet; Catholic traditionalist Frederick Wilhelmsen; and political leaders like Jesse Helms, and, yes, Barry Goldwater), has had incalculably  disastrous results: Primarily, continued advance of the “farther Left,” enabled by a miserably inept conservatism that in many ways shares presumptions about equality, race, gender, and globalism that its supposed enemies also possess.

You don’t win political AND cultural wars basing your action on postulates also undergirding the philosophy of your enemy, or by compromising or by banning real opposition to the Deep State and its zealous globalist minions and the managerial class.

This, indeed, is what “draining the swamp” is all about—and we aren’t talking about just a few buckets full of fetid water.  

Politically, it’s time to “clean out the Augean stables,” as the hero Hercules was directed to do in Greek mythology. Or, as they say down in Johnston County: “Time to show the bastards the door!” Dump the Establishment GOPers, cancel your National Review subscriptions, and support “Deplorable” candidates who will change this nation’s course and who will, yes, “make American great again.”

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

February 20, 2018


Classic Novel about The War Between the States and Sherman’s Brutal March through the Carolinas


A few readers of this column receive the Confederate Veteran magazine, but most do not. Over the years I have published a number of items in that journal on topics dealing with the War Between the States and the South and its history. Today I would like to share one of those with you.

Several years ago I published a review of a fine novel about the War (Sherman’s march through the Carolinas), Souls of Lions, by R. E. Mitchell, in the Confederate Veteran.  The Confederate Veteran does not offer a web site showcasing its past articles, so I have taken that review, edited it slightly, and it has been published by The Abbeville Institute web site.  I am reproducing it here, as I think Souls of Lions is a worthy and engrossing volume—worth your investment and the time spent reading it. So it forms today’s installment in the MY CORNER series.

I hope you find it of interest.

Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

Souls of Lions

By Boyd Cathey on Feb 20, 2018

A review of R. E. Mitchell. Souls of Lions (Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse LLC, 2014).

Very seldom do I review novels, even historical ones. But R. E. Mitchell’s volume, Souls of Lions, after just a few pages, captured my attention and kept me glued to my couch seat for several days until I had finished it…and with its surprising and fascinating ending. At the end, tears swelled up in my eyes, as I bid goodbye to characters I had grown to know and whose eyes I felt that I could see through.

The plot basically concerns two brothers, George and Walsh Hawkins, both very young and from Person County, North Carolina, and several of their friends who are members of the 50th North Carolina Regiment during the last six months of the War for Southern Independence. George and Walsh actually existed, although Mitchell has recreated various situations and added imagined and fictitious dialogue.

We follow the 50th on its painful and gruesome march, many times as a rearguard unit against General Sherman’s overwhelming numbers, from Savannah through ravaged South Carolina, to Averasborough and then to the fields of Bentonville, and at last to the final emotional farewells in Greensboro, where the Army of Tennessee, and particularly Hardee’s command, lay down their arms and disbanded.

Through it all we get to know these two brothers, we see through their eyes, experience their unbearable suffering due to Yankee might, ruthless bummers, lack of provisions, and the very cruel winter of 1864-1865. Although author Mitchell conveys fully, at times, the desperation and hardships, we also see a true spirit of courage and incredible sacrifice and a real love of country, and, even more, a certain nobility that inhabits these poor farmer boys.

One of the excellent characteristics of Mitchell’s narrative is the obvious research and attention to historical detail he incorporates. You can actually trace the march from Savannah to Bentonville using a good chronology—Mitchell knows his facts and geography. But even more, he is able to express both the sufferings and hardships, as well as the courage and, yes, even moments of simple joy.

Here is an example of his description of the despair that can afflict a soldier in such circumstances:

“An exhausted, starving man lives only for the moment. The past is meaningless, like a disjointed, noisy dream. It is hard to hold. There is a bit of something here, a piece of something there, all loosely joined memories held together by invisibilities. Of what point are they? Yet, they are the things every man has done, the commonplace. George had eaten thousands of meals, slept in bed countless times, all without giving it much thought. But now his desperation was a concentration of plain, simple memories, a singularity of infinite desperation, like struggling to draw a breath, and so the future had become everything.” (p. 112)

And of the superhuman courage, emotion, and exhilaration that comes in the midst of contested battle, here is Mitchell describing a successful Confederate counter-attack by the 50th in the heat of Bentonville:

“The smoke had cleared enough for him [George] to see the [Yankee] skirmishers reforming. Several were kneeling, reloading their rifles. He charged them recklessly, swinging his rifle like a club until the enemy fled back into the brush. George charged after them and soon found himself back among his company. He was flying as though in a dream, destined to rule the world. There was nothing they could not do.  They were invincible. Here at last there was glory and honor, not of this world, but of another dimension, where all his senses were compressed by time, an excitement so exhilarating, he felt immortal.” (p. 135)

Tears came to me as Mitchell, speaking through his characters, recounts the death OF young Willie Hardee the general’s only son, aged only sixteen.  Learning of young Willie’s wound, George asks: “How serious is it?” And his compatriot’s reply: “Mortal, they say. I guess the general finally gave in. I guess it was hard to say no when a lot of sixteen-year-old boys were fighting and dying. I guess they did some good…Anyway, we’re asked to pray for the boy.” Then, on hearing of Willie’s death from Captain Van Wyk, George sadly exclaims: “I’m sorry…a lot of Willies have died in this war. A lot of fathers have lost their sons.” (pp. 139, 143)

And, again, I felt the emotions as the news reaches their camp outside Raleigh that Marse Robert had surrendered at Appomattox: “The men tried all that day to understand the meaning of Marse Bob’s surrender. Some denied it was true. It couldn’t be true. Why, Lee had whipped Grant at the Wilderness and Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor….” (pp. 155-156) And then thinking about what surrender would mean, in one of the finest summations of what separated those valiant Southern boys from their Northern counterparts, George declares:

“It [the war] will be OUR fault….that is the way it will be told. We liked things the way they were. It was the Yankees who wanted to change things. They want to change the world. But when you think about it, I imagine that most folks are farmers same as us. When you think about, that should be enough. But the Yankees want to lay up treasures on earth. The whole country will be belching smoke and puffing steam. A man will try to sleep at night to trains and the whistles of steam. I reckon now we’ll see the kind of world they want to make. It ain’t likely to include us.” (p. 156).

The final laying down of arms and banners at Greensboro also captures the bursting emotions and the memories of men who, despite their seemingly infinite hardships and sufferings, had an incredible esprit de corps and composed an army scarcely paralleled in human history: “One by one, the regimental flags dipped and were surrendered. The men lowered their heads with the flags and wept. Tears flowed freely down every face. Not one could hold back the tears. To capture an enemy flag was a great feat, but to lose the colors, a disgrace.” (p. 163) And at General Hardee’s farewell, “[T]he soldiers cheered…They reached up to touch the general and shake his hand,” and one companion of George and Walsh expressed their emptiness: “I feel like a hound with his teeth pulled….At times I prayed for this day, but with a different ending. It just don’t feel right.” (p. 164)

There is also a heroine in Souls of Lions. Her name is Sally Jo, and she catches George’s eye in the midst of what probably is the low point during the Carolinas campaign. It would be unfair to reveal details of their amazing romance, for it comprises a special ingredient that makes this novel so rewarding and heartrending. Needless to say, if you are like me, you will not have a dry eye after reading this volume.

At the very end, thirty years later in 1895, at a reunion of those now aged heroes of the 50th on the battlefield at Bentonville, “a band played, the Goldsboro Rifles paraded by the light of the campfires, and the Confederates commenced to sing the old songs. George listened for a while and then joined the singing. His voice cracked with emotion…of sadness and joy, of sweet memories and bitter ones. He had known suffering but little joy, defeat and no victory, but through it all he had done his duty….” (p. 194)

Thus, with Souls of Lions Mitchell’s vision, through the eyes of his larger-than-life characters, becomes reality. Through this stirring account of their pain, but also their unexcelled courage and heroism in defense of their country and a way of life, we can see what they saw and fathom what they felt.

About Boyd Cathey

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations. More from Boyd Cathey

Saturday, February 17, 2018

February 17, 2018


“Russians Indicted by Mueller!” No Collusion between Trump and Putin, and The Russia Card Continues


A week ago, according to various Fox News pundits and screeching Neoconservative scribblers, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was close to being labeled “the devil incarnate,” the man responsible for naming Robert Mueller as Special Counsel (and who had basically given him carte blanche to engage in a slow-burn campaign, an ideological investigative war, based on a spurious made-up dossier, against President Trump). Calls went out that Rosenstein should be replaced, even fired.

One week later—and thirteen indictments from one of Mueller’s grand juries, announced by the very same Rosenstein, specifically against more than a dozen “Russian players” who reportedly “meddled” in the 2016 American elections, but without any connivance by the Trump campaign—and Rosenstein is feted as a veritable savior by those same commenters. Those Neocons who now selectively support the president and those bitterly anti-Russian Fox pundits (with the possible exception of Tucker Carlson) are absolutely giddy with delight! For too long, in their defense of President Trump against the charge of collusion, they had found themselves in the extremely uncomfortable situation (for them) of having to mount an attempt to exculpate the Russians, or at least lessen their culpability.

But now, Rosenstein has presented them with one of those exquisite “Aha!” moments: at last, the onerous burden of disputing Russian connections with the Trump campaign has been lifted, but they can still, with more reason, keep those evil Russkies in the cross hairs as the supreme enemy of America! 

And this fits to a tee their ideological predispositions. For the Neocons (and most of the Fox punditry)—who are the dominant voice of the so-called contemporary “conservative movement” and the intellectually barren source for much of the GOP—are inveterate Russophobes. It makes no difference to them that Russia in 2018 is definitely not Russia of the old Soviet days; it makes little difference to them that since 1991 Russia has emerged as the leading global power in opposition to the secularist New World Order, and that its political and cultural trajectory is, if anything, conservative and traditionalist.  They ignore the fact that Gorbachev voluntarily agreed with George H. W. Bush to dissolve the Warsaw Pact (which he did), ending the Communist control of Eastern Europe, on condition that the United States not advance NATO further east (which is exactly what the United States then proceeded to do). They have repeatedly ignored and rejected Russian overtures for partnership, collaboration and cooperation (not the subinfeudation and subjection that Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer demanded). They rip out of context Putin’s statement that the dissolution of the old Soviet Union was “a monumental catastrophe” for Russia, failing to understand that his comments dealt specifically with the radical and disastrous ethnic and political consequences of the break up, with millions of ethnic Russians now in regions that were always part of Russia, now separated from the Mother Country, economically adrift and incapable of true independence.

Back on February 6, in My Corner, in an effort to briefly explain some of the background for this zealous Russophobia, I wrote the following:

“The Neocons, of course, owe their intellectual origin decades ago to that other major stream of Marxist thought, identified with Leon Trotsky and his zealous internationalism. Early on for those intellectual descendants of Trotsky their opposition to Soviet Communism was just as much a hatred for Russia, which they saw as anti-Semitic (e.g., the infamous “doctors’ plot”) and “reactionary,” as it was for what they perceived as Stalin’s (and Brezhnev’s) perversion of the original “humanist” and “democratic core” of Marxist theory. Thus, even with the daily revelations, the reports and all the accounts of skullduggery by agents of the Deep State that seem to seep out, the narrative of “the Russians Did It!” must be maintained, by both Progressivists AND the Neocons. Either the Russians and that “new Hitler” (to use Neocon Max Boot’s ill-chosen comparison) Putin were somehow directing Donald Trump like a puppet master controls a stick puppet, or the Russians and that “new Hitler” were working with Hillary and the DNC to blacken Donald Trump’s good name and unseat him. Either way “the Russians Did It!” []

So, now we hear the news from Rosenstein that thirteen individual Russians and a couple of Russian organizations, beginning back in 2014, two years prior to the 2016 elections (and before Donald Trump was even mentioned as a real candidate), are charged with “attempted meddling” in our national elections…using mainly the Internet and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). But no American citizens were compromised, and there was no collusion with the Trump campaign.

Duh. So? This is news? That a major world power spent a paltry million dollars (in a campaign in which a total of billions of dollars were spent) in some rather uniformly unsuccessful attempts to “meddle” here?

You would think that the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor or that Putin’s Cossacks had landed and seized Miami Beach!  For two days now this story has nearly displaced the tragedy of the school shooting in Broward County, at least on Fox. Last night, with obvious satisfaction, Laura Ingraham (whom I like on occasion), intoned: “I’ve been warning about the Russians for years!”

But what about the “meddling” of Chinese operatives and organizations in the United States (where literally billions of dollars have been spent to shape American opinion and a major percentage of American commerce is now controlled by Beijing)? Where is the Special Counsel investigating Chinese “meddling” and influence on American elections? Where are the congressional committees examining the extraordinary control by the Chinese of American business?

And what about Mexico which, using its various consulates scattered across the United States, helped engineer the registration of Mexican voters who would vote in the 2016 American elections? How many of those were—are—illegals? Except for such groups as ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, NC Listen, FAIR,, and a few others, not a word…and certainly, no congressional hearings.

Then, there is Saudi Arabia and the billions of oil-based money that has found its way into the coffers of American political leaders. When was the last time that you heard a serious critique of the Saudis (or their virtual, if remote responsibility for much of the Islamic extremism in the Middle East)?

And, lastly, and most significantly—and this is the white elephant in the room—what about the incredible influence of Israel in American politics? Okay, I recognize that you’re not supposed to notice this, at least not mention it, lest you be labeled an “anti-semite”—an accusation, a stain, like the charge of racism that is difficult, if not impossible, to expunge. Yet, can anyone rationally deny the immense influence of Israel—and its “meddling”—in our elections and politics?

I make no value judgments here whether the issues advanced by Israel and its supporters, the positions pushed, are good or bad, whether they are in our national interest or not. Israel has been a staunch ally since its foundation in 1948, and the cultural and political bonds between our two nations have been and are very strong. The United States has a longstanding commitment to Israel and its existence.

But that doesn’t change the facts: Israel is a major player in our politics, and such extremely powerful lobbying/public interest groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) generally serve the interests of the State of Israel and attempt to identify them with American interests.

“Meddling” is a severe understatement when it comes to Israel. Remember the Jonathan Pollard espionage case? Pollard was a major American Israeli spy, whose spying and pilfering of top American secrets on behalf of Israel got him life imprisonment. And, politically, we only need to cast a brief glance to the recent past—to the defeat of Senators J. William Fulbright (Arkansas) and Chuck Percy (Illinois), and Congressman Paul Findley (Illinois), and the attempted defeat of Representative Walter Jones Jr. here in North Carolina (e.g, Bill Kristol’s million-dollar campaigns to defeat Jones in GOP primaries)—all of whom refused to go along with unquestioning support of a pro-Israeli American agenda, or who raised some embarrassing questions, even in the most respectful and mildest manner.

Years ago, when working with the founder of the older conservative movement, Dr. Russell Kirk in Michigan, I met Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a thoughtful Jewish opponent of Zionism and of the kind of international entanglements that he sincerely believed gave the Jewish state and Jews universally a negative reputation. Later on he presented me with copies of his major documented study on the topic, The Zionist Connection (original edition, 1978, and revised, 1982), which were revelatory for me.

More recently, Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski’s impressively documented, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel (2008), and Drs. John Mearsheimer’s and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy (2007) have deepened aspects of Dr. Lilienthal analysis. And additional research and discussion by such writers as Philip Giraldi (“Are America’s Jews Driving America’s Wars,” 2017, at:, and such distinguished authors of Jewish descent as Professors Walter Block (“Is It Permissible to Criticize Jews?” January 2018, at: and Paul Gottfried (his review of Neil Jumonville’s The New York Intellectuals, 2008, at:, on the relation between Russian Jewish emigres centered in New York and their powerful influence in American culture and politics), have raised questions that should be examined calmly and rationally, but probably won’t.  

The shadowy Russians purportedly spent a million dollars to “meddle” and “sow confusion” in American politics, beginning two years before the 2016 elections. And the Neocon narrative, the template that indicts Russia, is preserved, and that is all you need to know. An anti-Trump “demonstration” in New York with forty-five sullen attendees, some fake ads on Facebook (which is literally filled with millions of other fake ads), some cyber interference, some phony URLs—and the Russophobes go literally wild.
And all the while the major players in meddling and espionage and influence here in the US—they skate, are ignored with a wink-and-a-smile, dollar signs in the eyes of the supposed guardians of the Republic!

Sheer hypocrisy and crass dishonesty incarnate.


Friday, February 16, 2018

February 16, 2018


Thoughts on the Broward County School Shooting, Guns and Our Post-Christian Society

by Dr. Boyd D. Cathey


On an average we hear about a mass shooting or attempted shooting every couple of months—and those are just the significant attempts, the ones reported by the news media. There are other, countless accounts of individuals bringing weapons to school or to the workplace, showing them off, and threatening co-workers and classmates: incidents which don’t make the national news and elicit little surprise from a calloused citizenry who now seem to react to such events as if they are normal, part of everyday life, to be expected in our society.

The school shooting in Broward County, Florida, was a horrendous act, a massacre committed by a criminal youth who rightly deserves the most severe penalty the state can mete out. Our prayers and sympathy must go out to the parents and relatives of those seventeen people, mostly students, who were senselessly cut down. The pain and anguish, the questioning without answers, the anger, will go on, without end, for that is how such events affect us.

Yet all the screams and pleas for redress and for political solutions mask much larger and more fundamental issues and questions within our society and culture.

Each time such an event occurs in a school, whether in Sandy Hook or in Broward County, the demand from Progressives and the Leftist media is for more gun control, limiting possession of firearms, as if taking away one instrument for potential violence will somehow forestall or stop a violent person. It won’t and doesn’t. Guns are inanimate objects that must be used, employed for a purpose. A gun doesn’t kill by itself, without an operator who aims and fires it. An unhinged person—a disaffected student intent on mayhem or revenge, or intent on expiating his own internal demons—may use a gun to do so; but if there is no gun (and potential criminals will always find one, illegally, if necessary), then a knife, or homemade bomb (easily constructed using Internet instructions), or poison, or some other means will always be at hand and easily available.

Chicago, Illinois, has one of the nation’s highest—if not the highest—murder rates; yet it also has some of the strictest laws inhibiting gun ownership. There is a thriving black market for weaponry to be used in crime, and no gun control advocate putting a leaky bandage on the problem will succeed where a social, familial and religious breakdown has taken place. And that is what has happened not only in Chicago, but in some of the “best” neighborhoods and well-off communities in America.

Our problem—the problem of America in 2018—is not that we have over 300 million guns; our problem is not “a history of violence and a ‘wild-west’ approach to settling our differences.”

Can you recall or name one—just one—instance of a school massacre from the 1950s? There weren’t any. Indeed, when I went to elementary school, all the doors were open and accessible. Anyone, basically, could walk in—anyone could have entered and threatened or attacked us. But the simple fact is: no one did. We did not have police patrolling the hallways; we did not have metal detectors; we did not have “grief counsellors” (because we did not need them).

Back then almost all schoolchildren, white and black, came from two parent families. Despite poverty, which wasn’t restricted by race, the family was central to all education, and the role of our public schools was, rightly, considered as an extension of the natural educative duties of the family, and not so much of the state (although an acute observer could see what was occurring). And the curriculum, in spite of newer trends, still harked back to fundamentals—reading, writing, arithmetic, proficiency in trades, ability to communicate. Not all students were capable of college; indeed, a solid high school education with good pre-professional preparation was oftentimes a surer guide to later success.

Before the advent of a multiplicity of cable and satellite offerings, television offered a choice of three, perhaps four channels each night. Students and their families grew up watching, when permitted, programs like “Father Knows Best,” “My Three Sons,” “Gunsmoke,” “To Tell the Truth,” “The Bell Telephone Hour,” and “I Love Lucy”: programs to amuse and entertain, to elevate the mind, and also, on occasion, emphasize the importance of doing right and avoiding wrong. There was, so to put it, an agreed-upon standard or idea of national decency, a kind of “public orthodoxy” which prevailed generally. And in large degree it derived from the nation’s heritage and inherited religious faith which despite a major depression, social dislocation and two world wars, still obtained.

But we were, as it were, sitting on a volcano, a volcano that erupted in the late 1960s and which has continued until our days. Since then we have witnessed the virtual triumph of a cultural Progressivism and, increasingly, what we term “cultural Marxism.” Touted as “liberation” from old-fashioned and no-longer-applicable or valid rules and religious taboos, especially sexual, and demanding the destruction of what it identifies as “white [structural] racism” and the implementation of a rigid (but deceptively false and ideological) “equality” between the sexes, this Progressivism dominates our schools and colleges, infects our entertainment (especially Hollywood, but also our sports), and imposes its latest poisonous dogmatism on us all via the media—always advancing, always more extreme, always more intolerant of any dissent or demurer.

No politician who wishes a favorable press or his coffers filled with campaign lucre will oppose it. No prominent figure will stand and demand that our wretched public schools, for example, be cleared out and fumigated (or as my friend Dr. Clyde Wilson suggests, napalmed), for the health and spiritual safety of the children imprisoned therein. Throw more taxpayer money at them, that is what we hear loudly proclaimed; when our efforts and attention should be—must be—towards privatizing the public schools, encouraging widely school choice, with special attention to those institutions that offer a real education framed in those traditions and values and beliefs that once helped create a great nation.

But, in reality, none of this will ultimately be successful until we—let me put this way—“get our country back.” And to get our country back, we will need to get our lives “back,” to recover those beliefs and standards and familial values that our ancestors so cherished. The foul Progressivist genie is out of the lamp and rampaging across the land. Nothing short of a major religious conversion—or a civil war—will put it back in.

Conversion, you say? Well, yes, it is possible, and we have actually seen a massive religious rebirth in, of all places, post-Communist Russia, where since 1991 over 28,000 new Christian churches have been built and opened their doors, and churches are filled with—young—communicants. In the latest polling over 80% of Russians now consider themselves to be “strong believers.”  Is this because after seventy years of oppressive and ruthless Communism, Russians have now re-discovered the religious faith of their history and tradition? That they understand the importance of faith that was suppressed for so long?

What, indeed, would it take for millions of Americans to understand that no just and reasonable society can continue to exist without a commitment to the historic belief that cradles it, gives it life as well as rules to live by, that protects and shields its citizens from evil and destructive tendencies?

Cries and demands for gun control and for banning certain guns are not only deceptive and ineffective band aids, they violate our constitutional rights. “Normal people,” citizens annealed in the traditions and culture passed on to us by our ancestors, citizens who have inherited and incorporated into their lives the beliefs and law of God and Nature, understand this.

Cries and demands for gun control only confuse and cloud the real issues at stake here. The solutions lie, first, within each of us, in our family life, in our faith and in our churches. And then, working with other likeminded citizens, in taking back our country.

It may seem like an impossible task; it certainly is more painful and more difficult. But the alternative is far worse.

Pat Buchanan’s latest column sums this up concisely:

The Motives Behind the Massacre

By Patrick J. Buchanan   Friday - February 16, 2018

"Enough is enough!" "This can't go on!" "This has to stop!"  These were among the comments that came through the blizzard of commentary after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County. We have heard these words before.

Unfortunately, such atrocities are not going to stop. For the ingredients that produce such slaughters are present and abundant in American society. And what can stop a man full of hate, who has ceased to care about his life and is willing to end it, from getting a weapon in a country of 300 million guns and killing as many as he can in a public place before the police arrive?

An act of "absolute pure evil," said Gov. Rick Scott, of the atrocity that took 17 lives and left a dozen more wounded. And evil is the right word.

While this massacre may be a product of mental illness, it is surely a product of moral depravity. For this was premeditated and plotted, done in copycat style to the mass killings to which this country has become all too accustomed.

Nikolas Cruz thought this through. He knew it was Valentine's Day. He brought his fully loaded AR-15 with extra magazines and smoke grenades to the school that had expelled him. He set off a fire alarm, knowing it would bring students rushing into crowded halls where they would be easy to kill. He then escaped by mixing in with fleeing students.

The first ingredient then was an icy indifference toward human life and a willingness to slaughter former fellow students to deliver payback for whatever it was Cruz believed had been done to him at Douglas High. In his case, the conscience was dead, or was buried beneath hatred, rage or resentment at those succeeding where he had failed. He had been rejected, cast aside, expelled. This would be his revenge, and it would be something for Douglas High and the nation to see — and never forget.

Indeed, it seems a common denominator of the atrocities to which we have been witness in recent years is that the perpetrators are nobodies who wish to die as somebodies. If a sense of grievance against those perceived to have injured them is the goad that drives misfits like Cruz to mass murder, the magnet that draws them to it is infamy. Infamy is their shortcut to immortality.

From the killings in Columbine to Dylann Roof's murder of black parishioners at the Charleston Church, from the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando to the slaughter of first-graders in Newtown, to Las Vegas last October where Stephen Paddock, firing from an upper floor of the Mandalay Bay, shot dead 58 people and wounded hundreds at a country music festival — these atrocities enter the social and cultural history of the nation. And those who carry them out achieve a recognition few Americans ever know. Charles Whitman, shooting 47 people from that Texas tower in 1966, is the original model.

Evil has its own hierarchy of rewards. Perhaps the most famous man of the 20th century was Hitler, with Stalin and Mao among his leading rivals.

Some of these individuals who seek to "go out" this way take their own lives when the responders arrive, or they commit "suicide by cop" and end their lives in a shootout. Others, Cruz among them, prefer to star in court, so the world can see who they are. And the commentators and TV cameras will again give them what they crave: massive publicity.

And we can't change this. As soon as the story broke, the cameras came running, and we watched another staging of the familiar drama — the patrol cars, cops in body armor, ambulances, students running in panic or walking in line, talking TV heads demanding to know why the cowards in Congress won't vote to outlaw AR-15s. Yet, among the reasons gun-owners prize the AR-15 is that, not only in movies and TV shows is it the hero's — and the villain's — weapon of choice, but in real life, these are the kinds of rifles carried by the America's most-admired warriors.

They are the modern version of muskets over the fireplace.

Another factor helps to explain what happened Wednesday: We are a formerly Christian society in an advanced state of decomposition. Nikolas Cruz was a product of broken families. He was adopted. Both adoptive parents had died. Where did he get his ideas of right and wrong, good and evil? Before the Death of God and repeal of the Ten Commandments, in those dark old days, the 1950s, atrocities common now were almost nonexistent.

One imagines Nikolas sitting alone, watching coverage of the Las Vegas shooting, and thinking, "Why not? What have I got to lose? If this life is so miserable and unlikely to get better, why not go out, spectacularly, like that? If I did, they would remember who I was and what I did for the rest of their lives."

And, so, regrettably, we shall.

February 22, 2018 MY CORNER The School Shooting “Publicity Fraud” and Gun-Banning Ideology: Establishment Conservatism’s AWOL ...