Monday, June 10, 2024

 

June 10, 2024

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

North Carolina’s Mark Robinson and the Uncontrolled Rage of the Left



Friends,

The following essay (below) is from a far leftist screed called "Meaww," and is one of an increasing series of attacks on North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson. Robinson, an unabashed supporter of President Donald Trump, won the NC GOP primary to become its nominee against Marxistoid, ultra-pro transgender Leftist Democrat Josh Stein in the November general election. 

Already the Stein campaign (and a couple of extremist Leftist groups) have aired vicious ads against Robinson, using his words taken out of context, to paint him as "a dangerous rightwing extremist and fascist" who will put women and homosexuals in chains, and clean out our "so precious university system."

Of course, we knew such attacks were coming, just as the vicious attack ad the Biden campaign is presently airing against President Trump. Of course, the Biden campaign and its auxiliaries, funded by fat cat Leftist billionaires, on and off Wall Street, and by George Soros pass-through NGOs, are doing their damnedest to keep men like Trump and Robinson from winning...including the suggestion of potential assassination.

Yes, you heard that right. On this not-so-secret-point, I urge everyone to read the essay, titled "A Trump Dictatorship is Increasingly Inevitable [aka, Red Caesar]" in the Washington Post, by ex-Bush II official and hysterical NeverTrumper Robert Kagan [a way to read it without a paywall is here]. “Like Caesar, Trump wields a clout that transcends the laws and institutions of government, based on the unswerving personal loyalty of his army of followers,” Kagan writes. And we all know what happened to Julius Caesar.

Kagan just happens to be married to Victoria Nuland, whose labors in extending a globalist foreign policy and imposing "American-style democracy" (read "elitist global reset") around the world over the past 20 years have gotten us into more disastrous regional wars and coup d'etat plots than anyone else in history. There is the blood of thousands on her hands...and those of her oily, loathsome Neoconservative husband. 

Most of you may have read my several essays on Neoconservatism and why it is such an anathema—or should be—to patriotic traditional Americans who value their history and traditions. My latest piece on the topic offers a succinct summary of this dangerous and infectious “ism,” and reasons why it is such a clear and present danger to what is left of our republic. I offer a link to that essay here.

Far too many otherwise sensible, law-abiding and normal American citizens still don't realize that they are being sold a rotten, poisonous bill of goods. Listening to Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, Mitt Romney, and Lindsey Graham, or reading such Neoconservative publications as National Review and The Wall Street Journal, or watching Fox News and believing everythingeverythingspewed forth by those voices, without extreme discrimination will get you infected, perhaps slowly over time but with certainty, and on the road to accepting and normalizing the destruction of what is left of the traditional American nation.

The following article is a case in point. Notice that it is always some GOP types who are quick to condemn Lt. Governor Robinson. This, of course, is the mantra of the greater Leftist "coalition," which includes quite a few "establishment" Republicans and so-called "Conservatives." 

But we have seen how their kind operate, and it is time that they be overthrown. We may have...possibly...just one more opportunity. But it will require of us all that we read carefully, selectively, and sift through our sources, and not blindly follow Republican politicos simply because they have an "R" beside their name.

   Meaww

'GOP members have lost their minds': Internet fumes as Mark Robinson insinuates US was behind Pearl Harbor and General Patton's death

'GOP members have lost their minds': Internet fumes as Mark Robinson insinuates US was behind Pearl Harbor and General Patton's death (msn.com)

Opinion by Rittwik Naskar    June 9, 2024

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA: The Republican candidate for governor in North Carolina, Mark Robinson, has been reported to have suggested that the United States government may have been involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the death of US General George Patton as part of a conspiracy to assist then-Soviet Union leader, Joseph Stalin.

Robinson, who currently holds the position of lieutenant governor in the state, is now a candidate in what is considered one of the most hotly contested gubernatorial races in the country. North Carolina is also a key battleground state in the upcoming presidential election in November, according to the DailyMail.

During a radio interview in 2018, the host claimed, "Japan is the one who bombed us, but the most of our material, and effort went to Europe." "Right. It really calls to question the motives and the suspicion around our entire introduction into the war, it really does," Robinson replied. "It raises serious questions." 

The aforementioned statements depict yet another instance in a series of conspiracy theories that Robinson espoused before entering politics.

Over the years, he has faced allegations of making anti-Semitic, homophobic, and sexist remarks.

The aforementioned outlet went through the unearthed audio from an episode of Politics and Prophecy with Chris Levels. While there has been extensive coverage of Robinson entertaining conspiracy theories, this audio is thought to be the first instance of him discussing conspiracies related to Pearl Harbor and Patton.

The Old North State Republican can be heard saying, "You know, I'm not prepared to say our government intentionally set Pearl Harbor up. I know there's a lot of conspiracy theories that say that…" At that point, the host interrupted with "I will! There's too much proof" to support the claim that the United States orchestrated the attack. "Definitely," Robinson concurred. "There's definitely questions that are out there, serious questions that have been raised." 

On December 7, 1941, the attack on Hawaii by Japan killed 2,403 Americans.

Furthermore, Robinson argued that the decision of then-US President Franklin D Roosevelt to join the war was a component of a communist plot to support Stalin. "When you take in look at the totality of it, and look at the way FDR completely disregarded the fight in Japan and focused all of his energy, all of his energy was focused on a way for us to get to Europe, and not just to get to Europe, but to get over there to help the guy he called Uncle Joe," Robinson claimed.   He continued, "So wait a minute, we went to the Europe, and we quote freed Europe from the Nazis, but then we turned right around and turned over even more property to the communists. That doesn't make any sense."

The podcast host later asserted in the same interview that General George Patton was killed by the US government. "I'm not ready to say it for sure, but it sure looks like it because Patton was a rabid dog when it came to that communism thing," Robinson remarked.  In December 1945, Patton was involved in a car accident that left him paralyzed. Less than two weeks later, he passed away. Regarding General Patton's death being the consequence of the accident, Robinson remarked, "‘How this guy ended up getting killed in a quote car wreck, I'll never know," adding. "I certainly don't believe it. It's just too fishy to me."

He also branded FDR a "quasi-socialist or a complete socialist that was surrounded by communists" who went to Europe with the "intent of saving Joseph Stalin, saving communism, and saving Marxism."

Mark Robinson has a history of referencing conspiracy theories, as evidenced by his previous claim that he's "skeptical" of "everything" he has seen on television, including events such as 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.

While he stated that he does not believe the moon landing was faked or that 9/11 was an "inside job," he expressed that he would not be surprised if he were to discover otherwise. 

Robinson, known for his right-wing conservative views, has also been a polarizing figure due to his controversial comments about women, Jews, Muslims, and members of the LGBTQ community.

Before campaigning for lieutenant governor in 2020, Robinson said that the Black Panther movie was "created by an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic Marxists."

In 2016, following the tragic Pulse Nightclub shooting in Florida which saw 49 people getting killed, Robinson wrote that homosexuality is "STILL an abominable sin" and that he would "NOT join in ‘celebrating gay pride'." Furthermore, he implied that celebrity talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, who is openly gay, was a "top ranking demon."

Robinson referred to the survivors of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, as "media prosti-tots" and "spoiled, angry, know it all CHILDREN" in his online remarks. 

During Super Tuesday in March, Mark Robinson secured the Republican nomination for governor in North Carolina. Endorsed by former President Donald Trump during a rally in Greensboro before the primary, Robinson previously referred to the civil rights leader as a "communist" in a 2018 podcast. Furthermore, he criticized the Civil Rights Movement, labeling it as a communist scheme to "subvert capitalism."

People online lambasted the GOP nominee for Governor of North Carolina, Mark Robinson, for backing conspiracy theories alleging that the U.S. government was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor and the death of General George Patton.

One person commented, "Wow! This guy is off-the-chart conspiracy fruit cake. The Republicans now disrespect the entire US military and US government to desperately try to balance the fact that their presidential candidate dodged military service! They have no bottom to how low they will go to support Donald Trump!" Another person said, "There is absolutely zero chance this man becomes governor of North Carolina. And you can take that to the bank."

Another person claimed, "Robinson has a background of endorsing just about every screwball theory and hateful reactionary policy in the book, in addition to a string of personal bankruptcies. In the past couple of years, he's flipped from being a rabid antisemite to becoming a rabid supporter of Israel….when it became particularly fashionable among the far-right to hop into bed with Netanyahu. He has virtually no experience in running a government agency or a business of any significance. In other words….he's the Perfect MAGA Republican Candidate !!!!"

One person remarked, "Why oh why, oh why do people insist on spouting or worse listening to, pure lies. The earth is flat, red is blue, cats bark, cows have wings, Paris is the capital of Italy. You see anyone can write lies unverified by evidence, empirical data, logic or even common sense. We seem to have entered an age of social media driven, post fact, lost reality delusion. Frankly it is all desperately sad and driven from the United States were some people seem to have lost their rocker completely."

 

 

 

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

                                               May 7, 2024

 

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

NEOCONSERVATISM:

A SECULARIZED GLOBALIST VISION WHICH WILL DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION

 


Friends,

The recent controversy over the Israeli incursion into the Gaza strip has also revealed some deep fissures within the Conservative Movement. For despite the massive support for the Israeli invasion from both establishment Democrats and Republicans, there have been cautionary voices raised on the Right, in particular, by significant journalists such as Tucker Carlson (via his popular podcast) and Candace Owens (in her dispute with Ben Shapiro over her use of the phrase “Christ is King,” deemed by Shapiro to be antisemitic).

To understand the essentials and issues involved it is necessary to understand the significant role and the complex history of the movement labeled “neoconservatism” as an intellectual determinant in contemporary America, with its roots in Marxism and in a secularized reimagining of Zionist-inflected universalism. And to do this we must return to its origins and the aggravated differences between developing ideological factions within Communism in Russia after the death in 1924 of Vladimir Lenin, and the resulting political struggle between the two major leaders who emerged, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky.

Trotsky, a secularized Jew, advanced a Marxist-Leninist position that would stress global proletarian revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat based on working class self-emancipation, and a form of universal mass (workers’) democracy to be accomplished by bloody revolution. Unlike the Stalinist position which posited the establishment of “socialism in one country” as a prerequisite for furthering the socialist cause elsewhere, Trotsky advanced the theory of “permanent global revolution” among the working class leading to a kind of eventual Parousia, a global paradise which would extirpate not only capitalism but all the inherited remnants of the historic and Christian past.

Differences within the branches of Marxism and Communism, between devotees of Trotsky’s approach and the more insular Stalinism, existed equally in the United States, despite the seeming unity on the Left in support of the war effort after the attack of Germany on the Soviet Union in 1941.  The friction never subsided.

The final breaking point for many of those Marxists who would within a few decades gain a foothold in the American conservative movement probably came with the rise of antisemitism under Stalin immediately before and after World War II in Russia (e.g., the infamous “doctors’ plot” and the Stalinist purges of Communist intelligentsia, some of whom were Jewish).  Horrified and disillusioned by what they considered to be the perversion of the socialist revolution, these “pilgrims from the Communist Left”—who were largely Jewish in origin—moved toward an explicit anti-Communism. Notable among them were Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, both of whom had sons who would figure prominently in the current neoconservative establishment.

These former Marxists soon began to be known as “neoconservatives,” a label which a number of them accepted readily, due to their position on the Cold War Communist threat. Kristol even authored two books, Reflections of a Neo-Conservative: Looking Back, Looking Forward (1983) and The Neo-Conservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-20o9 (2011), in which he proudly laid claim to that title. Yet, he also acknowledged his roots in the Trotskyite version of Communist ideology [See, for example, his essay, “Reflections of a Trotskyist,” included in Reflections of a Neo-Conservative, also printed in The New York Times Magazine, January 23, 1977].

Embraced by an older generation of conservatives, and invited to write for conservative publications, the neoconservatives soon began to occupy positions of leadership and importance. More significantly they altered positions which had been associated with the older conservative movement, often termed “paleoconservatism,” to mirror their own vision. For even though repelled by the effects of Soviet Communism, they nevertheless brought with them a world view drawn from the Left. And they brought with them relentless zeal for furthering their own form of globalism.

A remarkable admission of this genealogy came in 2007, in the pages of NationalReviewOnline. Here one finds the expression of sympathies clearly imported from the onetime far Left and presented in a onetime Old Right publication.  As explained by the contributor Stephen Schwartz:

To my last breath, I will defend Trotsky who alone and pursued from country to country and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling to Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit that he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists and Stalinists in their second childhood make of it what they will.” 

By the late 1990s the neoconservatives had taken over most of the major conservative organs of opinion, journals, and think-tanks. They also, significantly, exercised tremendous influence politically in the Republican Party (and to some degree within the Democratic Party, at least during the presidency of Bill Clinton). Kristol carefully distinguished his doctrine from Old Right traditional conservatism. It was “forward-looking” and progressive in its attitude toward social issues like civil rights, rather than reactionary like the earlier conservatism. Its adherents rejoiced over the Civil Rights bills of the 1960s, unlike Buckley’s National Review at that time (which, of course, fell into line afterwards). Neoconservatives were also favorable to the efforts to legislate more equality for women and for other groups whom, they believed, had hitherto been kept from realizing the American Dream.

Rather than simply attacking state power or advocating a return to states’ rights and more local self-government, the new conservatives, according to Kristol, hoped to build on existing federal law. They believed that the promise of equality, which neoconservatives found in the Declaration of Independence, had to be promoted at home and abroad, and American conservatives, they preached, must lead the efforts to achieve global democracy, as opposed to the illogical and destructive efforts of the hard Left, or the reactionary stance of the Old Right.

Neoconservative rhetoric and initiatives did not go unopposed in the ranks of more traditional conservatives. Indeed, no less than the “father” of the conservative intellectual movement of the 1950s, Russell Kirk, publicly denounced the neoconservatives. Singling out the Jewish intellectual genealogy of major neoconservative writers, in an October 1988 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Kirk threw down the gauntlet. "Not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent neo-conservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States—a position they will have difficulty in maintaining as matters drift," Kirk declared. The Jewish author Midge Decter, wife of Norman Podhoretz and the director of the Committee for the Free World, called Kirk's remark "a bloody piece of anti-Semitism."

Kirk’s resistance, and the warnings of Paul Gottfried, Sam Francis, Patrick Buchanan and others of like mind emphasized the sharp differences between the Old Right and the ascending neoconservatives. Even more so than the attacks on Kirk, Patrick Buchanan became a target for neoconservative and Jewish attacks. Buchanan accused neoconservatives of stirring up Iraqi war fever at the instigation of the "Israeli foreign ministry." Writing in The Washington Times, Mona Charen, a former Reagan administration official, accused Buchanan of using "neoconservative" as a synonym for "Jew."

As those former Marxists made their progress rightward more than a half century ago, the linguistic template and ideas associated with “American exceptionalism” were refined by them to signify the universal superiority of their vision of the American experience, in many cases through the lens of political Zionism. For example, neoconservative favored political thinker Allan Bloom offers this in his The Closing of the American Mind: “And when we Americans speak seriously about politics we mean that our principles of freedom and equality and the rights based on them are rational and everywhere applicable.” Americans must engage in “an educational experiment undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so.”

Although Bloom’s volume was published in 1987, do not the imperatives enunciated then find expression in the movement towards a “global reset” today?

Further, these recovering Marxists read their conception of a crusading American social democracy back into the American Founding. Gone were any admiring references to the great Southern constitutional thinker John C. Calhoun, so favored by Kirk in The Conservative Mind (1953); and significant authors like the Southerner Mel Bradford or the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried were summarily removed from the mastheads and editorial boards of journals of opinion now newly controlled by neoconservatives, their once-eagerly sought and highly respected essays now refused publication.

In reality, both the multicultural Left and the neoconservative Right share a basic commitment to certain ideas and expressions. Both use comparable phraseology—about “equality” and “democracy,” “human rights” and “freedom,” and the desirability of exporting and imposing “our democratic values,” whether in Ukraine or elsewhere. Despite this overlap, both the dominant Left and the neoconservative Right try to give differentiated meanings to the  doctrine of equality that the two sides share with equal enthusiasm.

But all chimerical appearances aside, in their zealous support for imposing a secular globalism, their defense of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and their advocacy of equal rights for women (now extended to same sex marriage and even transgenderism), the neoconservatives mirror the political stances of the Left. As such, insofar as they claim to represent conservatism or the Republican Party, their purported opposition to the leftward tsunami engulfing what is left of the American nation is mere window-dressing at best, and outright collaboration at worst, only enabling the deadly virus destroying our civilization.

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

April 24, 2024

  

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

Purple Haired Harpies and the

Decline of the Historic South 



  

Friends,

I found the following article (below) of interest, so I am passing it on.  It symbolizes for me, in iconic fashion, another major reason that the millennia-old inherited society around us is collapsing, to be replaced by a monstruous, dystopian Gulag, a counter-reality where our tried-and-true verities are unceremoniously dumped onto the ash heap of history.

Just the other day I caught a portion of a public access broadcast of a Raleigh (NC) City Council meeting. Several dozen protesters were present and proceeded to testify...that is, rant and rave and threaten the council members if they did not, that very moment, pass a resolution condemning Israeli occupation of Gaza.

 Now, let it be said, that I tend to be sympathetic to those who urgently seek negotiations and a withdrawal of the IDF, which, no doubt is wrecking Gaza beyond recognition and causing immense human suffering. While I condemn the vicious Hamas attack on Israel, the only way—the only solution, so it seems to me—is for rational members of the parties involved to sit down and negotiate an internationally-guaranteed two-state solution. This would necessarily entail full Palestinian sovereignty in Gaza and on the West Bank (with the requisite departure of zealous Zionist “settlers” who have seized the better land there from Arab inhabitants).

But back to the protesters at the Raleigh City Council: Almost all of them were identifiably women (?), and they were some of the ugliest, foulest looking creatures I've ever seen—anywhere: Purple stringy hair, 300 lb. female monsters, bulging out in all the wrong places, downright nasty, their noses festooned with ringlets, their mouths spilling out threats and imprecations and demands. If anyone—any rational person, that is—were sympathetic to their position, just their presence there would have probably quashed that sentiment and discouraged a sympathetic response.

Yet, the council members—like most mind-in-the-cloud liberals—appeared staid and polite, intently listening, as the loathsome harpies seized the microphone during the comment session.

That set me to thinking: How did those women become such foul harridans? Certainly, they weren’t that way as toddlers or young girls. And my thoughts centered on two causes which I believe have gotten us to where we are today here in central North Carolina: First, our perverted educational system, abetted by the collapse of the nuclear family and the church, and, second, a massive in-migration to the Tar Heel State since Governor Luther Hodges back in the late 1950s had the idea of establishing what became known as the Research Triangle Park centered around the three major universities in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. This, in turn, began a six-decade process of attracting highly-paid technocrats, who brought with them their neoteric beliefs on everything from politics and morality to child rearing…. But very little of the Southern “rootedness” and “social bond” communitarianism (to use the late Richard Weaver’s term) that had characterized my neighbors when I was growing up.

Many of those women at the Raleigh City Council went through our educational system, and most likely had parents who forked over thousands of shekels to make certain their daughters got a "good education."  And, no doubt, that is a major part of the problem. For several decades we have permitted—in many cases, enabled—the total miseducation (I should call it as it is—indoctrination and cerebral infection) of our children by a corrupt public education system (which the GOP feeds almost as badly as the Dems). That miseducation is coming back to haunt us with a vengeance, culturally, politically, and religiously.

Mind you, the Raleigh City Council is now made up of an assortment of leftists and other n'er-do'wells of progressivism. The influx of population in recent decades, mostly techies from California and from “up North” attracted by our growing Carolina electronic industry, low taxes and hospitable business environment, has turned this area from a cordial, mannerly, old fashioned Southern region, into a foul copy of Silicon Valley. I now hate to venture into our state's capital city—it is not the town I remember as a boy.

Automobile traffic is ruthless and becoming impossible. Genuine courtesy, whether on the steadily-expanding and changing road grid, or in dealing with a new and aggressive commercial class, has all but disappeared. Chatting briefly with a cashier while standing in a check-out line gets you nasty looks, if not nasty comments “to hurry up” or “move on” from impatient shoppers.

Surrounding the city and chewing up thousands of acres of once serene farmland, new multi-storied apartments rise in fields that I recall used to cultivate tobacco and soybeans. It’s becoming almost impossible for small landowners and farmers to hold on to their property given real estate sharks circling round, paying inflated prices for their homesteads. How incongruous to be driving out my way, passing beautiful countryside, only to be struck suddenly by ugly high-rise apartments which now are replacing it. As Howard W. Smith (d. 1976), the late conservative Democrat who once represented formerly-conservative northern Virginia in Congress, commented, observing the new faceless, impersonal apartments erected in his district: “And to think, that people actually live in those ant-hills!”

As my late friend and mentor, Dr. Russell Kirk, once said: “It is hard to love the strip mall where the honeysuckle used to grow.”

Thirty-five years ago Raleigh elected a very conservative mayor, a protégé of the late Senator Jesse Helms. That would never happen today. Since then Raleigh and the county of Wake, in which I live, have seen a sea change—in demographics, in voting habits, in the destruction of old neighborhoods, in the once largely unspoiled environment, and in the kind of population—the people—who inhabit the area.

Whereas I grew up in a community which celebrated our traditions and revered the nuclear family, valued the role of the church, where divorce was a rarity, where abortion was practically unknown, and where public education was considered an extension of parental guidance (not some secret lab for “woke” teachers to push six year old boys to have sex mutilation operations, without the knowledge of their parents), that sense of community has largely disappeared.

 Again, my thoughts returned to those foul witches with purple hair....They were an appropriate symbol, a primary illustration, of what the best laid plans of our unweary and grasping political and business leaders had produced…secular and barren modernism run rampant, in search of the almighty dollar, and if traditions or heritage or old fashioned courtesy and belief should stand in the way, then let them be damned.

So, when I stumbled across the following article by an "out" and "proud" lesbian, boasting that now some 30% of Gen Z women identify as LBGTQ....well, given the choices we have made, or have allowed to be made on our behalf over the past half century, is it really surprising?

Our national decline can be traced to a number of factors, including the infiltration and perversion of our educational and entertainment systems, massive immigration (and not just from overseas), the nefarious results of the “civil rights” bills of the 1960s, and, yes, the long-range effects of the 19th Amendment. Humanly speaking it may be impossible at this point to reverse it. Yet, we must continue to try. And may God help us!

***** 

  Them.

Almost 30% of Gen Z Women Identify as LGBTQ+, According to New Survey

Almost 30% of Gen Z Women Identify as LGBTQ+, According to New Survey (msn.com)

Story by Samantha Allen • March 14, 2024

Look to your left, look to your right. If neither of those girlies are queer, you probably are. Almost 30% of Gen Z women now identify as LGBTQ+, according to a new Gallup report that breaks down the data by age and gender in more detail than ever before.

When I saw that statistic I could only think one thing: My fellow millennial women, we need to get to work. Only 12.4% of millennial women currently identify as LGBTQ+ and our younger counterparts are clearly telling us that those are rookie numbers. It is definitely not very girlboss of us to get upstaged like this.

As Gallup senior editor Jeffrey Jones told NBC News, much of the overall increase in LGBTQ+ identification is being driven by bisexual women. “That’s where a lot of the growth seems to be happening,” Jones said. (Indeed, a whopping 20.7% of Gen Z women are bi now, per the Gallup report.)

We can see that trend even more clearly across the entire survey: In total, 8.5% of women of all generations said they were LGBTQ+. Bisexuals account for the clear majority of that figure, with 5.7% of women specifically identifying as bisexual and 2% as lesbian. Across all generations and genders, the rate of LGBTQ+ identification has gone way up, now standing at 7.6% overall, more than double what it was in 2012. That rise is reassuring news for anyone who supports open expression, freedom, and equality — and a devastating blow to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians who think they can legislate us out of existence.

But ever the perfectionist, I can’t help but see room for improvement here. Clearly us pre-1996 babies have some more coming out to do: Let’s listen to some girl in red. Let’s go sit on the IKEA bisexual couch — or is it a green velvet couch now? Whatever we need to do to keep up with Gen Z, let’s pull out all the stops.

Life is only so long, so we might as well be as gay as humanly possible.

“THE GASP I JUST GUSPED,” said one commenter on *Vanity Fair's* TikTok of the couple.

In seriousness, after over a decade of reporting on Gallup data on LGBTQ+ issues, it seems fairly clear to me that people aren’t all of a sudden “becoming gay,” but rather that younger generations are increasingly breaking through the prejudices that keep people in the closet. The frogs definitely aren’t turning people queer, but rising social acceptance coupled with the boldness of youth means that we’re finally getting a more accurate picture of the size of the LGBTQ+ population.

And sadly, bisexual people of all genders still face rampant social stigma. (In fact, bisexual men are often told that their sexual orientation doesn’t even exist and that only women can be bi.) So my completely earnest, non-meme hope is that younger generations can help more millennials feel comfortable being ourselves.

After all, we’ve got a critical threshold to reach. As Gallup noted at the end of its report, “If current trends continue, it is likely that the proportion of LGBTQ+ identifiers will exceed 10% of U.S. adults at some point within the next three decades.” Ten percent! We can get there!

Basically, the writing is on the wall: by 2054, not being bisexual will be “cringe,” or whatever we’re calling it by then. It’s time for us to adult harder than ever before and get gayer before it’s too late.

Monday, March 25, 2024

                                                March 25, 2024

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

The Russian Elections: Were They Actually Rigged?



Friends,

It is fascinating and instructive to read and digest the various critiques of the recent Russian presidential elections, March 16-18, 2024. Western journalists both on the political Left and the supposed political Right have uniformly attacked the vote as “rigged” and the election as stolen. That is, the election apparatus of “dictator” Vladimir Putin—who, along with Donald Trump and Viktor Orban, is the leader most loathed globally by both the political Left and the Establishment Right—manipulated and massaged the results to the effect that the Russian president received 87% of the votes cast (the turnout was around 74%).

Here is how the English Leftist paper of record, The Guardian, leads off its reporting of March 18 on the Russian vote:

Although Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory with 87% of the vote in the Russian election was no surprise, these elections were important both for the Kremlin and for those in opposition to Putin.

With voter turnout at 74% – the highest in history – anything less than a landslide victory would have suggested that those who did not vote for Putin represented a significant force in Russian politics. This would have been particularly awkward in the case of young upstart Vladislav Davankov, who, with 3.79% of the vote, came a close third place. Davankov has been mistakenly described as an anti-war candidate – he supports peace and negotiations, ‘but on Russia’s conditions and without one step backwards’ – but his platform also called for ‘freedom of speech and opinion, instead of intolerance and denunciations’, and ‘openness and pragmatism instead of searching for new enemies’. [Claims by NPR that all oppositions candidates were in jail are patently false].

Several opposition figures, including the well-known blogger Maxim Katz, and barred candidate Boris Nadezhdin, publicly stated they would vote for him. According to Vote Abroad, Davankov gained the majority of votes at Russian polling stations in other countries. With such a ‘subversive’ candidate on the ballot sheet, nothing other than absolute victory would have allowed Putin to sleep at night.

It was clear for some time that the Kremlin saw this election as a test of the regime’s legitimacy. It was not enough for the Kremlin to win the election – it also had to demonstrate public engagement…. There was a push for early voting, especially in the occupied territories in Ukraine, where electoral officials accompanied by armed men in uniform knocked on people’s doors and politely asked them if they would like to vote early. Those who did not yet have Russian passports were allowed to use their Ukrainian IDs. In Russia there were the usual raffles, discos and canteens at polling stations to entice people out….”

In other words, Russian election officials did some of what American—Democrat—election officials and agents did for the 2020 election, most specifically in the six crucial battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada.

Never mind, say the critics. Russian elections and American ones are two separate species, not comparable. The Russian ones are not credible, they solemnly intone—Putin is a tyrant who was just consolidating his power, they add.

And suddenly up pops, conveniently, a virulent anti-Putin Russian analyst, Sergey Shpilkin, who employs a dubious methodology to estimate that perhaps as many as 31 million out Putin’s garnered total of 76 million (or about 41%) of the Russian president’s vote total is fake! His analysis “hinges on comparing the distribution of votes for different candidates with the turnout at each polling station. A fair election [sic!] would typically show identical distributions differing only in absolute values. However, discrepancies in this pattern suggest vote inflation through ballot stuffing or the rewriting of vote tallies, which appear to have significantly skewed the official results.”

His suggestion is sheer speculation based on what he conceives as a “fair election” and based on the presence or lack of identical vote total percentages for candidates across the board in all voting districts. In other words, he fails to take into account regional variations in voting and voting patterns, differences between urban and rural voting, and other significant factors which would account for vote totals. Indeed, is it not likely that regions of Russia nearest to and most affected by the war in Ukraine might vote differently than, say, regions in the Siberian Far East? Or that the city of Moscow, far more influenced by Western “culture,” might skew such guestimates?

Nevertheless, the results of Shpilkin’s miraculous deduction have been solemnly seized upon by the Establishment Media both in Western Europe and in the United States, as such a conclusion reinforces and confirms their view that “Putin is (another) new Hitler” who has destroyed “democracy” and “freedom” in Russia.

Report after report echoes the same refrain. Yet, despite that near uniformity in the media and among the US and EU political governing class that the Russian elections were rigged, and that if only a “fair” election would be held, Putin would be toast, the facts on the ground demonstrate the exact contrary. Vladimir Putin remains very popular in Russia. And occasionally a rare and realistic appraisal gets past the gatekeepers. Even the anti-Putin UK Telegraph (March 19) was forced to admit that the Russian president “enjoys a frightening level of support that Western media and politicians obscure….” And the Telegraph suggests that it understands why: “to preserve the illusion that there’s just one evil madman to blame for the war in Ukraine, rather than a nation with far too many brainwashed anti-Nato, anti-Western nationalists keen to endorse their leader’s aggression.”

Despite reports from the BBC and The Economist that only “some” Russians in fact support President Putin, even The New York Times was finally forced to admit that independent polling by the well-regarded Levada Center (that has been tracking Putin’s approval rating since 1999) revealed that his support nationally in Russia stood at 86%. “Perhaps even more surprising,” continued the Telegraph, “a ridiculous 75 per cent of Russians told the pollster that their country is heading in the right direction.”

And the writer adds: “In the same way that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners challenged the notion that it was Hitler alone who was responsible for the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust, we must be honest in assessing Russian aggression beyond Mr. Putin. The media hopefully pretends that Russian aggression is solely a Putin problem. In fact, polling from Levada and others indicates that there are a troubling number of Russians who endorse Putin’s warped view that Ukraine isn’t a legitimate nation [sic].”

Thus, the real enemy is not just Vladimir Putin, but the Russian people, the entire Russian nation. We can only imagine what alarms that sets off in the fetid minds of Western globalists. Will the unelected and fanatical Neoconservative/Leftist globalist foreign policy apparatchiks, hidden away in faceless edifices in Washington and Brussels, now declare that their “war” to rid the world of Putin, perhaps assassinate the Russian president because he won’t accept their tutelage, must be extended to the entirety of the Russian people? In other words, are we now watching the onset of an ethnic and religious war against an entire population? Is that what the US State Department and our foreign satraps in Bonn, London, and Paris now are envisaging in the name of “(y)our democracy”?

Consider: all independent polls prior to the Russian presidential election indicated that Vladimir Putin would win overwhelmingly by a huge margin of perhaps over 80%, which he did. Why, then, pray tell, given the global situation and how he is negatively viewed by American and EU leaders, would he confirm the views of Washington and Brussels that he was a “dictator,” a “new Hitler,” when assuredly he was destined to win by such a large margin?  It makes no sense, and, if anything, Putin is not dumb. Even if the tyrant as he is often portrayed, he did NOT have to rig anything.

Indeed, a strong case could be made that the recently completed Russian elections were actually fairer in some ways than their 2020 American counterparts. At the very least accusers in the US should examine their own disreputable history of voter fraud and manipulation before zealously attacking Moscow.

Are we not witnessing a form of gaslighting and projection by American and EU critics of events in Russia, especially as we consider the various efforts in the United States to rig elections nationally or simply prevent an opponent from being on the ballot (e.g., the actions of Colorado and a few other states to remove Donald Trump from the presidential ballot).

As Mollie Hemingway, Dr. Naomi Wolf, Tucker Carlson, and others have convincingly shown, our own 2020 American presidential election was fraught with very skillful rigging. The 2020 election was undoubtedly the most corrupt in American history. As Hemingway recounts, we witnessed a combination of greatly extended absentee voting and counting newly-discovered votes after the election was supposed to be over, the lack of proper voter identification, vote harvesting, and the intentional use of unverified drop boxes, all of which was backed up by millions of dollars and support from such luminaries as Mark Zuckerberg.  And we must add to this the direct and flagrant collusion of the news media which purposely hid the blockbuster story of Hunter Biden’s corruption and Joe Biden’s involvement in it.

Hemingway sums up what happened:     

[T]o an alarming degree, Democrats achieved control over elections in 2020. What made 2020 different was that for the first time ever the groups that supported Democrats were allowed, on a widespread basis, to cross that bright red line that separates government officials who administer an election from political operatives. Unelected liberal activists were allowed to embed in government offices and actually take over election administration duties in crucial battleground states. They were given vast amounts of voter information and even put in charge of designing, distributing, and collecting ballots…. It was as if the Dallas Cowboys were allowed to hire and train their own family members to serve as referees and then got angry the opposing team didn’t publicly accept a narrow loss with several controversial calls.  [….]  (Hemingway, Rigged: How the Media, Bid Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. Washington: Regnery, 2021, pp. 206-207)

 

Our national foreign policy elites stress that we favor implanting “democracy” all around the globe, and that we will do everything to see it flourish. Of course, Russia (and then China, Iran, Hungary, etc.) comes in for harsh criticism. Yet, some of our major allies—Saudi Arabia comes to mind—are most definitely not “democratic.” Our zeal for “(y)our democracy” has its velleities.

Or, consider our latest cause celebre, the defense of “(y)our democracy” in Ukraine. Our media and government praise its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a “new George Washington.” Yet Zelensky’s government in Kiev has suppressed opposition parties and put his opponents in jail, while persecuting Ukraine’s large Russian Orthodox religious church. Even former president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has described our ally as “a country corrupt at all levels of society.”

The simple fact is that American criticism of the Russian elections, the constant accusations against its president, and the US commitment to defeat Russia in Ukraine, even if it costs the life of every Ukrainian, is essentially ideological and founded on the correct assumption that Russia refuses to return to the status which it had under Boris Yeltsin, who was, in  caricature called “America’s poodle” for his subservience to American globalist policy.

The developing globalist template can brook no opposition, whether domestically from a Donald Trump who fails to heed the commands of the Deep State, or from a Vladimir Putin who believes that the true interests of his country do not always coincide with Davos, Washington, or Brussels.

  June 10, 2024   MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey   North Carolina’s Mark Robinson and the Uncontrolled Rage of the Left ...